Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks rezoning of 2973 G Street; neighbors raise occupancy, parking and code concerns
Summary
An applicant has asked to rezone 2973 G Street from B-2 commercial to R-2 residential. The owner described renovation plans but neighbors and staff reported property-maintenance complaints and questions about current occupancy and an unpermitted fence; the Planning Commission will review the application later.
The Lorain Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Commission heard public comment Dec. 3 on a request to reclassify 2973 G Street from B-2 (general commercial) to R-2 (transitional residential). The petition (ZCA 03-2025) was identified in the record as filed by Erayda Robles.
Abel Flores, who identified himself as the person currently working on the building, told the board he purchased the property in February 2019 and has been repairing the structure. “My name is Abel Flores. I got that building,” he said, describing efforts including roofing, fencing and recent window work. Flores said an early plan to open a small restaurant stalled when required equipment—he cited hood installation costs of about $24,000—made the project infeasible.
City planning and building staff, represented at the meeting by Miss Atkinson, said the city’s permit records show a roof permit issued in 2020, a fence permit in 2021, and a more recent windows permit; Atkinson also said she believed a fence may have been installed without a permit and that some interior demo occurred. Staff further noted multiple property-maintenance cases dating to 2019 and a 2022 staff work order related to the fence that does not meet code.
Councilwoman Esparaga and other board members relayed neighborhood complaints collected by staff, saying residents reported people living in the building and objected to the property’s paved front yard and commercial appearance. “They don’t like it that people would be living there, and it looks like a commercial building,” Esparaga said, summarizing constituent concerns about compatibility with the surrounding single-family homes and potential impacts on property values.
A city representative advised the applicant that providing building plans would clarify intended use and ease review at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. The hearing did not include a final rezoning vote by the Zoning Board; staff reminded the applicant that he would remain for the Planning Commission meeting later in the morning, when the commission will consider the recommendation.
The Planning Commission is the next procedural step listed on the record; the board did not adopt zoning changes at the Dec. 3 session.
