Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Violation Pool Enclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stow hearing pauses after owner says retractable pool cover should meet enclosure rule
Summary
At an April 23 administrative hearing, the owner of 2691 Progress Park and his attorney argued that a retractable safety pool cover provides protection equivalent to the code-required fence; the hearing officer said he will research whether Stow’s definition of “enclosed structure” covers covers and scheduled a follow-up hearing.
The Stow administrative hearing board on April 23 reviewed case V2641, an allegation that the pool at 2691 Progress Park was ‘‘a pool without an enclosure’’ in violation of section 110406U of the city code.
Mike Moran, attorney for the property owner, acknowledged there is no fence around the pool but said the pool ‘‘has a retractable pool cover, and that retractable pool cover covers the entire pool when it's not in use,’’ arguing the cover functions as an enclosed structure in place of a fence. The owner, identified as Mr. Dillinger, provided documentation he said shows the cover’s lock and load-bearing performance and said the cover is kept closed except when in use.
The zoning department told the board the city received a complaint on March 23, 2026, and issued a first notice with a compliance date of April 7 and a final notice on April 13 with a compliance date of April 20 before scheduling the administrative hearing for April 23. City records include a 2011 permit for an inground pool to Mr. Dillinger and an approved site plan showing a fence at the time of the original permit.
During the hearing Mr. Dillinger described the cover’s operation (it retracts into a trough), its physical fit (the owner said the 40-foot sides have no gap and the roller end abuts a rubber gasket), and the security mechanism (a key-operated lock kept inside the house). Under questioning the owner corrected an earlier figure and cited testing showing the cover supports 485 pounds.
The owner and his counsel also cited other municipalities that they said allow comparable safety covers in lieu of a fence and offered to provide the specific ordinance language. The zoning staff and the hearing officer noted that those other cities include explicit exemptions or standards (for example, ASTM ratings or code language) that Stow’s code does not currently contain.
The hearing officer said he was ‘‘leaning towards this not meeting the definition of the code’’ as written because Stow’s definition of ‘‘structure’’ contemplates a roof and walls and the city code does not specifically address pool covers. He said he would take the matter under advisement, review relevant case law and ordinances cited by the owner, and return with a formal determination rather than rule on the spot. The parties agreed to a follow-up hearing in roughly two weeks to receive the board’s decision or further proceedings.
No formal penalty, fine, or order was issued at the April 23 session; the hearing remains open pending the board’s review and the rescheduled hearing.
