Public Comment
Article III Zoning Districts, Chart of Permitted Uses for Downtown Waterfront Zone
From: The Government Street Collaborative
Member Groups: Member Oakleigh Historic Garden Society, ODWA, Leinkauf
Historic District Neighborhood Organization, Midtown Mobile Movement, Flo Claire
Neighborhood Assoc., Lafayette Street Assoc., Church Street East, Lower
Dauphin members, The Loop Group Community Action
Our interest is in the protection and redevelopment of Government Street as
an appealing, memorable, and functional gateway into downtown and to the
water’s edge for Mobilians and for visitors.
With that interest in mind, the Collaborative asks:
1. Which of the industries listed on the Chart of PermiMed Uses as
permitted by right in the DW zone or within 1/2 mile of private
residences or schools or public gathering places, will handle or store
materials classified as hazardous, toxic, corrosive, flammable, explosive,
or present risks such as fugitive emissions and other pollutants,
according to standard classification systems such as those provided by
EPA or National FireCodes?
Should the city classify the manufacturing, handling, or storage of
these materials in a separate classification of Industry, or designate
those developments as Planned Developments which must be
negotiated based on the unique characteristics of each?
It should be noted that the proposed Chart of Uses 64-27 is far
more permissive than the existing Chart of Uses, where materials are
defined as hazardous if they are “ A substance is considered hazardous
when it has one of the following characteristics: flammable, explosive,
corrosive, toxic, radioactive, or if it readily decomposes into oxygen at
elevated temperatures.” Hazardous substances currently are not
permitted by right in any zone. Further, most chemicals and petroleum
products are not permitted by right in any zone for handling, refining,
manufacturing, or bulk storage. How will the new Ordinance ensure
zoning that offers at least equivalent (if not improved) protections of
health, safety, and general welfare of citizens under the state law
allowing zoning as a municipal power?
2. How will the new DW zoning and its Uses permitted by right align
with Map for Mobile? The Mobile public is proud of its Maritime
heritage and its waterways, and we want a downtown waterfront that
honors our history and returns to us a waterfront where people are
connected to those waters in daily life, while the work of the waterfront
is carried on. The two are not mutually exclusive, but do call for exactly
the kind of regulation that Zoning is intended to accomplish. All work of
the waterfront is not of equivalent impact, and where that work
requires the handling, processing, manufacture, or storage of materials
with the greatest potential for impacts on the health, safety, and general
welfare of the public, Zoning should address that. How do progressive
municipalities balance manufacturing deemed positive in a risk/benefit
analysis (such as Austal) with more intense uses? Is there a model that
could address these issues in Mobile’s Zoning?
In order to ensure citizens’ and tourists’ use of the waterfront for living,
recreation and leisure, both citizens and investors must envision development
of a working waterfront where Zoning protects public health, safety, and
general welfare, and offers diversified development opportunities for a wide
range of potential uses. A waterfront in which certain types of heavy industry
develops will not attract that diversity of investors.
The area identified as DW on the FLUM is not presently serving only the most
intense heavy industry on the west bank (i.e. hazardous materials and
petroleum products), so the permitted uses do not in this case reflect what is
“on the ground” today. It is not necessary to allow hazardous materials by
right in order to avoid excessive nonconformities. The most intense industry
on the waterfront is currently placed (after Planning review and approval) on
the east side bank, south of the DW zone, and north of the DW zone.
If a goal of the new Ordinance is to reduce processes, would it make sense to
simply prohibit these most intense, heavy industry uses (hazardous materials
and petroleum products) in the DW zone? Maritime support businesses
needed by the Port and by industry, such as office space, marketing, legal,
research, publishing and technology, sales offices, suppliers, personnel offices,
conference spaces, training spaces, along with living spaces, mixed with
leisure and recreational uses for citizens, nearby residents, tourists, and
downtown employees would offer a vibrant mixed use DW, absent hazardous
materials/petroleum products.
The Government Street Collaborative supports a mixed-use, integrated
Maritime Zone where the DW is proposed, that prohibits the handling or
bulk storing of hazardous materials/petroleum products. This would
support water-related and water-dependent business/industry/the Port,
and integrate water-related recreational and leisure development,
residential development, and commerce to support the daily needs of
citizens using the area.