Council approves retention of 3‑unit apartment at 151 Ruckle Road to preserve long‑term tenants

Akron City Council · December 9, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved a conditional use allowing a 3‑unit apartment at 151 Ruckle Road, concluding the structure is a legal nonconforming multifamily dwelling and noting the owner's commitment to bring units into code compliance; council voted 11–0.

Akron City Council voted to allow a property owner to retain a three‑unit apartment at 151 Ruckle Road, concluding the building is a legal nonconforming multifamily structure and accepting the petitioner’s plan to bring the units into compliance with housing code requirements.

Planning staff said the structure, built in 1924, currently contains three apartments and had previously been inspected; the owner indicated required upgrades, such as separate electrical panels for each unit, would be completed and there is adequate space for three off‑street parking spaces. Planning staff and the planning commission recommended approval subject to conditions.

Christopher Zwistler, the previous owner, testified the property had been fully occupied under his ownership and that the third‑floor tenant is an elderly woman receiving Social Security for whom retaining the unit would be beneficial. Remote owner Kaitlyn (Caitlin in staff notes) Kosinski said she purchased the property in October under the impression it was already a conforming triplex and asked council to allow retention for continuity of housing for long‑term tenants.

Council pulled the committee for a favorable report, suspended the rules and passed the ordinance 11–0.

Why it matters: The retention preserves existing rental housing and prevents displacement of long‑standing tenants, including an elderly resident described during public comment. Staff recommended approvals subject to code compliance steps to ensure safety and adequate parking before implementation.

The ordinance passed; the meeting record did not provide a formal ordinance number or a schedule for code inspections and compliance actions.