Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Portable Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Township to advertise ordinance regulating portable storage containers; board debates exemptions and fees
Summary
Scott Township planners proposed an ordinance to regulate portable storage containers (pods and Bagster-style units) that would authorize police citations and set application fees (proposed $50 initial, $25 renewal). Commissioners and residents discussed short-term exemptions (under seven days), enforcement challenges, and outreach to waste-haulers.
Township planning staff presented a proposed ordinance on June 9 to regulate portable storage containers and temporary refuse units such as Bagster bags and moving pods.
The draft ordinance would require a permit for containers placed on public rights-of-way or in locations that could impede emergency vehicle access, include size limitations, and authorize police to issue citations and fines for noncompliance. Planning staff presented application fees of $50 for the initial application and $25 for renewals; several commissioners said they wanted to ensure fees reflect administrative review time.
Commissioners and residents raised practical scenarios where temporary placement might be necessary, including roof replacement, funerals, storm cleanup and short moving periods. One commissioner and residents proposed a free permit for deployments under seven days, with a $50 fee for 8–30 day placements and $25 to extend subsequent months. Staff and commissioners expressed concerns about enforcement: the main problem, they said, is that containers are sometimes placed without permits so staff cannot know where to inspect.
Board members suggested operational fixes: an automatic notification option if a Bagster order lists a Scott Township address, outreach to Waste Management and other vendors about permit requirements, clearer size limits in the ordinance text, and a short-term exemption protocol for emergencies. No final ordinance vote was taken; the board directed staff to refine language, consider a short-duration exemption, verify fee structure, and bring an advertising/resolution item to a future meeting for public comment.
Where speakers expressed enforcement limits, staff said permit records are intended to put the placement on staff radar so enforcement is practical; they did not promise specific changes to private-hauler practices.
The board did not approve final ordinance language at the June 9 meeting; advertising for public comment was discussed as the next procedural step.
