Stow City Administrative Hearing Board members heard competing interpretations June 19 over whether Stow City Code requires refuse storage facilities at multifamily properties to be screened on all four sides. The dispute centers on section 11.69.06(f) and whether the code’s screening requirement applies as a four-sided physical enclosure or allows three-sided screening, landscaping or other configurations.

The planning department presented a packet of permits, site plans and photographs showing recent planning applications and approvals that, the department said, consistently list four-sided refuse screening for multifamily and commercial projects. “I think we show that’s been applied consistently and that the code is clear that it requires screen on all four sides of the dumpster facilities for multifamily,” Planning Department representative (Mr. Cowan) told the board.

Property owner and respondent Michael Wetzel (identified in the record as “Mr. Wetzel”) disputed that interpretation. Wetzel pressed that chapter 11.69 was drafted to apply in specific areas identified in the comprehensive plan and that the city historically accepted three-sided screening or landscaping in many places. “The whole chapter doesn’t apply,” Wetzel said during the hearing, arguing the provision targets streets shown in the plan’s mapped “yellow lines” and not his parcel. Wetzel also challenged the planning department’s use of recent (2023–2025) planning packet examples as evidence of historical practice.

Hearing participants and exhibits

Planning submitted three photographic and permit packets—later admitted as exhibits—showing examples from multifamily and commercial site plans (including properties referenced as Bridgewater Park Apartments, Wyndham Ridge Apartments and other Kent Road-area developments). Wetzel submitted a packet of 57 photographs and related correspondence labeled as defense exhibits; the hearing officer acknowledged those photographs and said he would review all submitted images.

Board discussion focused on statutory interpretation and enforcement practice. Planning staff (identified in the transcript as “Zach”) pointed to the code language that conditions multifamily in R-2 and R-3 districts on compliance with the regulations in chapter 11.69 and said the requirement applies to multifamily dwellings in those zones. Wetzel responded that even if the code nominally covers multifamily in R-2/R-3, the chapter’s stated purpose and mapped areas show the drafters intended the rules to apply primarily to certain corridors, not universally to every multifamily parcel.

Several witnesses and participants noted operational and safety concerns tied to enclosure design. Wetzel and others flagged one four-sided commercial compactor at Wyndham Ridge as an outlier but potentially hazardous if not secured; planning staff acknowledged that many of the photos show gates open or three-sided configurations in practice. The planning representative said some recent site-plan approvals explicitly show four-sided enclosures and that applicants may choose to provide four sides even where not strictly required.

Procedural outcome and next steps

The hearing officer took the matter under advisement, saying he would review the exhibits and the relevant code language and issue a written opinion to the parties. “I will take this under advisement because I just got these 57 pictures in these packets. I will look through everything. I’ll look through the code again. I’ll have an opinion. I will issue that to you,” the hearing officer said on the record and indicated the decision would be emailed and mailed to the parties.

The officer also reminded parties of appeal procedures in the event they dispute his forthcoming ruling and said appeals under the governing statute are filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas and require notice to the administrative hearing board. No final ruling, motion, or sanction was entered at the hearing; the board did not adopt an immediate enforcement remedy and agreed to set related matters (matters labeled B2568 and B2569 in the record) aside until the decision on the matter at 4339 North Guildwood Drive is issued.

Why it matters

The outcome will determine how the city enforces refuse screening at multifamily properties in R-2 and R-3 districts and whether current and future multifamily developments in the referenced corridors must provide four-sided screening, gates that close, or whether other screening options (three-sided screening plus landscaping) remain compliant. The hearing also highlighted a gap between the planning department’s current enforcement approach and how some property owners contend the code was historically applied.

The hearing record includes the city’s notice of violation (May 2), a May 21 law department letter, planning packets with site-plan examples dated 1996, 2023–2025, and the 57 photographs submitted by Wetzel. The hearing officer said he expected to issue a written opinion promptly and will notify the parties by email and U.S. mail; parties were informed of the statutory appeal process to Summit County Court of Common Pleas if they challenge the decision.