Council approves first reading to allow farm tractor‑trailers to be stored on agricultural parcels

York County Council on Jan. 21 approved first reading of a text amendment to Chapter 155 of the county zoning code that allows tractor‑trailer trucks and associated travel containers to be stored outdoors on AGC‑zoned land when the equipment is essential to a bona fide farming operation and is owned, leased or rented by the owner or tenant of the property.

The change responds to citizen complaints about tractor‑trailers appearing to be used as storage yards rather than as farm equipment, and it follows a unanimous recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Rick Abood, the county’s principal planner, told the council the committee framed the amendment around three principles: storage only for agricultural purposes, evidence of a bona fide farming operation, and ownership/lease by the property owner or tenant.

Abood said the planning committee “came out with 3 principles they wanted to follow. 1 of them was, the vehicles and equipment, maybe stored, for agricultural purposes only, and they're essential to the operation, and we have a bonafide farming operation on the land.” The staff presentation noted the amendment is intended to prevent the conversion of agricultural parcels into de facto trailer‑storage or parking lots.

Council members pressed staff on details the amendment does and does not change. The council was told the setback, enclosure and garage requirements in the existing regulation do not apply to tractor‑trailers under the proposed text; separate code language governs shipping containers, which are treated differently and currently limited by separate provisions. Council members also asked how staff would distinguish seasonal or intermittent use — for example, trailers used only during harvest — from long‑term storage. Staff responded that the rule requires trailers to be on parcels that are actively farmed and that code enforcement could rely on observable activity as a signal of active farming.

Council discussion ranged from support for the targeted fix to explicit warnings that the county may need to broaden the code review later. One council member said the council should be “prepared to address it for the other end of the spectrum” if businesses seek similar allowances in non‑agricultural areas; another urged that staff be ready to monitor complaints and violations as they arise. The council adopted the amendment in a vote recorded as unanimous.

What the ordinance does not do: it does not remove agricultural protections, does not create a quantity limit tied to acreage in the adopted language, and — according to staff — does not change the separate code limits that apply to shipping containers (those remain subject to existing container rules). Staff recommended, and the Planning and Zoning Commission supported, the narrower fix to address the immediate complaint while leaving broader code questions for a future code‑wide review.

Council members repeatedly asked staff to flag any unintended consequences and to consider a follow‑up charge to Planning and Zoning to examine trailer and container storage countywide. The council approved first reading of the amendment; additional readings and final adoption will follow the county’s regular ordinance process.