Shipping containers bring council to an impasse

A request that seemed like business as usual proved too knotty to unpick at last week’s meeting of the Sundance City Council. The question of whether or not to grant Council Member Joe Wilson a variance to temporarily site a shipping container on residential property evolved into a discussion of fairness, precedence and correct procedure.

Because the agenda item concerned a variance requested by Wilson, Mayor Paul Brooks asked him to vacate the chair and present his case at the podium.

“We are getting ready to have an auction to sell all the old Line Company equipment out there,” Wilson explained. “Some of the old storage buses had a lot of material in them that I do not want to get wet.”

Wilson confirmed that the end goal is to get rid of some of the storage buses on the property and that he estimates the container would be needed until the end of the month. His request could be an opportunity for the council to rethink its policy on shipping containers in the high-density residential zone, he said, suggesting the council could authorize use of such containers for three months at a time.

“Maybe in instances like this, where we have people like me that may need some kind of a dry storage type deal, to maybe look at doing the shipping container thing as quarterly,” he said.

Wilson suggested that a fee could be associated with the storage container permit, such as $100 for three months. “You should be paying the town an extra fee to have something like that,” he said.

The mayor agreed the topic is timely, suggesting the new trend of “pods” (portable on demand storage) may soon arrive in Sundance – though he questioned whether the service is a fad that will disappear in time. However, he said, thinking ahead to how the council wants to deal with them is not a bad idea.

“Sooner or later, someone is going to move to town with a pod,” he said.

Brooks noted that the council’s reluctance to allow shipping containers in the past has been partly due to aesthetics. Though the council has required they be made to look pleasing, he pointed out that what looks good to one person doesn’t necessarily suit the standards of another.

Clerk-Treasurer Kathy Lenz expressed that she, too, would appreciate guidance on storage containers because the city has seen past incidents in which “temporary” containers have remained in place for a considerable amount of time. It would be good to know the council’s will going forward, she said.

However, council members raised several sticking points with the idea of temporary permits. When the mayor called for the council to make a motion to express its will, there was a long pause before the discussion continued without a motion on the floor.

“We just sent a letter to a different resident that they couldn’t have one,” pointed out Council Member Jana McLean, referring to a nuisance letter requiring a shipping container be removed from a resident’s plot.

The mayor argued that the nuisance letter was associated with a container that was intended to be temporary but had been there for 2.5 years. It is indeed the case, he said, that the city has several instances where “temporary became permanent”.

Wilson stated that, according to his idea, a resident would need to come in every three or four months, re-apply, explain their plan for the storage container and pay the fee. If that policy had already been in place, he said, the nuisance may have been cleared up more quickly.

The council was cognizant that any decision made regarding Wilson’s request would set a precedent. “We can’t just say it’s ok for Joe and not for everyone else,” said Council Member Callie Hilty.

“The council can find one way for one person and another way for another depending on circumstances,” was the contrary opinion of the mayor.

City Attorney Mark Hughes raised an additional point: the city’s zoning code is a different beast to other ordinances and building permits. To the best of his recollection, he said, “Under the zoning ordinance, you can’t grant a variance without having some kind of public hearing.”

“I don’t know that you can allow something in the high-density residential area without advertising it,” he added.

Does the zoning code itself prohibit shipping containers in the high-density residential area? Copies of the zoning ordinance were distributed and, for several minutes, council members and city staff reviewed it for language that would shed light on the matter.

Language was found that does permit storage units in the highway business district but, as far as anyone could see, “the words ‘shipping container’ are not in our ordinance,” said Hilty. However, she added, the Land Use Planning Committee has historically not allowed large storage units in the residential area.

The mayor once again called for the council to put forth a motion. After several minutes, Hilty made the motion to allow shipping containers quarterly at a fee of $50 with the provision that the recipient must come before the council to obtain a renewal.

However, the motion was not immediately seconded. Council Member Brad Marchant expressed that he was unsure how to proceed; Hilty shared that her thoughts were on the precedent the council would be setting; and McLean reiterated that the public is likely to consider such a move unfair considering the recent nuisance letter.

On the latter point, Hilty echoed the earlier opinion of Wilson that the storage container in question had been in place for a much longer time. Police Chief Marty Noonan added that the storage container about which the nuisance letter was sent was sitting in the city right-of-way, not the person’s property.

Wilson added that, in his situation, he would assume a nuisance letter would be sent if he went beyond the allotted time. He was then reminded by Hughes that he should not contribute further to the discussion due to conflict of interest.

“We didn’t do our job,” said the mayor as he pointed out that what has happened in the past does not dictate what happens in the future. Storage containers that have become permanent have not been moved because the council has not followed through, he said, by placing restrictions to limit their use.

Whether the council solved the issue at the meeting or later, he added, “pod” storage is something the city is certain to deal with eventually.

“You guys can do this and then reverse yourself because it didn’t work,” he said. Setting a precedent does not mean following it forever, he commented – if it turns out that a decision was a mistake, it can be changed later.

Marchant raised the point that, at $50, the permit would be considerably cheaper than renting a storage unit, thus impacting at least one local business and making it an appealing idea for residents to simply haul in their own shipping container. The council felt that $100 would be more appropriate.

McLean stated that she feels, by allowing shipping containers, the council would create a situation where they appeared all over town. Wilson disagreed that there would be an “explosion of shipping containers”.

Hughes reminded the council that, if a variance was allowed to the zoning ordinance, notice must be given and a public meeting held. “What you’re saying is that you are not going to apply the zoning ordinance,” he explained.

Wilson questioned whether this would be necessary if the zoning ordinance does not specifically disallow them in the high-density residential area, before being reminded again by Hughes not to participate in the conversation.

The motion died for the lack of a second. No further action was taken on the matter.