HomeMy WebLinkAbouturban_ag_support_in_oshkoshUniversity of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Urban Agriculture
Proposal for the Oshkosh City Council
Brian McMillan, Kathryn Manion
Environmental Studies 490: Senior Seminar
Jim Feldman
6 December 2021
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1
Executive Summary 2
Background 4
Significance for Sustainability 5
Environmental 5
Pollination 5
Pests 8
Economic 8
Madison, WI 9
Detroit, MI 9
Social 10
Stakeholders 12
Jenn and Adam Sattler 13
Jacki and Justin Averkamp 13
Kelly Matthews 14
Michelle Schmid 14
Additional Note 14
Benchmarking 14
Appleton, WI 15
Milwaukee, WI 17
Detroit, MI 19
Permits 20
St. Paul, MN 20
Recommendations 21
Costs 22
Barriers 23
References 24
Appendices 27
2
Executive Summary
Section 30-71 of the City of Oshkosh Land Use Regulations states what types of land
uses and for which types of groups can be obtained as of peoples’ rights and which require
permits for. Specifically, according to section 30-76 (about agricultural land uses), a conditional
use permit is required for any kind of household (except for rural housing) to cultivate on
properties and for certain types of households to provide community and market gardens as well
as agricultural services. The conditional use permit is nearly $500 in the City of Oshkosh and
even then, different sections of the regulations have different rules for building structures,
conducting business, etc. However, urban farming retail will be the main focus due to the current
dilemma of two stakeholders, Jenn and Adam Sattler, who would like to grow and sell produce
on their urban orchard in their yard but aren’t able to do so, even with a permit.
Therefore, this report, in return, analyzes the sustainable benefits that urban agriculture
can have based on the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social.
Regarding the environmental impacts, when urban agriculture incorporates a diverse number of
plants, pollinators are strongly impacted. In addition, pest infestation and pest control have been
proven not to be major problems in urban agriculture. Small plots of urban farming practices
have been shown not to be a huge problem in attracting pests but even if pests were to become a
problem, there are a variety of effective pest management solutions towards reducing pest
problems. Regarding the economic implications, urban agriculture can also allow for greater
yields in crop production than industrial agriculture. It can also reduce food deserts by being
more accessible to the community with healthier and more affordable food options. In terms of
social factors, studies have shown that urban agriculture has had the greatest impacts on
low-income communities and has also benefited a diversity of people regarding race.
This report also highlights four stakeholders who were interviewed and who could be
significantly impacted by urban agriculture retail in Oshkosh. Jenn and Adam Sattler described
the plans they had for their urban orchard as well as why they thought it was crucial for the city
to allow them to grow and sell crops. Jacki and Justin Averkamp are neighbors of the Sattlers and
expressed concerns about parking but still claim that the city should be able to allow them to
grow and sell their produce. Kelly Matthews was the second president of the Oshkosh Food
Co-op and explained how the business became a success as well as shared the environmental and
economic aspects of it and also why she believes anyone in the city should be able to perform
urban agricultural practices. Lastly, Michelle Schmid is the manager of the Oshkosh Farmers
Market and she mentioned the types of vendors that the Oshkosh Farmers Market supports as
well as why she thinks urban agriculture retail in Oshkosh is crucial.
This report also analyzes benchmarking assessments of the city ordinances of Appleton,
Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Detroit, Michigan, and St. Paul, Minnesota. In both Appleton
and Detroit, certain types of urban farming plots have been defined for greater organization of
urban agricultural practices in those locations. The city ordinances of Milwaukee specified the
3
duration that urban agriculture retail should take place (from between 8a.m. and 8p.m. per every
day of retail but be limited to 180 days per year due to the limited growing season for crops).
Finally, the city codes of St. Paul, have indicated a special type of permit designated specifically
for urban agriculture. This is beneficial for urban farmers to adopt urban agricultural practices
(and can also provide more local vendors to grocery stores and other produce markets in the
city). Therefore, it is recommended that the city of Oshkosh should alter the codes to adopt those
amendments.
Thus, this report analyzes more specific information about the current situation occurring
between the Sattlers regarding urban agriculture, the sustainability implications of urban
agriculture, a few stakeholders who would be impacted by urban agriculture retail, and
benchmarking assessments of a few city ordinances and recommendations to the city of
Oshkosh. The costs associated with urban agriculture projects, and potential barriers to urban
agriculture are also briefly analyzed.
4
Background
The current situation here in Oshkosh, Wisconsin involves two residents who approached
the city with plans to start an urban orchard within the city limits on a residential plot. Jenn and
Adam Sattler desire to cultivate their 1 acre property at 2614 Harrison St. with the intentions of
producing cultivated crops for consumption as well as retail sales. There are currently no permits
that pertain to specifically urban agriculture which would require the residents to obtain a
conditional use permit to move forward with their plans. Their practices would then be guided by
the home occupation regulations which currently restrict certain practices of businesses
functioning at a residential home. One of these restrictions is the inability to sell produce on-site.
Through significant research into scientific research papers, interviews with stakeholders and
city planners as well as identifying similar city codes this paper will address four different
regulatory barriers that pertain to Oshkosh, WI.
1.On-site sales of produce grown on the property.
2.Public and community tours and other uses
3.City definitions and descriptions of urban agricultural use practices
4.Conditional/special use permit application costs
Currently on-site sales and distribution of produce on residential properties is not
permitted, online orders are permitted but customers are limited to two at a time. Haven spoke
with numerous different city planners throughout Wisconsin and currently there seems to be no
specific regulations in place that would restrict educational tours. As long as tours are free, they
aren't customers and it is limited to under 75 people it should be allowed. If tours or gatherings
exceed 75 people, a special permit would be required and it shall be limited to two events in a
calendar year.
Currently, within chapter 30 - Article III - Land Use Regulation of the Oshkosh city
municipal code, there are seven distinct definitions for varying practices within “Agricultural
Land Uses” (Section 30-76). A conditional use permit application costs $ 450 in Oshkosh,
Wisconsin. This report will further analyse other cities' costs in the “Benchmarking” section of
this paper.
5
Significance for Sustainability
In this section sustainability implications of urban agriculture will be addressed and
analyzed through several scientific studies and data. The following studies are related to
issues and implications that are relevant to Oshkosh, WI. As climate change continues to
remain as one of the most pressing issues moving forward, exploring alternative
strategies and practices for essential everyday functions is necessary. Agriculture has
connected humans for thousands of years and is becoming more essential everyday as
earth’s population continues to increase. Currently, industrial agriculture poses numerous
concerns regarding land use, fossil fuel use, accumulation of food-miles and much more
(Massy, 2021). Urban agriculture in its roots is not a new concept, however dealing with
the scale and complexities of modern cities makes it a new and difficult challenge to
tackle.
Urban agriculture can be defined as production (beyond that which is strictly for home
consumption or educational purposes), distribution and marketing of food and other
products within the cores of metropolitan areas and at their edges. Within this definition,
urban agriculture contains many distinct practices that vary greatly. Each of these unique
practices will have varying degrees of effect to which they impact the environment,
society and the economy. Addressing the overall sustainability implications regarding a
specific practice of urban agriculture is important to ensure a healthy urban environment
as well as understanding the possible benefits and negative impacts it may have for the
many people within its surrounding community.
Environmental :
Because urban agriculture has been framed as a more environmentally friendly method of
agriculture, it is important to understand why and if the claims are true. The biggest issues in
industrial agriculture are those of land-use, fossil fuel consumption, water use and several more.
Urban agriculture addresses some of these issues with alternative strategies that are more
beneficial for the environment. With urban agriculture occurring within a metropolitan area the
limitation and regulation will need to be addressed accordingly (Massy, 2021).
https://www.oshkoshwi.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1077694&dbid=0&repo=Laserfiche&
searchid=71ef7b99-af28-4b52-943a-df6f7b0ec3e5
6
Pollination :
To examine the potential environmental impact urban agriculture has on pollinator health in
cities, we can compare the different impacts that urban lawns and lots have vs urban farms.
Urban farms and gardens are often a result of cities or residents attempting to revitalize
neighborhoods and communities by transforming vacant lots or lawns into urban farms. While
the effects of urban agriculture are still not fully understood, the negative impacts that barren
lawns and concrete lots have on the environment are, especially when addressing pollinators in
metropolitan areas. Very little plant diversity and non permeable surfaces make these areas dead
zones for pollinators. Urban agriculture can create more effective management strategies for
cities in their efforts to become more sustainable and revitalize both the environment and
community pride.
In a 2019 study from Iowa, Zhao and co. use detailed land cover data and pollination models to
examine the supply and demand relationship between urban ecosystems and urban agriculture
within Iowa City limits. Surpluses of supply were found in natural areas and heavily-vegetated
residential neighborhoods (highest supply found in small patches of native plants), whereas
deficits were found to occur in resource-poor lawns and lots. Therefore it is critical to integrate
the design and management of private residential gardens and urban agriculture into city-wide
pollinator conservation strategies (Zhao, 2019).
7
Figure 1 :
This figure shows two different distribution maps of Iowa City. The left map shows the supply
demand budget available to pollinators, where dark red represents the highest deficit in the
budget and dark blue represents the highest surplus in the budget. The distribution map on the
right shows the distribution of residential gardens, community gardens, urban farms and similar
practices.
While we see a trend between distribution of urban gardens and farms and large deficits in the
budget, this is due to these practices existing within the most densely populated areas of Iowa
City. On a micro scale we see that small patches of native plants had some of the healthiest
available supply for pollinators. Therefore producing a wide variety of native and non-native
crops in an urban agriculture setting would surely serve as a more environmentally friendly and
efficient strategy to ensure healthy pollinators within an urban setting, as more available
vegetation for pollinators is greatly needed in dense urban areas (Zhao, 2019).
8
Pests :
Research makes it clear that pests species are unlikely to become a problem in communities as a
result of urban agricultural practices. Because urban farms are typically smaller scale and are
located in closer proximity to other residential homes and properties, the potential for cultivation
to draw in pests is important to think about.Brassica crops are commonly planted crops here in
Wisconsin, plants typically used for produce include : bok choy, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage,
choy sum, kohlrabi, napa cabbage, rutabaga, turnip and some seeds used in the production of
canola oil and the condiment mustard.
In a study (2018) conducted in Chicago, IL from Urban Ecosystems, Lowenstein and co.
determine the potential for pest outbreaks at three different sites: residential gardens, community
gardens, and urban farms. Herbivorous arthropods and their natural enemies were the focus of
this study. Cabbage worms and Sap feeding aphids were monitored throughout a six month
period. Predators were recorded using yellow sticky cards and consisted of lady beetles
(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), minute pirate bugs (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), predatory wasps
(Hymenoptera: Vespidae, Crabronidae), hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae), long-legged fli es
(Diptera: Dolichopodidae), and lacewings (Neuroptera). They concluded that arthropod natural
predators were abundant across all three sites, this suggests that urban agriculture may be a
beneficial habitat that could potentially support regulating ecosystem service like biological
control. Because a surrounding community would most likely not welcome swarms of pests,
learning how a city farm may deal with this issue is key to gauging the environmental and social
impacts it may have on a neighborhood or city (Lowenstein, 2018).
While it is still unclear the number of Brassica crops planned to be cultivated on the proposed
plot at 2614 Harrison Street, it still serves as a useful study for how regulating ecosystems can
occur in an urban agricultural setting. It also serves as a useful study for understanding pest
suppression in future proposals of urban farms as these crops tend to be quite popular in
Wisconsin.
Economic :
One of the incentives of urban agriculture is the potential to supply healthy local food that
supports the economy. With larger cities the result has been segregated communities often with
little availability of healthy food options. Currently urban agriculture does not significantly
contribute to overall food security and does not significantly contribute to economic growth
within a city. However, there is potential for eliminating food deserts and can offer some
economic improvements within a community.
Madison, WI
A study from Madison, WI (2017) analyzes CFP (Community Food Production) within the city
and productive output of these gardens in terms of weight, gross and net market value, and
9
caloric value was determined through test plots tended by citizen scientists and used to estimate
the absolute and relative contribution of CFP in Madison. The urban agricultural practices
considered in this study were those of community gardens, residential gardens as well as urban
farms. Overall The 48,184 gardens in the Madison Urban Area contributed a gross agricultural
product of US $9.4 million in 2010. CFP amounts to .08 percent of the total food needs in terms
of dollars or .14 percent of total caloric need (Smith, 2014).
Within the city of Madison it is clear from this study that CFP does not substantially contribute
to food security. Improved methods and techniques as well as more research is required to
maximize effectiveness of CFP. It is worth noting that urban gardens that do provide potential
benefits as caloric contribution per unit were beneficial to local areas. It is also worth noting that
a case study, “The Contribution of Small-Scale Food Production in Urban Areas to the
Sustainable Development Goals: A Review and Case Study” examined 17 sustainable
development goals set by the United Nations General Assembly as a framework for impacts of
urban agriculture. The data found and examined show that small-scale urban agriculture tends to
have similar or higher yields than industrial agriculture, uses less synthetic inputs and products
are typically consumed locally. Currently the impacts of urban agriculture are still less
understood than those of industrial agriculture. With available data showing similar yields more
comprehensive studies must be conducted to understand urban agriculture's full potential to food
production.
Figure 1 :
This graph illustrates some of the economic and social complexities associated with urban
agriculture. On the Y axis we have the number of gardens and urban farms and on the X axis we
have household median income. As income increases we see a similar rise in the presence of
urban gardens.
10
Detroit, MI
Urban agriculture also has the potential of eliminating food deserts - areas that have little to no
access to fresh, affordable food. A study was conducted in Detroit, Michigan, that demonstrated
the impact that urban agriculture had on Detroit. A well-known business known as Farmer Jack
started up in several different areas in the city of Detroit in the 1960s. It provided fresh and
affordable food to everyone in the nearby communities. However, in the 1990s and 2000s, bigger
stores such as K-Mart, Meijer, and Walmart started to grow in the city and outcompeted Farmer
Jack (“D-Town Farm”). The food at these places wasn’t as affordable to residents in the area as
the produce from Farmer Jack was. Thus, when the last Farmer Jack store was forced to shut
down in 2007, many people in the area were only able to afford more unhealthy sources of food
so that much of Detroit was in a food desert for a while (Hashim, 2015).
However, after nearly a decade, an urban market called “D-Town” started growing in the city. It
was an alternative to what the bigger stores that had been expanding into town were providing
except that the produce was home-grown on the markets’ own private plots of land and it was
cheap enough for most of the residents to afford. Thus, this example of urban farming reduced
the number of food deserts that had existed in Detroit and even particularly benefited the
African-American community who took up a large portion of the low-income population of
Detroit. Thus, urban agriculture definitely has been demonstrated to eliminate food deserts by
providing more affordable and healthier food as well as even benefit the low-income and
African-American communities the most.
Social :
Because urban agriculture focuses on providing local food, community and social implications
are a much larger point of emphasis than typical industrial agriculture. Urban agriculture has the
potential to create tightly knit communities as well as instill a sense of pride within a
neighborhood. Human connection now is as important as ever, and knowing where and from
whom your produce is coming from has the potential to create stronger connections between
neighbors, community members, and many others. Similar to the many environmental and
economic implications of urban agriculture, the social implications are still widely unknown and
understudied. With scientific data available and economic growth measured through food
production these factors can be reasonably analysed through studies and experiments, while
human connection and feelings can be a much more complicated issue to understand. Urban
farms operate for a number of different reasons and encompass a wide variety of sustainable
goals. Attempting to understand the main reasons for urban agriculture can help create proper
framework for city policies.
Here we are examining a study from Emerald Insights that aims to identify what value urban
farms placed on social goals. Typically urban farms place a priority in market-orientated
operations, as owners often start these practices with the intent of making a living off it. The
study found through a detailed survey of over 300 urban farms across the US that included over
30 questions regarding their practice that, the primary reasons farmers give for producing in
urban areas include three with social aspects, incorporating education about food and/or
11
agriculture, community building, and increasing food security, and one that focuses on producing
food for the market. The results are shown below.
Approximately two-thirds of the individuals practicing urban agriculture answering the survey
have expressed an emphasis in one or more social goals. We can conclude that there are
numerous similarities between farms that have similar social goals, such as : farm sales; use of
organic production method; location in dense urban areas; and years the farms have been in
business. The study found that farms with missions of improving the quality of life are more
likely to be located in lower income neighborhoods and donate a higher share of their
production, as well as are less likely to own land, compared to market-oriented farms.
Identifying the different values of these urban farms, where they are located and their scale are
all important factors in understanding what social benefits they will bring to a city and
community (Dimitir, 2016).
Eliminating food deserts and contributing to food security creates a connection between
economic goals and social goals. With the newly constructed Oshkosh Food Co-op off of
Jackson St. many local businesses have applied to distribute produce through the Co-op. The
location is important because that area had been a food desert for many college students who
may not have had access to transportation and therefore healthy, fresh food options. Urban farms
have the potential to contribute to the elimination of this food desert in Oshkosh even if they are
not located in a food desert themselves (Interview - Kelly Matthews).
The proposed plot also desires to offer educational tours for students, community members and
any interested. Offering the public and especially the youth a chance to mingle and learn about
home cultivation of crops could lead to more sustainable food habits in Oshkosh in the future.
Finally it should be understood that while we identified these fundamental components of
sustainability separately in three categories; environmental, economic and social, they are all
deeply connected and affect each other in many ways. There are numerous more sustainable
12
impacts urban agriculture can have on a city, identifying and examining them all would take a
great deal of time and effort. But having distinct definitions and strong understandings of the
different practices and what major impacts they could potentially have on a city is manageable.
We believe these issues covered are some of the more important and prominent impacts that the
proposed Oshkosh plot would have on the city. More research will be required but this will serve
as a starting point to further evaluate the current city code, and especially the sustainability
implications related to urban agriculture and create a framework for updated code that allows the
city and its residents to build healthier and more sustainable infrastructure in Oshkosh, WI.
Stakeholders
Jenn and Adam Sattler
Residents of Oshkosh working towards having their own urban agriculture plot
Jenn and Adam are two residents of Oshkosh who have established their own urban
orchard in their yard and have been growing produce on it for 3 years now. They have a wide
variety of fruits and vegetables that they grow in their backyard and have adapted certain
strategies such as installing a thin path that is slightly indented in the ground to help drain water
when it rains and prevent the plants from being flooded and even putting logs under the soil of
some plants to discourage excessive water intake. Their goal is to be able to sell their produce as
well as be able to bring groups of people and give them a tour.
The current city codes require them to obtain a permit for $450 but then prohibit the sales
and growth of their produce on their property despite having a permit. They claimed that they
would just like to help out the community in a sustainable way and would also like to create
profit to expand on the projects of their orchard. Their neighbors have talked about parking
concerns that they would have if Jenn and Adam were to be able to sell their produce but the
Sattlers have agreed to create signs or barriers along the borders of their yard to signal to
customers of where they should park. With this agreement, a couple of the neighbors still support
the idea of urban agriculture.
In the end, Jenn and Adam still seem uncertain why the city codes would prevent them
from selling produce with a permit. They had many different creative ideas for the way they set
up the orchard such as putting cans on some of the younger trees with a special type of substance
to scare away the deer and even having special methods to keep the topsoil full of nutrients so
that the plants could grow. They even had plans for setting up fences or some type of barrier
along the borders of their yard and the neighbors’ yards and have their yard organized with
certain types of crops in given sections. Thus, with all their organization and preparation for
growing produce and doing sales, they claim the city should allow them to do retail once they get
a permit.
Jacki and Justin Averkamp
Neighbors of Jenn and Adam Sattler
13
Despite not establishing their own personal urban farm in their yard, these individuals are
very supportive of urban agriculture. In an interview, they said they weren’t sure why the city has
to have so many obstacles for people like Jenn and Adam to perform urban agriculture and also
said they would be willing to purchase from their neighbors if they ever were able to sell their
own produce. Currently, they get their own groceries from Pick N’ Save which, in one way,
forces them to commute to the store and in another way, means that they’re supporting non-local
partners (considering that Pick N’ Save gets its produce from the Kroger Company, located in
Cincinnati, Ohio). Therefore, for the main purpose of close proximity but also with a lower
carbon footprint, the neighbors would be very supportive of their neighbor ’s orchard.
Kelly Matthews
Second President of the Oshkosh Food Co-op
After taking over the president seat of the Oshkosh Food Co-op from Bridget Weber (a
UWO student who came up with the idea and was the co-ops first president), she is a strong
supporter of urban agriculture. Considering that the co-op strives to have as many local vendors
as possible to function as a sustainable business, Kelly Matthews is confident that the Oshkosh
Food Co-op would be supportive of urban agriculture businesses that would thrive if the city of
Oshkosh would allow for urban agriculture to more easily grow (and having vendors that are
even closer than the current ones would enhance the co-ops goal of supporting completely local
businesses). Also, understanding that, because the food co-op received very little financial
support from the City of Oshkosh in its startup, the city altering some of its municipal code could
especially be more useful for all types of sustainable businesses in the future.
Kelly Matthews, therefore, is unsure why the city codes would prevent the retail of urban
farming businesses in Oshkosh. She potentially thought that perhaps some vendors of certain
food businesses could be hurt if more people in Oshkosh pursued urban agriculture and then
more grocery businesses in the area would support those local vendors. However, because a food
co-op’s goal is to support local vendors, she claimed that none of the vendors at the Oshkosh
Food Co-op, specifically, would be harmed. Despite this potential thought, though, she believes
that the city should be open to urban agriculture, especially with a costly permit.
Michelle Schmid
Manager of the Oshkosh Farmers Market
Michelle Schmid is very knowledgeable about urban agriculture. The Oshkosh Farmers
Market doesn’t have its own produce that it grows and sells itself but the market focuses on all
types of peri-urban and urban farm vendors within the state. Although they aren’t very focused
on providing support particularly for urban farms, they are willing to help with any farmer ’s
business as long as he/she is in Wisconsin. The Oshkosh Farmers Market also works with other
farmers markets around the state, some of whom (such as Stevens Point and Madison) require
that their vendors be within 30 miles of the municipality.
14
In terms of cooperation with Oshkosh’s City Council, Schmid did mention how the city
does tell the farmers market what certain things the market is and isn’t allowed to do, but added
that the farmers market and the city work well together. She did, however, seem to be surprised
to hear how the city is making the implementation of urban agriculture so difficult and said that
anyone who would like to have an urban farm and grow and sell produce on it should be able to
do so. She also doesn’t understand why the city prohibits urban agricultural retail when urban
agriculture can provide so many environmental and economic benefits.
**Additional Note**
We reached out to the Sattler ’s other neighbors but they declined to answer questions due to
current health issues within their family. Jenn had mentioned they had concerns about an
increase in traffic flow as a result of the farm but that was their only major concern.
Benchmarking
Benchmarking in this case is extremely important as we want to identify other examples, ideally
from Wisconsin that addressed similar barriers in place here in Oshkosh. Identifying other cities
and how they have dealt with these regulatory barriers can help Oshkosh create the most
effective, efficient and sustainable changes within the current municipal code.
Appleton, WI
https://www.appleton.org/home/showdocument?id=482
https://www.appleton.org/home/showdocument?id=24290&t=637695648843811876
Appleton is an excellent example of a city that has allowed urban agriculture practitioners to
operate with more freedom. On-site retail sales allows for residents to function with less
restrictions and makes creating income more accessible to those that may not have alternative
options for selling produce. Appleton’s farmers market is quite large and successful so securing a
spot may be difficult or expensive to some. Similarly in Oshkosh, some residents may not have
that opportunity and allowing on-site sales would create more inclusive communities and offer
fresh, healthy produce for residents of the city who may not be able to travel to farmers markets
or those who live in food deserts. In Appleton’s case they have a special use permit which
functions in a very similar way a conditional use permit would. Below are excerpts from a plan
commission meeting which addressed definitions of urban agriculture and adopted different
regulations accordingly. This information was attained through communications with David
Kress, a principal planner in Appleton, Wisconsin. Appleton remains our best example of similar
code changes occurring. Located only fifteen miles North of Oshkosh, a very similar population
size with a university as well, what works in Appleton should theoretically work in Oshkosh
(Kress, David. “Appleton Municipal Code.” 15 Nov. 2021).
15
16
This is a small portion of a report from a 2012 Plan Commission meeting. Related text
amendments were presented at this meeting and ultimately approved by the Common Council on
May 16, 2012. Some of these Zoning Ordinance sections have been updated slightly since 2012,
but the report does a good job capturing the topic in one document. The listing of zoning
districts on page 6 of the report is still accurate.
Also, as stated in Sec. 23-66(h)(17), please note that these Zoning Ordinance standards and
requirements are intended to work in concert with other applicable Municipal Codes including,
but not limited to, Chapter 3 Animals, Chapter 4 Building, Chapter 7 Health, Chapter 9,
Licenses, Permits, and Chapter 21 Vegetation, and any other applicable Appleton Municipal
Code Chapter. These and any other applicable local, state, and federal regulations shall also
apply.
The current situation in Oshkosh would fall under the Urban Farm definition. In the Sattler ’s
situation,both the single-family dwelling and urban farm could occur on the same property, if
the subject property were zoned R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, or R-3. In these zoning districts, a
single-family dwelling is a principal permitted use, and an urban farm is a special use (allowed if
a Special Use Permit is expressly authorized by Common Council). It also specifies that public
use of a residential property with an operating business would be enforced in the same manner in
which the retail sales are regulated.
Having communicated with David Kress, no known issues have arisen as a direct result of these
amendments. The major concern among cities with allowing retail sales of produce on-site is
parking and traffic. This was also a concern expressed by one of Jenn and Adam Satler ’s
neighbors. Due to health concerns we were unable to discuss this concern in further detail,
however we believe that the 2614 Harrison St. property which is located near industrial zones
17
would not experience significant changes in traffic flow as a result of our recommended
amendments.
Milwaukee, WI
https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/Urban-Agriculture/pdfs/MilwaukeeCo
deAudit_acknowledge.pdf
https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/ccClerk/Ordinances/Volume-2/CH295-sub5.pdf
Understanding how Milwaukee, WI has approached and managed urban agriculture could
be quite beneficial to tackle similar barriers and regulatory issues in Oshkosh. Milwaukee
remains as one of the most segregated cities in America, often communities of low-income and
color do not have convenient access to fresh and healthy food. Urban agriculture has been
presented as a potential solution to some of these issues. For these reasons Milwaukee remains as
a location where urban agriculture is both widely incentivised and practiced. Besides allowing
on-site retail sales up to 180 days in a calendar year, Milwaukee also conducted an EPA initiated
urban agricultural audit in an attempt to identify regulatory barriers within the current municipal
code.
The Milwaukee urban agricultural code audit analyses a number of different sections within the
city code and makes recommendations on potential improvements moving forward. The purpose
of the audit is to identify, for city staff, areas of the code that may: (1) need clarification of
existing code language, (2) present potential barriers to the practice or expansion of urban
agriculture, or (3) warrant expansion to include explicit support for and regulation of urban
agriculture uses. The document also offers a review of best practices from sixteen other cities
and states that is intended to provide ideas for further development of Milwaukee’s Building and
Zoning Code.
18
This section of the Milwaukee urban agricultural code audit addresses the current state of
regulations for sales on residential properties. As we understand it on-site sales are currently
allowed through the special use permit by setting up seasonal markets up to 180 days per year.
The following two excerpts come from the section mentioned above, Section 295-503 of the
Milwaukee city code.
These regulations further guide what is and is not allowed on residential properties in
Milwaukee. Hypothetically if the situation in Oshkosh were to occur in Milwaukee the property
and practice would be considered a commercial farming enterprise which requires a special use
permit.
Detroit, MI
https://library.municode.com/mi/detroit/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIVDECO_CH20
HE
https://web.archive.org/web/20120106222532/http://www.georgiaorganics.org/Advocacy/urbana
greport.pdf
19
Similar to Appleton and several other cities, they have distinct definitions for the different
practices of urban agriculture. Currently, Detroit has fifteen different definitions of a wide variety
of different cultivation practices. With unique definitions it is easier to further guide what these
unique practices will and will not allow within the city’s code. In Detroit anything over an acre
shall be considered an urban farm while properties consisting of one acre or less shall be
considered urban gardens. The situation in Oshkosh could potentially fall under both an urban
garden or an orchard as the property is one acre but will have more than ten fruit-bearing trees.
However, having more detailed definitions in place will surely create a better foundation moving
forward for regulations that will follow.
In Detroit, sales of produce grown on the property are allowed as an accessory use at a farm
stand on the property according to sec. 61-12-327.
20
Permits
Whether urban agriculture practitioners are required to obtain a conditional use, special use or
urban agriculture use permit, thorough inspections are necessary to evaluate the circumstances.
Creating separate permits for specific practices should theoretically improve not only the
accessibility of residents to understand and apply for these permits but also creating an easier
process for city planners and inspectors. With Oshkosh now allowing urban beekeeping, chicken
keeping as well as adopting a specific permit for solar panels which previously required a CUP,
there has been a shift to more progressive and sustainable municipal code (Interview - Bradley
Spanbauer). With these changes in place, now is as good a time as ever before to separate urban
agriculture use into its own permit.
Conditional use permit / special use permit - Application costs
Oshkosh, WI - $450
Milwaukee, WI - $250
Platteville, WI - $200
Detroit, MI - $160
Madison, WI - $495
Green Bay, WI - $300
https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Safety%20%26%20Inspections/dsi.zoning.Urba
n_Agriculture_App_v2019.pdf
The city of St. Paul is a helpful example of a city with a more progressive system of municipal
code in place. Having a specific permit designated for strictly urban agricultural use is a
beneficial change in city code. The cost is $32, including a $16 soil test through the University of
Minnesota. If a demand for urban agriculture continues to grow, having a specific permit
dedicated to strictly urban cultivation could prove to be extremely beneficial for both residents
interested in practicing as well as city employees dealing with permits. Currently this application
requires urban agriculture to be considered the principal use of the property while remaining
under one acre in size. Adopting a permit such as this could be potentially beneficial in the
future, full permit application in the appendix.
21
Recommendations
Therefore, given the information in the Benchmarking section of this paper, we
recommend consideration of the following amendments to be taken regarding the City of
Oshkosh codes:
1)A revisement of urban agricultural definitions as well as the conditional use permit
This would allow for organization of different types of urban agriculture such as for
urban orchards, community gardens, residential farms, etc. This would also make it
simpler to specify certain requirements of each type of urban agriculture, which would
also, therefore, be altered in the city codes. Defining different urban agriculture plots by
size would also make it more likely to assign lower permit costs per acre of land (see
number 3).
2)A specific time duration for urban farm retail to occur for 12 hours a day for 6 months
This would allow for retail sales of plants and produce grown on-site and other public
uses of the urban farm to occur between the hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm every day of
the week. It would also be limited to 180 days in a calendar year due to the growing
season of the crops, unless specifically stipulated in the CUP.
3)A specific permit be created for urban agricultural practices for properties under 1 acre
zoned residential and non-residential with similar regulations to that of the amended
CUP.
Even if a small-scaled plot were to exist, assigning a specific permit for any piece of
urban agricultural land under 1 acre would encourage more local urban farmers to grow
their own produce and sell it to the public. This could also, therefore, provide certain
businesses in Oshkosh, such as the Oshkosh Food Co-op and the Oshkosh Farmers
Market, more local vendors.
4)A full review of the costs associated with the conditional use permit application process
and adjusting the cost accordingly.
This would encourage more community members to partake in urban agriculture. This,
then, would allow for more sustainable agricultural practices to be performed as well as
provide individuals and groups to benefit economically from sales and expand their
22
impact.
Costs
For a project of this extent, costs would likely be relatively minimal. With city municipal
code and zoning ordinances already in place the primary costs to consider would be those of
wages paid to city employees working to adopt these particular amendments. Time, effort and
wages of employees who may research further into code as well as sustainability implications of
urban agriculture would need to be considered as well. Carefully considering all possible effects
these changes in city code may have is extremely important. As noted this report highlights many
of these effects with the positives greatly outweighing the current system in place. If a new urban
agricultural use permit were to be created the same costs would need to be considered when
organizing and creating said permit. More significant costs may occur if a similar action to that
of the Milwaukee urban agriculture audit were implemented. This would likely require outside
employment and more in-depth research. These initial costs could potentially alleviate work,
stress and costs when posed with similar situations in the future.
23
Barriers
As seen with the Sattlers’ neighbors, parking could often be a major concern for private
urban farmers. Because customers may not always be sure of where exactly to park and will take
advantage of any nearby space they find, preparation for displaying clear messages to customers
about where they can and can’t park would be very crucial. In addition, although customers
should be signaled to only park in the retailer ’s driveway (if permitted), contacting all the
neighbors, landlords, businesses, and other individuals or groups in the surrounding area who
could be largely impacted by parking concerns, and ensuring that they are satisfied with any
compromises regarding parking, such as with signs, fences, or other solutions, would ease the
problem.
Another barrier could be with pests. As noted in the “Significance for Sustainability”
section, pests are generally not a problem for smaller urban farming plots. However, they could
be more of a concern for larger-scale urban farming practices. In one study comparing the effects
of different types of pests on different sizes of urban farming plots, it was mentioned that
larger-scale urban agriculture tends to attract more parasitoids (organisms that kill their hosts by
living inside or on top of them) while smaller-scale urban agriculture attracts more predators
(Arnold et al., 2019). This could be a threat to the ecology of the land as well as be a potential
threat to the crops. However, conservation biological control (CBC) methods can be used to
eliminate their threat. Particularly for larger plots, using natural vegetation, a diversity of plants
around the exteriors of the plot as well as using a non-crop land have been proven to be most
successful with the reduction of pests on large-scale plots (Arnold et al., 2019). As for
smaller-scale plots, the reduction of predators, which would increase the number of insects,
growing natural perennials as well as performing crop rotations would likely be the most
effective with pest control (Arnold et al., 2019).
24
References
Arnold et al. 2019. “Local and Landscape Effects to Biological Controls in Urban Agriculture -
A Review.”Insects (2075-4450).Vol. 10, no. 7, p.215.
“Chapter 30 - Article III - Land Use Regulations.”The Official City of Oshkosh Website,
rfiche&searchid=71ef7b99-af28-4b52-943a-df6f7b0ec3e5.
City of St. Paul.
https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Safety%20%26%20Inspections
/dsi.zoning.Urban_Agriculture_App_v2019.pdf.
Conditional Use Permit Application.
https://plandev.countyofdane.com/documents/pdf/Zoning-Forms/Conditional-Use-Permit
-Application-Revised-3-18-20.pdf.
Dimitri, Carolyn, et al. “Urban Agriculture: Connecting Producers with Consumers.”NYU
Scholars, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., 5 May 2016,
https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/urban-agriculture-connecting-producers-with
-consumers-2.
Hashim, N. (2015). “Reversing Food Desertification: Examining Urban Farming in Louisville,
Chicago and Detroit.”Local Environment.Vol. 20,no. 6, pp. 611-636.
Keep Growing Detroit.
http://detroitagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2013_Sharable_UA-Ordinance.pdf.
https://www.oshkoshwi.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1077694&dbid=0&repo=Lase
25
Kress, David. “Appleton Municipal Code.” 15 Nov. 2021.
Lowenstein, David M., and Emily S. Minor. “Herbivores and Natural Enemies of Brassica Crops
in Urban Agriculture.”Urban Ecosystems, vol. 21,no. 3, 2018, pp. 519–529.
Massy, Charles. “Agriculture, the Anthropocene and Human Health.”Wiley Online Library, John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 18 Nov. 2021, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpc.15683.
(n.d.).D-Town Farm.Retrieved December 4th, 2021 at from https://www.d-townfarm.com/.
Nielsen , Brandon. “Oshkosh Municipal Code.” 20 Nov. 2021.
Nicholls, Elizabeth, et al. “The Contribution of Small-Scale Food Production in Urban Areas to
the Sustainable Development Goals: A Review and Case Study.”Sustainability Science,
vol. 15, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1585–1599.
“REPORT OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION Meeting of April 23, 2012.”Chapter 23
Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Urban Farms, Community Gardens and Home Gardens
, 23 Apr. 2012.
Smith, Vincent, and John Harrington. “Community Food Production as Food Security: Resource
and Economic Valuation in Madison, Wisconsin (USA).”Journal of Agriculture, Food
Systems, and Community Development, 2014, pp. 1–20.
Spanbauer, Bradley. “Solar Panel Permits.” 15 Dec. 2021.
“Suppliers.”The Kroger Co., 12 Nov. 2021, https://www.thekrogerco.com/vendors-suppliers/.
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. “What Is Urban
Agriculture?”Urban Agriculture,
https://ucanr.edu/sites/UrbanAg/What_is_Urban_Agriculture/.
Urban Agriculture Code Audit - City of Milwaukee .
https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/Urban-Agriculture/pdfs/Milw
aukeeCodeAudit_acknowledge.pdf.
26
Zhao, Chang, et al. “Wild Bees and Urban Agriculture: Assessing Pollinator Supply and Demand
across Urban Landscapes.”Urban Ecosystems, vol. 22,no. 3, 2019, pp. 455–470.
Zoning - Appleton.org.
https://www.appleton.org/home/showdocument?id=24290&t=637695648843811876.
Zoning 295-501 Subchapter 5 ... - City of Milwaukee.
https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/ccClerk/Ordinances/Volume-2/CH295-s
ub5.pdf.
“Zoning.”Dane County Zoning Division | Dane County Planning & Development,
https://plandev.countyofdane.com/zoning.
Appendices
27
Appendix A
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Appendix B
38
39