Akron City Council voted unanimously at its October 19 meeting to eliminate minimum lot sizes from the city code, a change officials say will open several thousand new places to build homes across the city. Removing the size requirements clears a regulatory barrier that had kept many vacant lots off limits for new housing.
Under the old rules, single-family homes required lots of 4,000 square feet. Larger builds needed lots 60 feet wide on 7,000-square-foot lots. Any lot that fell short could not simply be built on, even if it sat in an established neighborhood surrounded by existing homes and a builder was ready to use it.
Mayor Shammas Malik pitched the change at his 2026 State of the City Address, making lot-size reform part of his administration’s housing push. The unanimous October 19 vote turned that proposal into policy, ending the minimums rather than adjusting them and giving owners and builders a simpler path on lots the old code had effectively frozen.
The problem is visible in many Akron neighborhoods, where vacant lots sit flanked by identical homes in rows where houses clearly once stood. Filling those lots was prohibited by the lot-size restrictions, and seeking an exception meant a long and costly permit process that could discourage small, neighborhood-scale building.
Support came from community members and organizations. Zak Kohl, executive director of The Well CDC, advocated at a September 28 hearing, explained that The Well owns 18 lots in Middlebury, and six were undevelopable under the old rules because of their size, despite being held by an organization working in the neighborhood.
Kohl framed the issue as how neighborhoods rebuild. “Our neighborhood didn’t want to see things demolished and torn down and rebuilt like the suburbs,” he said, describing a preference for rebuilding on vacant lots with historic building patterns. Supporters argued that homes on smaller existing lots let neighborhoods grow in a way that matches surrounding streets and houses.
Ward 8 Councilman Bruce Bolden was divided, describing it as a good idea while raising concern about relinquishing council control over neighborhood planning. He noted people could be upset over what gets built near them, with council having less direct say. With the minimums eliminated, attention now turns to what gets built, lot by lot, by owners, builders, and community organizations.