Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hendry County commissioners consider allowing shipping containers as backyard accessory structures on larger lots
Summary
Planning staff presented a first reading of LDC 25‑00001 to permit shipping containers (conex) as accessory uses on residential lots meeting size and screening standards; staff will return with acreage and size analyses before adoption.
Planning director Ryan Alexander presented the first reading of LDC 25‑00001 on April 22, proposing amendments to the Hendry County Land Development Code to allow shipping containers as accessory structures on qualifying residential parcels.
Under the draft language presented, shipping containers would be permitted only on residentially zoned parcels of at least 1.25 acres in certain communities, limited to one container per 1.25 acres and a maximum of two containers per parcel. Containers would be required to sit behind the primary residence and be fully screened from the public right of way with a six‑foot opaque fence, wall, or landscaped hedge that attains six feet in height within one year. Containers would have to be painted to match the primary residence, be maintained free from rust, graffiti or damage, not be stacked, and be secured to meet Florida Building Code requirements; the allowance would not override existing HOA covenants that prohibit containers.
Commissioners discussed whether the 1.25‑acre threshold should be lowered to include many lots along State Road 80 (most of which were described in the discussion as about 0.95–0.99 acres) and whether to differentiate allowed container lengths by lot size (for example, 40‑foot containers on larger lots, 20‑foot containers on smaller lots). Planning staff agreed to run spatial analyses showing the effect of lowering the threshold to one acre and three‑quarters (0.75) of an acre and to propose language allowing 40‑foot containers on 1.25‑acre parcels and 20‑foot containers on smaller qualifying parcels; staff said they would return to the board at the adoption hearing with maps and proposed revised language.
The item was presented as a first reading; no adoption vote was taken. Planning staff said they would provide two reports before the next board meeting: one showing parcel coverage at 0.75‑acre and 1.0‑acre thresholds, and proposed language distinguishing 20‑foot and 40‑foot containers by parcel size.
Commissioners and members of the public raised context and equity concerns: several said homeowners with slightly smaller parcels on State Road 80 sought a lower threshold because they wanted storage options and cited cost differences between sheds and shipping containers. Others warned that lowering thresholds could open the allowance in additional subdivisions (Montura, Wheeler) where lot sizes and platting details vary; staff noted platting and easement adjustments can affect property appraiser records and lot sizes shown in maps.
The board scheduled an adoption hearing for May 13 and directed planning staff to return with the analyses and revised proposed text.
