Grand County continues public hearing on proposed rule change to allow accessory buildings, including shipping containers, on vacant lots

The Grand County Board of County Commissioners continued a public hearing on proposed zoning amendments that would (a) clarify building-height measurements and (b) allow accessory buildings — including garages, barns, and shipping containers — on vacant unincorporated lots.

Planning staff presented the package and recommended approval of the height-measurement change but recommended caution on the accessory-building allowance. Planning Manager Hannah Mahorney told the board staff’s draft would permit accessory structures and specified that chimneys and small projections not exceed four feet of the height allowance.

Neighbors and residents said the accessory‑building change carries significant local impacts. “It’s like going to the high school football stadium — you just see everything,” said Mike Dara of Trail Creek Estates, describing the sudden presence of a 40‑foot container next to rebuilt homes after wildfire. Dara and other neighbors urged the board to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the change, citing concerns about neighborhood character, potential reductions in home values, and a lack of enforcement resources.

Trail Creek Estates resident Stan Spencer said he had documented examples of oversized accessory buildings and shipping containers on residential lots and said the changes could worsen Grand County’s housing shortage by converting lots to storage uses instead of homes.

Several commenters favored property rights and flexibility. Rebecca Guthrie, calling in from Kremmling, said the county should respect landowners’ ability to use their property when not governed by an HOA.

Commissioners and planning staff discussed limiting accessory structures by minimum lot size or by percentage of lot area and noted enforcement options such as building permits and blight ordinances. Planning staff said shipping containers already trigger building‑permit requirements when they exceed 120 square feet, and staff highlighted that some design standards (for example, in designated review areas) would still apply.

After extended public comment and questions about enforcement, lot-size thresholds, visual-design standards and the county’s drainage and septic requirements, the board continued the hearing to allow staff and the commissioners to refine standards — including acreage thresholds and targeted design rules — and to reconvene on the continued hearing date. The planning staff confirmed a continuation date and the board invited additional written input prior to the next hearing.

Next step: the hearing was continued so staff can draft targeted amendments (acreage limits, design criteria for certain design‑review areas and clearer permit/enforcement steps) and return to the board on the scheduled continuation date.