Nashville planning board tables proposal to allow shipping containers in town zoning

The Town of Nashville Planning Board on June 24 voted to table a proposed text amendment that would create definitions and permit rules for shipping containers in local zoning code, including where and how long containers could be placed.

The measure, requested by local container seller Christopher Sadie, would add a definition for “shipping container,” set dimensions and setbacks, create separate short-term and long-term rules for residential and commercial uses, and add an emergency provision allowing temporary use without a permit for up to 14 days. The planning board moved to table the item to allow staff time to revise language for residential districts and to solicit more public input.

Christopher Sadie, identified as the applicant and a business owner who sells and leases shipping containers, told the board he brought the proposal because of local demand. “I’ve got a vested interest in this,” Sadie said, adding that nearly all local business owners he polled signed a petition supporting the change. He described both commercial and residential uses, and asked the board to adopt a code that would regulate rather than ban containers.

Planning staff outlined the draft ordinance’s main elements: a definition stating containers are typically steel units commonly available in 20-foot and 40-foot lengths and about 8 feet in width; a short-term residential allowance (the draft contains inconsistent durations, including a 180-day provision for some residential short-term uses and a separate 90-day limit for construction-related short-term use); a one-time extension option (90 days in one version of the draft); long-term allowances tied to commercial and industrial zoning and to compliance with county building permits; setback and placement rules (draft language referenced a 5-foot separation from existing buildings and 6 feet from side and rear property lines); and requirements for screening, maintenance, and removal following project completion. Staff also said box-truck bodies and tractor-trailer boxes with wheels removed would not qualify as shipping containers under the proposed language.

Sean (planning staff) told the board the Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed an earlier three-page draft and recommended denying the broader text amendment as written but recognized a need for permanent, permitted container use in the town’s industrial and certain business districts. “The TRC recommended to deny that text amendment request,” Sean said, while noting the TRC suggested allowing permanent storage containers in B‑1 and I‑1 districts with site-plan review and screening requirements.

During public comment, resident and commenter Nancy Westbright asked about security and pests, saying, “Does that mean that the shipping containers would have to be locked?” Staff replied they would strongly encourage locking but acknowledged enforcement of lock requirements would be difficult. Residents also raised aesthetics and potential blight if containers fell into disrepair.

Board members discussed options including allowing containers in industrial/business districts while restricting or more tightly regulating residential use, treating containers as accessory buildings when appropriate, and using existing special-use or building-permit processes for review. Staff noted the draft includes an emergency provision allowing short-term use without a permit during declared emergencies, with a 14-day window to obtain required paperwork.

After discussion, Planning Board member Ms. Lewis moved to table the amendment to allow the board to collect constituent feedback and refine residential provisions; Mr. Strickland seconded. The board voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The board asked staff to return with a revised draft aimed at addressing residential concerns and the TRC’s points; staff said they would work toward a revised residential draft for the July planning board meeting and coordinate timing with upcoming town council meetings.

The TRC recommendation to deny the broader amendment, the applicant’s revised four-page version submitted the night before the meeting, and the board’s request for more neighborhood outreach were the principal outcomes of the hearing. No ordinance language was adopted at the June 24 meeting; the item was tabled for further revision and public input.