Stow Property Owner Disputes Dumpster Screening Requirements at Administrative Hearing

The City of Stow Administrative Hearing Board postponed a decision on a dumpster screening violation at North Gilwood Drive properties after the property owner challenged inconsistent enforcement citywide.

Echo Valley Stow Properties LLC, represented by owner Mr. Wetzel, faced allegations of violating zoning code 1169.06F for failing to provide adequate screening around dumpsters at 4339-4353 North Gilwood Drive. The violation requires fencing to prevent refuse scattering and provide visual barriers from on and off-site locations.

Property Owner Disputes Four-Sided Requirement

Wetzel argued the city’s interpretation requiring four-sided enclosures with gates contradicts established precedent throughout Stow. He presented evidence that most multifamily properties have three-sided enclosures or no screening at all.

“You’d be hard-pressed to find a four-sided enclosure with a gate,” Wetzel told the board, citing properties like Ravenswood and Stow Reserve that use three-sided screening.

The property owner also questioned why Director of Planning & Development Zack Cowan’s interpretation differs from previous enforcement patterns, suggesting discriminatory application against his properties.

City Defends Screening Requirements

Cowan maintained that four-sided screening best meets code requirements to prevent refuse scattering and provide adequate visual barriers. He acknowledged having limited inventory of existing dumpster configurations citywide but cited Windham Ridge as an example of compliant four-sided screening.

The planning department documented the violation through inspections on May 1, 20, and 30, with notices sent May 2 and 21 before the administrative hearing notice June 19. Deputy Director of Planning & Development Sarah McGuinness performed the initial inspection and explained the complaint process.

Additional Violations Questioned

Wetzel requested dismissal of two additional violations at Echo Valley Drive properties, claiming he never received proper notice. He also criticized what he called selective enforcement, noting that only four of eight dumpsters on his street received initial citations.

McGuinness explained that inspectors found additional violations during their initial complaint response but couldn’t complete all inspections the same day due to time constraints.

Hearing Rescheduled for Research

Board members agreed to postpone the decision until July 10 to allow both sides to research historical enforcement patterns and ensure consistent application citywide.

The hearing will reconvene at 2 p.m. in the city hall boards and commission room, with the planning department expected to provide examples of previous dumpster screening interpretations and enforcement actions.