Nashville council delays action on amendment to allow shipping containers as permanent accessory structures

The Town of Nashville held a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to its land-use code that would treat shipping containers as permanent accessory structures and allow them in additional zoning districts. The council voted to take no action and asked staff to work further with planning professionals on conditional standards.

The proposal came from Christopher Sandy, owner of Bill Wright Supply, who said he sought to clarify a current ordinance he described as “a knee‑jerk reaction” and to allow shipping containers to be treated as a building material and taxable accessory structure. “By putting it in that category we already got setbacks and codes and everything to regulate these things,” Sandy told the council.

Why it matters: the change would affect where and how shipping containers may be used in town, with implications for property appearance, business storage options and taxable property assessment. Supporters said containers can be economical and durable; opponents said unpainted containers would harm residential aesthetics.

The planning process: town technical review committee (TRC) recommended permitting containers only in industrial and B‑1 business districts, not residential areas. The planning board reviewed competing drafts and, after a period of outreach, voted to recommend the ordinance version submitted by Sandy rather than the TRC/alternate draft. Staff presented both drafts to the council and opened a public hearing.

Public comments were mixed. Resident James Baker said the containers were “not very eye appealing” and worried they would lower nearby property values. An unnamed supporter described examples in other communities and said containers can be economically feasible for homeowners who need storage. Sandy noted he collected petitions from local businesses and said the ordinance had been boiled down through multiple drafts to address concerns.

Council concerns centered on outreach and aesthetics. One councilmember emphasized the small petition sample — 17 signatures in a town of about 5,600 — and said, “I'm not inclined to go in favor of approving this based on less than 1% of an input.” Another councilmember suggested that if businesses need to use containers, the council should adopt conditional standards requiring screening and placement behind primary structures.

Outcome and next steps: a council motion to take no action on Sandy’s proposed amendment passed. Councilmembers asked staff to work with planning staff and planning consultant Mr. Harvey to produce a draft ordinance that could include conditions (for example, location behind primary structures, screening, painting/matching house color, and restricted districts) and bring that back for future consideration. No ordinance change was adopted tonight.

Authorities cited during the discussion included the town’s zoning code sections referenced in a code enforcement order (transcript: section 18‑1‑11(a)(7) and 18‑1‑11(m)). The council also referenced previous updates to section 18‑1‑11 during a recent code rewrite.