Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storage Container Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners debate screening, setbacks and permit rules as county sees first container IUP
Summary
Commissioners questioned building‑permit thresholds, septic setbacks and whether screening should be required after the county's new rules allowed temporary storage containers by permit; staff said setbacks and condition compliance will be enforced rather than adding a new screening requirement.
Commissioners used the discussion over Lynette Regenauer's after‑the‑fact Interim Use Permit as a chance to probe how the county will apply recent changes to the zoning ordinance for temporary storage containers.
Commissioner Chris DuBose urged close evaluation of setbacks and appearance to avoid 'unsightly structures' near neighboring properties, while Commissioner Eric Leivian asked whether containers classified as structures require a building permit when they are under 200 square feet. Land Services Coordinator Beth Gervais clarified that structures under 200 square feet do not require a building permit but remain subject to structural setback requirements.
Chair Jolene Wille pressed on septic setbacks and placement; Gervais said the minimum septic setback is 10 feet. The commission reached consensus not to impose additional screening beyond existing vegetation and elevation differences on the Regenauer parcel, instead encoding setback, anchoring and maintenance requirements into their motion recommending approval.
Applicant Lynette Regenauer framed the issue in property‑rights terms, saying the containers were "personal property on private property, explaining that personal implied they were owned by her and private implied that they were nobody's business." Commissioners emphasized that approval would include specific, enforceable conditions meant to be applied consistently to future cases.
