Responses to Chicago’s Urban Agriculture Zoning Proposal

Growing Home, Inc. via Urban Food Policy.

See “Chicago’s Urban Agriculture Zoning Proposal” by Nevin Cohen in Urban Food policy, Jan 6, 2011 and “A step forward for urban agriculture” by Harry Rhodes in The Chicago Tribune, Jan 12, 2011.

Excerpt from Nevin Cohen:

Treatment of Agriculture as an Interim Use

Another concern raised about Chicago’s proposed zoning ordinance changes is that urban agriculture projects that are meant to temporarily occupy vacant land slated for development would be disadvantaged by requirements for fencing and landscaping that apply to other businesses. Entrepreneurs throughout North America are experimenting with growing food in Earth Boxes, bags, and other mobile planters. A growing number of non-profit organizations would like to be able to farm sites on a temporary basis. Chicago’s own City Farm is designed to be relocated once the site it occupies is developed (although it has been in place for a decade).

Should cities favor this kind of activity instead of other temporary uses such as parking lots, gas stations, storage lockers, etc? If standards are in place to protect the character and environment of a neighborhood is there any justification for carving out an exemption for a food production site?

In San Francisco, city officials created an innovative strategy, called a Green Developer Agreement (GDA) to address so-called soft sites, parcels that developers have received approval to build on but that lay fallow due to the economy. The goal of the GDA program is to provide financial incentives for the temporary greening, beautification and/or conversion of vacant development sites by offering developers the opportunity to lock-in their existing entitlements for a 5-8 year period provided that they use the site for a green purpose, including urban agriculture. The binding nature of the agreement ensures that the interim use remains for the period prior to construction, and it also protects developers from losing control over the site if the interim use is so popular that residents attempt to scuttle the original approved development.

Excerpt from Harry Rhodes:

Of course, like all works in progress, some aspects of the new proposed law are controversial. Some people have expressed concern about size limitations for community gardens. This limitation will not affect most community gardens, which exist primarily for individual or community use. The City would define other community gardens that have multiple uses, including sale of produce, as “commercial gardens.”

The new zoning, on the other hand, will permit, but not put size limits on “commercial gardens” gardens, like Growing Home’s farm, where the purpose is to grow produce for sale.

Similarly, new rules on compost will restrict what community gardens are allowed to do, but only in such a way that brings them into line with already-passed city and state laws.

In other words, urban gardens won’t suffer under the new law; they just won’t be flying under the legal radar anymore.

And that’s a good thing. Recognizing the important contribution that urban agriculture can make in Chicago and setting up rules around how it should operate will make it easier to create urban farms, not more difficult.

See “Chicago’s Urban Agriculture Zoning Proposal” by Nevin Cohen in Urban Food policy, Jan 6, 2011 and “A step forward for urban agriculture” by Harry Rhodes in The Chicago Tribune, Jan 12, 2011.