Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand County moves to allow limited accessory structures on vacant lots with safeguards and building-permit rules for shipping containers
Summary
After public comment and staff recommendations, the Board directed staff to permit accessory (non-livable) structures on vacant parcels outside growth areas with a 100-foot setback and to adopt an affidavit of non‑habitation; shipping containers will be allowed if a building permit is obtained and meet visual/permit standards.
The Board continued a public hearing on proposed zoning regulation amendments and, after public comment, gave direction to staff on a package of changes affecting accessory structures on vacant parcels and the use of shipping containers.
Staff had proposed a menu of options: acreage thresholds, restrictions to parcels outside growth boundaries, a 100-foot setback from property lines, forbidding wet utilities and interior partitioning for accessory structures on vacant lots, and requiring an affidavit of non‑habitation. The package aimed to prevent the use of detached garages or barns as unpermitted residences while allowing property owners reasonable storage and construction staging options.
Public comment reflected divided views. Several landowners and the Grand County Association of Realtors urged reinstating the option to build modest storage garages on vacant lots (with clear safeguards) to support phased development and property maintenance. Other residents in denser ‘‘growth area’’ neighborhoods asked for protections for small-lot neighborhoods, view corridors and neighborhood character.
The Board’s direction: commissioners agreed to allow accessory, non-habitable structures on vacant parcels only outside designated growth areas provided the structure meet an increased 100-foot setback from property lines; require a notarized affidavit of non‑habitation for such structures; and treat shipping containers as permissible only with a building permit and subject to visual/permit standards (for example, earth‑tone colors and building-permit review). Commissioners asked staff to clarify exemptions for agriculturally assessed parcels and to ensure code language is uniform and enforceable.
Enforcement and practicalities: staff and the county attorney cautioned that enforcement of new rules depends on remedies in state law and existing enforcement resources; they recommended clear permit triggers and public education. Existing structures will not be retroactively required to change colors or be repainted, and the Board asked staff to craft clear language to avoid unintended burdens on landowners.
Ending: Staff will draft ordinance language implementing the Board’s direction (outside growth areas + 100-foot setback + affidavit of non-habitation + building-permit pathway and standards for shipping containers) and return it for formal adoption.
