Planning commission allows temporary intermodal containers tied to building permits; resident raises past enforcement concerns

Planning commissioners on Tuesday approved edits to Ocean Shores Municipal Code to permit intermodal shipping containers as temporary accessory structures only when a building permit for the principal structure has been issued and remains in effect.

The commission added a definition for "intermodal shipping containers" and amended municipal code section 17.260.06(d) and accessory-structure standards (17.50.11) so that such containers would be allowed under the same conditions applicable to other residential zones but only while a building permit is active; the container must be removed before an occupancy certificate is issued.

Commissioners and staff said the change is intended to align R-6B zoning with other residential zoning and to regulate metal-sided Connex/Connex-style containers and U-Haul "pods" consistently. Marshall (city planner) explained the provision addresses an existing allowance in a general regulation that previously permitted metallic siding on outbuildings if a 20-year guarantee was provided; the new definition ties intermodal containers to temporary accessory-permit rules so they cannot remain as permanent residences or sheds that do not meet minimum-size requirements.

During public comment, a resident identified as Susan raised concerns about past city enforcement actions related to shipping containers. She told the commission that at the May 27 meeting a city planner had said "there is currently nothing in the Ocean Shores municipal code that prevents city shipping containers in residential zones," and that several residents had nonetheless been issued criminal citations or warnings for placing containers on private property. Susan said one resident paid for legal representation and ultimately had the case dismissed without prejudice; she asked the commission four questions: on what legal basis were those criminal citations issued, whether the city will provide restitution for legal costs, whether any new prohibition would be applied retroactively, and whether the city will publicly acknowledge prior enforcement errors.

Chair Mark responded that he did not have answers to three of the questions and did not believe the new prohibition (if adopted) would be retroactive. Marshall said the reason for placing the containers under the temporary-accessory category was to ensure R-6B zoning is consistent with other residential zones and to regulate Connex boxes and pods similarly. Commissioners discussed whether to name specific pod brands (U-Haul) in the code and generally agreed the structures should be regulated the same regardless of brand, because "it looks like a duck and walks like a duck," in the words of one commissioner.

The commission moved to approve the edits as written and the motion passed by voice vote ("Aye"). Commissioners also discussed enforcement practicality: building permits can be extended for years and property owners may store tools in containers during construction; the adopted language therefore allows such containers while a valid building permit remains in effect. Several commissioners said the code would be revisited if new use patterns or legal challenges emerged.

The commission did not act on restitution or retroactivity; staff said those questions would require further follow-up. No specific fines, case numbers, or restitution actions were recorded at the meeting.