Beaufort County defers vote on shipping-container code changes after farmers and commissioners raise concerns

Beaufort County commissioners voted unanimously to defer action on proposed amendments to the county's Community Development Code that would regulate the use of shipping containers for agricultural purposes.

The amendments, a staff-initiated package, would add a definition for "shipping container," create an exemption for "bona fide agricultural" uses, and establish standards including a 400-square-foot cap per container, a 50-foot setback from property lines, and a minimum parcel size of 5 acres for one container with an additional 50 acres required for each additional container. Staff described several documents as acceptable proof of bona fide agricultural activity, including Schedule F from federal tax filings, a county agricultural tax exemption, a USDA farm number or a notarized affidavit.

Why it matters: The proposal seeks to allow farmers access to durable, movable storage and production space while limiting nonagricultural or residential misuse. Commissioners and public commenters said the current draft leaves important questions unresolved — especially for smaller-scale growers who do not sell produce or who operate hydroponic or mushroom operations on parcels smaller than 5 acres.

During public comment, Walter Mack, a field agent with the Dubuque Soil and Water Conservation District, said many smaller farmers use containers and asked whether existing containers would be grandfathered. "Please do not make anything more difficult for these farmers," he said, urging the county to adjust acreage thresholds and permit requirements. Another commenter, Eric Connor, urged a clearer, codified definition of "bona fide agricultural," saying, "I think the only thing that proves you're a bona fide farm is that Schedule F," and recommended annual reviews to limit abuse.

Staff (Merchant) told the board the draft mixes commonly used approaches from other municipalities and that the list of acceptable proofs is intentionally nonexclusive so staff can consider unique situations, such as work with Clemson Extension or other technical evidence. Staff also explained that the draft treats containers as accessory structures that would require a zoning permit to document placement and setbacks but would not necessarily trigger a building permit unless the container were altered to meet building-code thresholds.

Commissioners pressed several points: whether the "income producing" requirement would exclude family farms that do not sell their crops; whether the 5-acre minimum and the 50-acre increment for additional containers is appropriate for small-scale and specialty growers; whether a 50-foot setback sufficiently addresses visual and nuisance concerns; and how the county would detect prohibited uses such as storage of hazardous materials. One commissioner suggested screening (evergreens or similar buffers) as an alternative to a larger setback to address visual impacts.

Outcome and next steps: A commissioner moved to defer consideration and asked staff to work with local farmers and sample counties (including coastal jurisdictions) to refine the language and return with a revised recommendation. The motion to defer passed unanimously by raised hands. The board did not approve or deny the amendments; staff will return with revisions and additional outreach. The meeting then adjourned.

Authorities and code references cited in the discussion include the Community Development Code sections noted by staff as the subjects of the amendments (text amendment references cited during the meeting: sections 5.3.2, 4.2.20 and 10.1.19).