Stow Property Owner Continues Fight Over Dumpster Screening Requirements

Article updated 7/11/25

The Stow Administrative Hearing Board reconvened July 11 to address ongoing disputes over municipal dumpster screening requirements for multifamily properties, continuing a case that began in June.

The hearing centered on violation case V25-63 involving property at Gilwood Drive, where the owner disputes the city’s interpretation requiring four-sided enclosures around dumpsters. The case was previously adjourned June 26 to allow the planning department time to research interpretation of the screening statute.

Planning department presented multiple exhibits showing recent violations and their resolutions throughout the city. Some properties have installed four-sided screening while others remain in progress. The department provided examples from planning commission applications for both multifamily and commercial developments, demonstrating what they called consistent application of four-sided screening requirements.

The property owner argued the entire code section doesn’t apply to his property, claiming the regulations were written specifically for commercial corridors identified in the city’s comprehensive plan. He presented 57 photographs of dumpsters around Stow, asserting most show three-sided screening or no enclosures, with gates typically left open when they exist.

“I counted probably way more than 90 percent that are not four-sided enclosures,” the property owner stated during the hearing.

The hearing officer ruled the code section does apply to multifamily dwellings in R2 and R3 districts, including the disputed property. However, the officer took the matter under advisement to review all submitted evidence before issuing a final decision.

Planning department representatives noted their enforcement position was eliminated in 2008 and only restored full-time one year ago, explaining the recent increase in violations being addressed across the community.

“I don’t put any rule in place that I’m not prepared to enforce and I enforce it equally across all the tenants,” the planning official stated, comparing municipal code enforcement to property management practices.

Two additional violation cases for the same property owner were held in abeyance pending the outcome of this decision. The hearing officer expects to issue a ruling by end of week, noting appeal rights to Summit County Common Pleas Court if either party disagrees with the decision.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between property owners and municipal enforcement as Stow works to address code compliance issues that accumulated during years without dedicated inspection staff.