Protecting industrial lands

[Plan-it]

I have been doing research on policies and regulations to protect areas that are designated as Industrial on our Future Development Map from non-industrial (residential) incursion. This has the impact of inceasing land values due to speculation and placing future residents and future/existing businesses in a potentially adversarial relationship.

I have noticed San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago have looked at this issue and have developed policies and programs to remediate the situation. Does anyone else done any research, policies, or programs that address this problem who would not mind sharing? Thanks!

[Mud Princess]

Try Baltimore, MD. The city apparently looked into this issue a few years ago, and a section of its comprehensive plan suggested an industrial mixed-use zone that would allow for carefully controlled commercial uses to support the industrial. I don't know if this was ever implemented, but it was an interesting concept.

[Cardinal]

Portland and Los Angeles are other communities that has gone through this exercise.

[Plan-it]

Thanks Cardinal and Mud Princess; I will take a look at those suggestions.

[B'lieve]

I'm not sure about the mixed-use zoning that Mud Princess mentioned, but there was an article in the Baltimore Sun maybe five weeks ago about an ordinance that protects a long section of the industrial waterfront from incursion, which was recently renewed with amendments. I don't clearly remember, but I believe the old version was stricter in the short term but was set to expire entirely around, I think, 2018. I think the new version loosens up a little now, but still offers partial protection after the current strict provisions expire. You'd have to check the Sun's archives online (www.baltimoresun.com, I think) to be sure, sometime in March. But definitely check out Baltimore's regs and plans, because as the inhabited waterfront neighborhoods (Canton, Locust Point in particular) grow more popular and populated, they're starting to encroach on the very valued Port, and debate and occasional action have gone on for some time.

[Richi]

I find the tendency to redevelop industrial land with port or rail access to be very short sighted. Fuel costs and congestion are really smacking industry now and some of the new industrial parks created in the hinterlands with only highway access are going to hurt in the coming years. Meanwhile industrial land in/near cities that once had rail access is being gentrified and the rail line pulled up or is now a "problem". Time will tell.

[pcjournal]

In Burlington, Vermont, we have adopted "symbolic zoning," meaning that our zoning district boundaries correspond to a visual image of the predominant use within the district.

In our Enterprise Zoning District (our principal industrial zone) we have adopted the image of a machine gun (I don't remember the exact make or model) to reflect the historical fact that one of the principal business within the district has long been the manufacturing of guns for military use -- including the historic gatling gun. Currently the largest business within our Enterprise District is General Dynamics Armament Products (click on their Locations link to see the Burlington facility).

The facility is often in the news. See a report, for example, from our local daily newspaper today.

Here are two maps from our comprehensive development ordinance (I added the inset photo as a comparison reference).

As you can tell, we want to send a clear message that we will defend our industrial zone from any change of use!

[sknebel]

The land use plans in Wichita-Sedgwick County, Kansas identify the area near McConnell Air Force Base as appropriate for industrial uses in order to prevent the encroachment of incompatible, primarily residential, uses around the base. The local governments here selected the process of unilaterally rezoning privately-owned property to an industrial zoning district to implement the land use plans.

[Hadrasaurus]

"Down zoning" and nuisance complaints are a problem here too. NJ has "Right to Farm" law. It has a formal conflict resolution procedure. It protects working farms from newbie neighbors using odor and other nuisance complaints driving away the existing farm they just planted their McMansion next to. I haven't heard of a "Right to Industry" law in NJ, but I would imagine the two could have some common features. For additional information on the "Right to Farm" program see http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/sadc/rtfprogram/

[urban sprawler]

The City of Toronto, as well as the province of Ontario (in Canada) have passed planning legislation which protects all industrial/employment lands from being rezoned to other uses, including big box retail which some of the larger land owners are trying to include as an employment use. The only way to convert old industrial land is through what is called a comprehensive employment land review which occurs every five years when the subject region or municipality updates its Official Plan. I work in land development and so far all applications have been denied. Only applications submitted before January 2006 when the policy came into force are dealt with. If a comprehensive review shows that there is an excess of designated employment land over a 20 year period than some conversions may be allowed. It is a controversial policy, but it works for Toronto where excessive amounts of old industrial lands have been converted into condominiums and degraded the amount of land for employment uses, as well as eroded the commercial tax base.

[DetroitPlanner]

wow, I never thought I would hear of this being a problem! We have the exact opposite problem, too much industrial!

[Plan-it]

It all depends on the part of the country you are in DP. Down here in the SE US, residential subdivisions are encroaching on industrial areas in a way that is detrimental to the growth of these areas. It creates the classic industrial residential conflict with nusiances, irritation, and a potential for handcuffing the industries. We are looking at revising Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinances to strengthern our ability to protect jobs-producing areas from turning residential.

[Doitnow!!]

In my city we are working on how to invigorate industrial estates which are now surrounded by all kind of urban sprawl.

Many industries have either slowed down or are no longer that productive. REal Estate values have grown tremendously. Management of machinery, large labour force is a head ache. So its better to get land us permission (mostly commercial) from the local authority and make the most of it. Almost all of it is private land and as the indsutrial development corporation developed the layout and sold the developed plots to sevaral industrialists decades ago. Only that it still has some planned open spaces which can be converted into public parks( as these lands still vest with the local body)

One of the relaxations which has been practiced in our city is widening of roads by taking private land and allowing the land losers commercial use. Thus without any compensation issues/payments the roads were widened and the properties abutting such roads (mostly arterial connections were upgraded) have now started getting commercial (mostly car showrooms, garages etc). Its a matter of time when many other industrial plots owners on the interior will want to go for real estate development and pack up the industry.
In our City the work force is getting more concentrated in the tertiary sector and manufacturing is slowing down. Therfore such industrial areas located in prime real estate have a gret potential for redevelopment, densification and for mixed use.

Therfore we are considering going for mixed use for industrial estates and creating new development and new image.


Our perspective!!

[sparklite]

Ontario, Canada, has a growth plan that has actually won the Daniel Burnham Award issued by the APA.

Part of the Plan protects "employment lands" from residential encroachment.

Take a look at the Plan here:
http://www.placestogrow.ca/images/pd...NG-WEB-ALL.pdf

Take a look at the Background Paper on Employment Lands: http://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php...d=84&Itemid=15

Hope this helps
~iain.

[Friend of Flavel]

Does anyone have ideas about protecting industrially zoned land from straight, over-the-counter retail uses not accessory to existing industrial uses? Building owner is friendly with the City Council and wants to open up a women's consignment shop in his industrial building (actually it's his wife that wants to open the store). I'm presenting the facts about it taking retail from our downtown, erosion of the industrial park, etc. but I'm curious if anyone has experience with this kind of request.

[Baltimore79]

I know Baltimore put strict restrictions on commercial and residential development on a lot of it's waterfront for I think 20 years to maintain it's deep water access. There was also a failed attempt to create an industrial corridor in Chicago's Clybourn Corridor in the 80's, the 25 year master plan that was approved was just ignored. While I was in construction I sent a lot of trucks to suppliers in different industrial parks and opening over the counter retail may pose a safety risk for shoppers if there is heavy truck traffic at this industrial park.

[JimPlans]

I did a presentation on this topic at the 2008 APA conference along with William Anderson of San Diego, Tom Hauger of Seattle, and Stephen Haase of Sudberry Properties (you can buy it from APA on CD-ROM if you like, though I get no kickbacks ), called Industrial Lands Debate: Protect or Reuse? My portion of the presentation was based on the work I did for Pinellas County in Florida, which is available at http://www.co.pinellas.fl.us/PPC/special/industrial.htm. Pinellas was getting its industrial lands nitpicked away one lot at a time and was worried about the future viability of their economy, so they commissioned a comprehensive land use and target industry study to predict future needs and find where current rules needed tweaking to meet them.

A large part of this study was to create rules for conversion from industrial land to other uses, which required a comprehensive review of the comprehensive plan and of all the County's existing policies on land use change. We mapped all of the industrial parcels in the County and looked for proximity to infrastructure and concentrations of industry. We also projected future land use needs to see when the County might run out of industrial lands, and touched on the economic issues surrounding the loss of industrial land and future economic growth. The end result was a study that identified important clusters of industrial land and the policy changes needed to protect them to allow future industrial growth.

As Pinellas County is essentially built out, there is (was?) a lot of pressure to convert lands, so this was an attempt to create a logical process for deciding what land to convert and not to convert that transcended politics as much as possible. Note that we also dicussed creating more mixed uses on industrial lands, creating density bonuses for target industries, and allowing more industrial-type accessory uses on non-industrial land.

We reviewed the Toronto plan mentioned above, as well as New York, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Sarasota County, FL, London, UK, and Washington, DC.

Has the study made an impact? Hard to say due to the economic downturn. But, it's good to know that they and others are taking the issue seriously.

[marius]

The City of Toronto, as well as the province of Ontario (in Canada) have passed planning legislation which protects all industrial/employment lands from being rezoned to other uses, including big box retail which some of the larger land owners are trying to include as an employment use. The only way to convert old industrial land is through what is called a comprehensive employment land review which occurs every five years when the subject region or municipality updates its Official Plan. I work in land development and so far all applications have been denied. Only applications submitted before January 2006 when the policy came into force are dealt with. If a comprehensive review shows that there is an excess of designated employment land over a 20 year period than some conversions may be allowed. It is a controversial policy, but it works for Toronto where excessive amounts of old industrial lands have been converted into condominiums and degraded the amount of land for employment uses, as well as eroded the commercial tax base.

Hi there where can I find official info on this?
Is there a planning report of government press release on this subject?
Thank you in advance.
Marius

[waterloowarrior]

marius, see this page

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1450.aspx

here's a staff report for the implementation for a city in Ontario (Waterloo)

[B'lieve]

If you're still working on this, Plan-it (and anyone else interested), what Baltimore has is a Maritime Industrial Zoning Overlay District that limits non-industrial development, and is set to expire I believe in 2014.
MIZOD Annual Report 2007
MIZOD ordinance

There is a City Council hearing tonight at 5 PM on a slow-moving bill to delay the sunset provision and allow opt-outs, and the Sunday before last an industrial association leader wrote an op-ed in the Sun calling for a more permanent protection measure without loopholes. (Apparently the bill being considered was written by a developer.) The City is doing a comprehensive zoning rewrite, so this issue is coming up well before the MIZOD expires, and a good thing, too.

[ScottDempwolf]

http://umcp.academia.edu/ScottDempwo...er_In_Practice