Stow City hearing on Echo Valley dumpsters continued after dispute over whether code requires four‑sided enclosures

Stow City’s Administrative Hearing Board on June 19 continued a hearing about alleged zoning violations at 4339–4353 North Gilwood Drive after the property representative disputed both the notice process and the city’s interpretation of its dumpster‑screening rules.

The hearing concerns violation 25‑63, alleging that the property owned by Echo Valley Stowe Properties LLC lacks required screening around a dumpster in violation of the city zoning provision cited by staff (referred to in the record as 11 63 0 6 f). The board set a new hearing date of July 10 at 2 p.m. and directed staff to gather examples of prior interpretations before the next meeting.

Hearing officer (unnamed) opened the record by stating the complaint and the file numbers, and told participants the hearing was being broadcast and recorded under section 219 of the Stow City Charter. Planning department staff said inspectors visited the property on May 1 and May 20, that a notice of violation was mailed May 2 with a compliance date of May 19, and that a law‑department follow‑up letter was sent May 21 with a new compliance date of May 28. A final administrative hearing notice was sent June 19 after a reinspection, staff said.

Mr. Wetzell, identified in the record as a representative of Echo Valley Stowe Properties LLC, said he had not received earlier notices for two other parcels the company owns and asked that those cases be dismissed if no notice was delivered. “I never received a notice or a final notice,” Mr. Wetzell said during the hearing regarding the two additional parcels. He also disputed the city’s interpretation of the screening rule and said his review of local practice shows most multifamily dumpster enclosures in Stow are three‑sided or unenclosed.

“Under this code, I interpreted it as requiring four sides,” Planning Department staff member Zach Cohen said, explaining his reading of the language that requires screening “to prevent the blowing or scattering of refuse and to provide an adequate visual barrier.” Cohen acknowledged the city does not keep an inventory of every dumpster enclosure and said one example of a four‑sided enclosure is at Wyndham Ridge. Deputy Planning Director Debbie McGinnis told the board she performed the initial inspection on May 1 and said the department would bring the permit and enforcement history for comparable sites to the next hearing.

The record shows several exhibits the planning department had prepared for the hearing: photos from the May 1, May 20, May 30 and June 6 inspections and copies of the violation and hearing notices. Mr. Wetzell submitted a written request and other documents contesting notice and enforcement consistency and asked the board for a stay while both sides collect examples across the city.

Board members and staff discussed whether prior planning directors interpreted the code differently and said the planning director’s interpretation can vary; the board asked staff to research past enforcement and bring examples so the board can evaluate whether there is disparate treatment. Deputy Planning Director McGinnis said some other property owners in the area already have applied for permits and that enforcement is complaint‑driven because the department has one full‑time zoning inspector.

The board did not make a final factual or legal determination at the June 19 session. The hearing was recessed and rescheduled to reconvene July 10 at 2 p.m. in the Boards and Commissions Room at City Hall to allow staff to compile records of prior similar cases and for the parties to exchange exhibits.

The continuation preserves the parties’ ability to present additional evidence next month and to raise procedural objections about service of notices and the underlying interpretation of the screening requirement.