Planning panel tables proposed rule changes for shipping containers after public debate over setbacks, screening and lot size

The Clay County Planning and Zoning Commission on July 1 heard staff proposals to revise the county land development code to relax rules on intermodal shipping containers and then voted to table the item for further study after extended public comment and commissioner concerns.

The proposal would loosen several existing restrictions, allow containers on smaller lots under specified setbacks and add new requirements for painting, screening and surfaces. Planning staff presented proposed tabled changes including: permitting containers on lots smaller than 10 acres, reducing side and rear setbacks from 250 feet to 50 feet and specifying a 100-foot front setback, requiring containers be placed on a hard, level surface, requiring containers be painted to match an adjacent accessory building or the house, and adding screening requirements that vary by lot size (lots 5 acres or less: 75% obscured; 5–20 acres: 50%; 20+ acres: 25%). Staff also proposed extending a temporary-storage removal period from 30 to 60 days when containers are used during construction and removing the need for a separate temporary-storage permit in some cases.

Planning staff said the county’s intermodal shipping-container provisions were adopted in September 2020, and the recent Board of Zoning Adjustment approval of containers on a roughly 3-acre lot prompted staff to draft broader changes to create consistent standards rather than rely on individual variances. “We had a variance request … regarding shipping containers for storage on a residential lot that did not meet the proper acreage size or setbacks,” staff said in the presentation. The staff report attached letters from members of the public who supported code changes.

Public speakers were sharply divided. Several residents who use containers for storage — some after losing an outbuilding or as an economical alternative to a new shop — urged the commission to adopt rules that allow containers with reasonable standards. Brent Bath, who described buying a container after being required to remove an illegal outbuilding, said a container is dry, rodent-resistant and less expensive than rebuilding. “It’s a cost-effective storage way to store opposed to building a building from scratch,” said Nicole Path, who spoke in support.

Others, including multiple commissioners and some public speakers, worried the proposed changes would allow containers on very small lots, create visual blight for neighbors and be difficult to enforce. Commissioners questioned whether the rules should require screening from neighboring properties (not just from the roadway), impose minimum acreage thresholds (several commissioners suggested 3–5 acres as a possibility), and limit container height or foundations. One commissioner noted that accessory building setbacks and septic-system footprints in some small-lot subdivisions would make placement complicated and could create unanticipated health-department issues.

Commissioners also discussed enforcement and permitting. Staff said shipping containers qualify as accessory buildings under the building code and therefore require permits; staff said the department had temporarily paused proactive enforcement of the current shipping-container rules while the code rewrite is pending to avoid forcing removals that might become allowable under a revised code. Staff also estimated the planning permit fee is $90 and said the health department’s site approval runs about $135 if required to verify setbacks relative to septic systems.

After discussion the commission voted to table the proposed code changes until the next regular meeting to allow staff time to: (1) provide maps or GIS data showing how many lots of various sizes and setbacks would be affected (commission requests included counts for parcels under 1 acre, under 3 acres, and under 5 acres); (2) work with commissioners on revised screening requirements (including screening required from neighboring properties, not only roadways) and possible minimum-lot requirements; and (3) clarify permit language and building-code references so applicants and inspectors understand when a building permit and health-department review are required. The motion to table carried on a roll-call vote.

Planning staff said they expect to return the item with revisions and asked commissioners to email or call with specific amendment suggestions so staff can incorporate them in the next draft. Staff also said there may be no meeting in August; if no new applications are submitted the item would be scheduled for the next meeting with any additional applications.