Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission begins work to tighten rules on accessory structures, moving pods, shipping containers and RVs; asks attorney to draft ordinance language
Summary
After residents and staff raised complaints about front-yard moving pods, shipping containers and parked recreational vehicles, the commission directed staff and the city attorney to draft clearer rules: temporary allowances for moving pods in front yards, possible prohibitions or limits on shipping containers, and refined RV parking rules.
The Lynn Haven City Commission opened an extended discussion on Jan. 14 about accessory structures after staff and commissioners described recurring code-enforcement complaints about moving storage pods, large shipping containers and recreational vehicles (RVs) parked in yards or driveways.
Staff said current city rules do not clearly classify some portable storage units and noted they routinely find temporary moving pods placed in front yards and driveways. Several commissioners suggested allowing portable moving pods in front yards only for a short, specified period (for example, 14–30 days) with an option for owners to request extensions in writing tied to a specific plan for removal. Commissioner Ward said anchoring and setbacks should be required if an accessory structure is permanent.
Commissioners also discussed larger shipping containers. Some commissioners favored prohibiting shipping containers because of concerns about size, aesthetics and potential long-term use as detached living units. Others said existing rules limiting accessory-structure square footage and rear-yard coverage might already prevent many uses but acknowledged ambiguity. Commissioners asked the city attorney to draft two alternatives: (1) a prohibitive approach (ban shipping containers visible from a right of way or in yards) and (2) a permissive but regulated approach (allow containers as accessory structures only subject to size, aesthetics and screening requirements).
RVs also drew sustained comment. Staff reported roughly 300 registered RVs currently located on city properties, some parked in driveways or under pole barns. Commissioners expressed concern about long-term placement that creates a cluttered appearance or blocks sight lines. Several commissioners said they did not want to ban RV ownership or regular lawful use but wanted clearer, objective standards for allowable parking, condition and duration; staff said a code that relies on objective measures (registration, operable condition, not on blocks, anchoring rules) would be easier to enforce.
The commission did not adopt a final ordinance; it asked the city attorney and staff to draft specific proposed language to return at a future meeting. Staff said proposed language will include temporary-use limits for moving pods in front yards, options for extensions when homeowners show a plan and a choice of draft language on shipping containers (prohibit vs. regulated allowance). The commission indicated it prefers to make any permanent-container allowances subject to anchoring, screening/fencing and aesthetic standards so they resemble permitted accessory structures rather than raw shipping boxes.
Commissioners asked that any new rules not be retroactive in a punitive way and that staff provide a reasonable window for compliance and public notice when the ordinance is adopted.
