Planning staff presented draft language to address shipping containers and intermodal freight containers used as storage buildings. The proposal attempts to resolve conflicts in the existing code and set different rules for agricultural and residential districts.

"Shipping containers is kind of a catch all Generic. Word, generic word. I also added the words, intermodal freight container," staff member Mark said when introducing the section. The draft would treat containers used for agricultural purposes differently from containers used for residential or commercial storage.

Under the proposal, shipping containers used for bona fide agricultural purposes would not be limited in number on an agricultural-zoned parcel; by contrast, containers used for residential storage on an AG-zoned parcel would be limited (staff proposed examples such as limiting non-ag residential use to two containers). Commissioners flagged problems that arise because many smaller parcels carry AG zoning (for example, 7-acre lot splits) and because the county regulates accessory-building square footage differently for residential districts.

Commissioners discussed whether stacked containers with a continuous roof should count as multiple independent containers. Mark said the draft would treat "multiple shipping containers with an attached roof" as not counting toward the permitted number of independent containers, though they would count toward accessory-building square footage where applicable in residential districts.

Commissioner discussion centered on enforcement and logic: Garth and others said if a container is used for agriculture (seed, feed, machinery) it should be treated differently than containers used to store personal items in a residential setting. Commissioners discussed a special-exception or conditional-use route: commercial or industrial uses with multiple containers would require conditional-use approval, while additional containers in residential contexts might instead require a special exception or variance process to allow local review.

Mark said staff will remove or rewrite provisions that create conflicting requirements for agricultural parcels and small residential lots and will refine the draft to specify when containers count toward accessory square footage and when they are exempt as agricultural equipment storage. He also said he would consider a special-exception process for additional containers in some residential situations so that smaller-lot owners could request case-by-case review without automatically going to county commission.

No formal action occurred Oct. 16. Staff will return with revised wording and cross references to accessory-building limits before any public hearing.