Clayton board affirms staff finding that shipping container at 101 Bestwood Drive violated UDO

The Town of Clayton Board of Adjustment on Monday affirmed a staff finding that a shipping container placed at 101 Bestwood Drive violated the town's Unified Development Ordinance because no temporary‑use or building permits were obtained.

Zoning and code enforcement officer Susan Long told the board staff discovered construction materials attached to a container during a routine sign run and, after reviewing aerial and street imagery, found no permits had been pulled. "The use of a shipping container is actually defined in the Unified Development Ordinance as a temporary structure, not a permanent structure," Long said, and staff cited section 4.65 (letter D) of the UDO in issuing a notice of violation. Staff said the container remained on site long enough that even a temporary permit (formerly 90 days, later amended to 120 days) would have lapsed.

Applicant Richard "Richie" Shacker, who said he acquired the local business that operates at 101 Bestwood Drive in March 2025 and owns the container through RJJ Services LLC, acknowledged the container was unpermitted but urged the board to allow a path to compliance. "I'm here today to work collaboratively and amicably with the town towards a satisfactory and mutually beneficial compliant solution to the storage needs of our business," Shacker said. He disputed staff's timeline, saying the container was delivered Oct. 30 (which he said was before the UDO took effect), and said the previous owner had told him the issue was being handled before that owner died.

Board counsel Francis Raspberry explained the hearing was a quasi‑judicial evidentiary proceeding and that the board's role was to determine whether staff's administrative finding of a violation was supported by the evidence. Raspberry noted that retroactive permitting under the prior code is generally not available and that variances cannot be used to permit a use that is not allowed in the zoning district (citing UDO section 2.331 B1B).

Planning staff told the board they had explored temporary permits and other workarounds while engaging with the prior owner but did not receive documentation showing the container had been lawfully established prior to the UDO's effective date (Jan. 2, 2024). Staff also said satellite and street imagery narrowed the likely delivery window to between late 2023 and early 2024 and that multiple notices of violation were issued beginning March 11, 2025.

After members questioned whether long‑standing containers elsewhere in the light‑industrial area had been permitted, the board discussed options and legal limits. A motion to affirm staff's decision was made from the bench and seconded; the board voted to affirm the notice of violation and the motion carried.

Chair Marty Bizzle and staff said attorney Raspberry would draft a formal written final order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law for the board to approve at its May 20 meeting; that written order will start the statutory appeal period. The board and staff also noted that any legislative change to permit permanent on‑site containers would have to proceed through the planning board and town council.

The board's action addressed whether the administrative determination of a violation was correct; civil penalties and enforcement remedies tied to the notice of violation were described as separate administrative processes outside the scope of the appeal decision.