Business owner asks Clayton planning board to pursue amendment on shipping containers in light-industrial zones; board asks staff for analysis

During the public-comment portion of the May 26 Clayton Planning Board meeting, Richard (Richie) Shaker, who identified himself as owner of Mr. Handyman of the Northeast Raleigh–Clayton area, asked the board to recommend a text amendment to Section 4.6.5D to consider whether storage containers should be allowed as permanent accessory uses in light-industrial districts.

Shaker told the board he leased property in the town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, said the prior owner, David Stewart, had begun the conversation with staff before his death, and that enforcement actions followed: “I purchased the business from him just two days after the first violation notice in March of 2025,” Shaker said, explaining he has since reviewed the record and seeks a legislative path to bring the property into compliance.

Planning Director Conrad Omeo reviewed the history: staff previously treated shipping containers as a temporary structure and included temporary-container rules in the UDO; the board earlier considered temporary-use amendments and the town later adjusted temporary-permit durations for certain districts. Omeo said the particular container at issue does not meet the temporary-use standards and that the Board of Adjustment recently upheld the notice of violation in a quasi-judicial appeal.

Board members and staff discussed practical and legal complications of allowing permanent shipping containers: building-code compliance (permanent structures would generally need to meet residential or commercial building-code standards if converted for occupancy), screening or fencing options, and whether permitting could differ across zoning districts. Omeo noted that in some districts (the PUB district was cited) staff had allowed longer temporary durations with possible extensions, but making containers permanent would require structural alterations and deeper regulatory changes.

After discussion, the planning board did not overturn the BOA decision; instead, members directed staff to return at the June meeting with a presentation that inventories where shipping containers are being used in town, explains screening or mitigation options, outlines how a permanent-permit pathway would interact with building-code requirements, and — if warranted — drafts possible text-amendment language for the board and council to consider.

Next steps: staff will present a fuller analysis at the next planning board meeting and may coordinate with council staff if a text amendment is proposed.