Lorain council hears proposal to allow pole, off-premise and roof signs to spur development

Lorain City Council held a public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the city sign code that would allow pole signs in light and heavy industrial districts and would permit certain off-premise and roof signs previously listed as prohibited.

The proposed amendment, recommended unanimously by the Lorain City Planning Commission on May 7, 2025, would change language in Ordinance 4-21 (sections 1151.06 and 1151.04(c) and (e)) to mirror the existing business-district sign rules for I-1 and I-2 districts and to lift the outright prohibition on some off-premise and roof signs. Planning staff told council the change is intended to make the code “nimble and flexible” to support economic development.

Planning and development director Matt Krushner, Building, Housing and Planning Director for the City of Lorain, said the recommendation came after staff attended a Retail Strategies training, where consultants emphasized that restrictive sign regulations can hinder retail recruitment. “Our zoning codes, specifically our sign code, needs to be nimble and flexible, but also still provide some consistency for development here in the city of Lorain,” Krushner said.

Evelyn Atkinson, Planning and Zoning Administrator, explained why the change was proposed: “If a sign isn't permitted, that is strictly prohibited,” and under current code the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot grant a variance for items that are expressly prohibited. The amendment would allow some sign types now barred citywide so applicants would have a permitted path instead of being blocked outright.

Staff and a planning speaker noted a recent example that prompted the review: a post sign proposed by Pete Falvo for a Stanley Properties site in an I-1 district was approved through prior review procedures but later found to be not permitted under the existing industrial-district rules. As Mr. Carrier (planning staff) described, that adjacency — an I-1 district abutting a B-2 where pole signs are allowed — highlighted the inconsistency the amendment aims to fix.

Council members expressed support for easing restrictions to promote economic activity. Councilmember Pangalski said, “I am absolutely in favor of this,” noting the signs would help promote nearby attractions and businesses. Councilmember Hemley also supported the change, saying the location and traffic volumes make signage useful for area businesses.

Other council members pressed staff for details on potential impacts and how the rules would be applied. Councilmember Tugall asked whether residents near industrial areas could be exposed to “blinking lights and things that are disturbing and maybe affect the value of their property.” Atkinson replied that the draft and existing code include distance and operational limits: a sign must be 50 feet from a side or rear lot line in some placements and 150 feet from any dwelling unit; electronic changeable displays must be turned off between midnight and 6 a.m.; and display timing limitations are intended to avoid rapid blinking that would be unreadable from fast-moving traffic.

Atkinson said feather flags are permitted under separate rules and currently allowed up to four, and that no signs are permitted in the public right-of-way except downtown. She urged residents to report dilapidated or improperly placed signs to code enforcement. Atkinson described the permit review process: applicants must submit dimensional details and renderings; electrical inspectors review electrical signage; and if an application does not meet requirements the applicant is notified and may revise or seek a variance where allowed.

Members of the public spoke largely in favor. Patrick Horn asked whether feather flags were included; Atkinson answered that feather flags are permitted and that enforcement applies if they obstruct sightlines. Joanne Selena said she welcomed development and believed new signage would help revitalize a previously vacant area.

No final vote on the ordinance was taken at the hearing. The Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation to approve the code amendments on May 7, 2025, was noted for council consideration; staff said the change would provide a regulatory path for signs that currently are prohibited and therefore not eligible for variance.

The record shows council asked staff to provide permitting information and to continue clarifying how existing setbacks and operational hours will protect nearby residences; staff said sign-permit application materials are available through the city and that plan review will continue to enforce dimensions, setbacks and other requirements.

The council hearing included questions and public comments but concluded without a motion to adopt the ordinance; a subsequent council agenda item or ordinance reading would be required for the city to adopt the proposed code changes.