Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Containers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ocean Shores planners vote to add shipping‑container rules to accessory‑structure code
Summary
The Planning Commission voted May 27 to insert intermodal shipping‑container language into the accessory‑structure section of the municipal code (to be codified at 17.50.110) and to add exceptions that would generally restrict permanent conex placement in residential zones. Commissioners discussed time limits, construction use, and enforcement.
The Ocean Shores Planning Commission voted May 27 to add a reference to intermodal shipping containers ("conex") into the city's accessory‑structure code and to direct staff to include related definitions in the 17.50.110 code section for transmittal to council.
Marshall, community development staff, explained the commission needed consistent, cross‑referenced definitions so "people know exactly what we're talking about, and they're not relying on me to interpret what this means in relation or tying that to the definition, in the title 17." He recommended using a definition phrased "intermodal shipping containers / conex: a 6‑sided steel unit originally constructed as a general cargo container used for the transit of goods and materials," and referencing the accessory‑structure definition (17.04.010) to clarify temporary accessory‑structure status.
Commissioners expressed concern about conex units left on lots long after construction ends. One commissioner said the city had seen examples where containers remained "long after construction was done," and noted the existing accessory‑structure paragraph allows temporary structures only "for so long as such permit is in effect." Commissioners discussed whether to tie container allowances strictly to active building permits and to use the certificate‑of‑occupancy process to require removal after construction finishes.
The commission agreed to insert specific exceptions prohibiting intermodal shipping containers from being treated as permanent non‑accessory structures in residential zones and to place the definitive language in 17.50.110 so it would "marry with the definitions" the commission is preparing. The motion to put the language into 17.50.110 and send it forward was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.
During public comment, James (a member of the public) asked the commission to consider limited exceptions for homeowners in extenuating circumstances — for example, when an owner is awaiting insurance payouts after a loss and must keep belongings in on‑site storage pods. Marshall noted such cases could be handled through the city's variance process but warned that a variance requires fees and a public hearing; commissioners discussed whether code language could provide an administrative pathway for documented emergency extensions.
The commission directed staff to draft the accessory‑structure amendment language, include the intermodal definition, add an exception to explicitly prohibit permanent conex in specified residential contexts, and return the revised text for further consideration.
