Beaufort County commissioners defer shipping-container code changes after farmers and commissioners raise concerns

Beaufort County commissioners on Tuesday unanimously deferred consideration of proposed text amendments to the Community Development Code that would regulate use of shipping containers, saying staff should work more with farmers and address unanswered questions about definitions, thresholds and enforcement.

The amendments, presented by staff, would add a definition of “shipping container” and create an exemption in a new subsection (4.2.20.h) for structures used in bona fide agricultural operations. Staff read standards that would ban stacking and living quarters, prohibit storage of explosive/flammable/toxic materials, require a minimum parcel size of 5 acres for one container and an additional 50 acres for each additional container, require a 50‑foot setback from property lines, and cap an individual container at 400 square feet.

Why it matters: The code change is intended to give farmers flexibility to use containers for storage and production while preventing misuse on residential properties. Commissioners and members of the public said several provisions — especially the requirement that farms be “income producing,” the 5‑acre minimum and a single notarized affidavit as proof — could exclude small or nontraditional farmers and be open to abuse.

Staff presentation and proof options Staff (referenced in the meeting as Rob Merchant) said the proposal draws on other jurisdictions and offers a nonexclusive list of ways a property owner could show bona fide farm status: a copy of Schedule F from the most recent tax return, an approved non‑timberland agricultural tax exemption from the county assessor, a USDA farm number, a South Carolina agricultural tax exemption card, or a sworn, notarized affidavit. Merchant said the list was intended to provide choices rather than require all items.

Concerns from commissioners and residents Several commissioners questioned the meaning and necessity of the “income producing” language, asking whether subsistence or household farms and smaller operations such as hydroponics or mushroom growers would be unfairly excluded. One commissioner asked whether allowing a 5‑acre threshold would effectively permit a residential property owner to claim a farm status and place a container in a yard.

Public commenters urged flexibility for small farmers. Walter Mack, a field agent with the Soil and Water Conservation District, told the board that many smaller farms in Beaufort County use containers and expressed concern that a 5‑acre minimum and a 50‑acre requirement for additional containers would exclude those producers. “Please do not make anything more difficult for these farmers,” Mack said, asking whether currently used containers would be grandfathered.

Another speaker, Eric Connor, supported allowing containers for bona fide agricultural businesses but urged the county to place a general definition of “bona fide agriculture” in the code (Table 3.1.0.7) rather than only inside the shipping‑container section, and recommended periodic review of any qualification process.

Operational and enforcement questions Commissioners and staff discussed whether containers would require a building permit (staff said not unless the container becomes a permanent structure meeting building codes) and how the county would detect prohibited storage (explosives, hazardous wastes, pesticides) without inspections. Commissioners suggested screening or larger setbacks adjacent to residential properties, and one proposed adding pesticides, herbicides and certain oils to the list of banned stored materials.

Next steps and vote Commissioner Gene moved to defer the matter so staff can consult farmers, review comparable coastal counties, and refine the draft language; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously by hand vote. The staff‑initiated amendment is not bound to the planning commission’s 30‑day schedule; staff told commissioners they could fine‑tune the proposal and return with recommended changes.

The meeting adjourned without further action.