Stow Debates Mixed-Use Housing and Zoning Risks
The Stow City Council hears sharply divided resident testimony on mixed-use zoning, housing density, and affordability, then wrestles with legal liability around minor planned developments and charter changes for acting officials. Council also approves a new school resource officer, future salary increases for top city roles, and shifts the public information officer to full-time. 49mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Wednesday, July 8th, 2026
4862.0
City of Stow - City Council and Committee Meetings July 8, 2026
In This Video
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Council Member Coffey opposed the proposed density increase and unlimited multifamily zoning, arguing that higher density would primarily enable apartment buildings along main roads, and suggested that if downtown density were expanded it should be paired with larger, higher-quality units while expressing willingness to work on a revised version of the ordinance.
-
-
A speaker cited survey data showing strong public support for mixed-use development, rejected fear‑based claims about unlimited density and low-income housing, and argued that expanding the housing supply was necessary to reverse population decline and protect the city’s tax base and local businesses.
-
Council Member Coffey outlined concerns about version three of the zoning amendments while comparing its mixed‑use language and density rules to version two, and Council Member Feldman responded by emphasizing that density would be capped at ten units per acre, targeted to locations in the comprehensive plan, and that the affordability provision had been removed as part of an evolving zoning policy.
-
A speaker argued that fears of unlimited low‑income apartments were unfounded due to existing code safeguards, contended that the amendments would simply allow more efficient housing proposals to be considered, and urged council not to miss long‑term opportunities for a downtown by continuing to suppress the housing supply.
-
Council Member Coffey argued that the zoning amendments would significantly reshape the city by increasing allowable apartment density on main roads and permitting unlimited mixed-use with small 500‑square‑foot units, and contended that even a constituent initially in favor shifted to opposing the legislation after reviewing these details.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Council Member Coffey outlined concerns that minor planned development approvals could override council without sufficient checks, noted that removed modification standards carried legal ramifications, and stated an intention to vote against the ordinance while recommending that Planning Commission eliminate the minor planned development section entirely.
-
-
A speaker explained that retaining minor planned developments in the code without clear standards created legal liability, noted that the law department would recommend either removing the section or developing new guidelines if the amendment failed, and clarified how council majorities would be used to accept or reject Planning Commission recommendations.
-
-
Council Member Coffey questioned why the absence of minor planned development standards would create legal liability, and a speaker explained that without clear criteria for approvals and rejections, applicants could challenge council decisions as arbitrary and capricious and raise due process concerns.
-
A speaker explained that a simple council majority could refer zoning issues to the Planning Commission for study, and Council Member Coffey stated support for approving the ordinance to avoid legal liability while pursuing further discussion and potential removal of the minor planned development section through Planning Commission.
-
-
A speaker informed council that a revised version two of the compensation ordinance had been prepared to remove CPI-based raises and instead tie increases to the average of collective bargaining agreements, addressing prior concerns that cost-of-living adjustments could exceed police officers’ raises, and ensured members had seen the revision before voting.
-
Council Member Coffey opposed the compensation ordinance, favored sending a fixed salary increase for elected officials to the voters instead of using percentage raises, and argued that converting certain posts to appointed positions would broaden the talent pool, place responsibility on the mayor, and avoid rigid term‑limit issues for highly specialized roles.
-
Speakers debated whether making the law and finance director positions appointed would broaden the talent pool, supported increasing long‑unchanged salaries for the mayor and key directors, and Council Member Riehl clarified that the ordinance simply placed the proposed raises on the ballot for voters to decide while others voiced concern about using large percentage increases and changing the charter mechanism.
-
-
Council considered an ordinance to submit a charter amendment clarifying the procedure for appointing an acting mayor, heard Council Member Coffey oppose the change in favor of current language while a speaker explained conflicts under the existing rules, and ultimately passed the measure to go before voters.
-
Council considered a charter amendment to create provisions for an acting finance director, with Council Member Coffey questioning the use of “assistant director” language while speakers cited past gaps when a finance director was unable to serve and explained the need for flexible acting roles and signatory authority for both finance and law offices.
-
-
-
-
-
More from this government