Why Industrial Land Matters More Than Farmland
Discover why the focus on industrial land zoning is reshaping our development landscape and what it means for the future.
The debate over where to build rarely makes headlines until a cornfield disappears. Then everyone has an opinion.
But Mayor Bob Markovich is making a different argument—one that deserves more attention than it typically gets. His position is straightforward: focus development on land that's already zoned industrial, establish real safeguards through developer agreements, and stop treating every infrastructure project like a zero-sum fight between progress and farmland preservation. It's a sensible framework, and frankly, it's the kind of disciplined land use planning that most municipalities claim to practice but rarely do.
The distinction matters enormously. Not all land is created equal in the eyes of a developer, a municipality, or a permitting board—and understanding why industrial land zoning exists, what it protects against, and where it's heading tells you a lot about where infrastructure investment is actually going.
The Case for Zoning What's Already Zoned
Industrial land zoning isn't bureaucratic paperwork. It's a signal—to developers, to utilities, to investors—that a parcel has been evaluated and deemed appropriate for heavy use. That means road load capacity, utility access, separation buffers from residential zones, and often pre-assessed environmental baselines. When a developer acquires already-zoned industrial land, they're not starting from scratch on entitlements. They're buying time.
In infrastructure development, time is money in a way that other sectors rarely experience. A solar farm or battery storage facility delayed by 18 months of rezoning hearings doesn't just lose carrying costs—it may lose its interconnection queue position entirely, which in some markets means starting the permitting clock over from zero.
This is why Markovich's emphasis resonates with experienced developers. Protecting farmland isn't just an environmental preference; it's also sound economic policy. Agricultural land that gets converted to industrial use rarely converts back. The community absorbs that loss permanently. Keeping industrial development on already-designated industrial parcels preserves optionality—for future food production, for conservation, for whatever the next generation decides it needs.
The safeguards Markovich references—established through developer agreements—are the mechanism that makes this work in practice. These agreements bind developers to specific conditions: traffic mitigation, stormwater management, landscaping buffers, and even local hiring commitments. They're legally enforceable, and when written well, they protect both the municipality and the project timeline.
What Developers Actually Face When Zoning Gets Complicated
Zoning laws vary wildly by jurisdiction, and that inconsistency is one of the most underappreciated friction points in large-scale infrastructure development. A data center developer operating across multiple states might encounter industrial zoning categories that explicitly exclude "heavy electrical infrastructure" in one county, while an adjacent county actively courts the same project with pre-permitted sites and tax incentives.
The classification problem is real. Many zoning codes were written decades before utility-scale battery storage existed as a concept, before data centers consumed 50+ megawatts of power, and before solar canopies over parking lots became standard practice. Local zoning boards are often asked to rule on use cases their codes never anticipated.
The developers who navigate this successfully aren't the ones with the best lawyers—they're the ones who show up early, build relationships with planning staff, and treat community concerns as legitimate inputs rather than obstacles.
Common friction points include:
- Use classification ambiguity: Is a battery storage facility a utility, a warehouse, or a manufacturing plant? The answer changes the permitted use, the setback requirements, and sometimes the entire approval pathway.
- Traffic and infrastructure impact studies: Industrial projects trigger these automatically in most jurisdictions, and the methodologies aren't standardized.
- Neighboring property concerns: Even on properly zoned industrial land, adjacent landowners—particularly farmers—will show up at public hearings. Their concerns about noise, light pollution, and water table impacts aren't unfounded.
The developers who do this well understand that zoning compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. Meeting code doesn't mean a project sails through. Community buy-in, transparent communication about land use planning decisions, and proactive engagement with local officials are what separate projects that break ground from projects that stall indefinitely.
The Farmland Question Isn't Going Away
Here's the tension at the center of every industrial development conversation in rural and semi-rural areas: infrastructure needs land, and there's a lot more open farmland than there is vacant industrial acreage.
Solar developers know this acutely. Utility-scale solar projects—often ranging from 500 to 5,000 acres—rarely find contiguous industrial-zoned land at the scale they need. The economics of flat, open farmland are compelling. It's cheaper to acquire, easier to develop, and often sits directly beneath high-voltage transmission lines that were built to serve agricultural regions decades ago.
But converting prime farmland to industrial use carries costs that don't show up on a pro forma—and they're increasingly showing up in state legislation.
Several states have moved to restrict or heavily regulate the siting of solar and energy storage projects on Class I and Class II agricultural soils. Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan have all seen significant legislative activity on this front. The underlying concern is legitimate: the U.S. loses roughly a million acres of farmland annually to development of all kinds, and energy infrastructure is an accelerating contributor.
The answer isn't to stop building clean energy infrastructure. It's to prioritize already-disturbed or already-zoned industrial land first—brownfields, former mining sites, industrial parks with vacancies, highway corridors—and treat farmland conversion as a last resort with meaningful mitigation requirements. Agrivoltaic development, which integrates solar generation with continued agricultural use, is an emerging middle path worth watching, though it adds operational complexity that not all project developers are equipped to manage.
Projects That Got It Right
The most instructive case studies in industrial land development aren't the flashiest ones. They're the ones that moved quietly, finished on time, and didn't generate a single protest sign.
A recurring pattern in successful projects: developers engaged with municipal planning staff 12 to 18 months before submitting a formal application. They used that time to understand local concerns, adjust project designs, and build political goodwill. By the time a project hit a public hearing, the outcome was largely pre-determined—not through backroom deals, but through transparent relationship-building.
Contrast that with projects that acquired land first and asked zoning questions later. These are the developments that produce contentious 3-hour planning commission meetings, appeals, litigation, and sometimes abandonment. The acquisition-first approach made sense when land was cheap and entitlements were a formality. Neither of those conditions reliably holds anymore.
The lesson from successful industrial developments is structural: treat land use planning as a core competency, not a compliance checkbox. The developers building data centers, battery storage facilities, and clean energy infrastructure at scale increasingly have dedicated entitlements teams who do nothing but navigate exactly this process.
Where Industrial Zoning Is Heading
Several converging forces are reshaping how municipalities think about industrial land use planning over the next decade.
The data center boom is the most immediate pressure. Hyperscale facilities—the kind Amazon, Microsoft, and Google build—require hundreds of acres of industrial-zoned land with exceptional power and fiber access. Communities that have shopped these projects aggressively are now sitting on significant tax revenue. Those that resisted are watching neighboring counties capture economic development they declined.
Battery storage siting is following a similar trajectory. As grid operators push for more distributed storage to support renewable integration, the demand for appropriately zoned industrial parcels near substations will intensify. Parcels that might have sat vacant for years are suddenly strategic assets.
Municipalities that proactively update their zoning codes—creating industrial designations that explicitly accommodate emerging infrastructure categories—will attract investment more efficiently than those that require developers to navigate use variances and special exceptions for every project. The communities winning this competition aren't just offering low taxes; they're offering regulatory clarity.
Mayor Markovich's instinct to anchor development to already-zoned industrial land is more than a political position on farmland preservation. It's a coherent theory of infrastructure development: respect existing frameworks, enforce agreements, and protect the land use decisions previous generations made deliberately. That's not conservatism for its own sake. It's how you build an industrial base that doesn't spend its first three years in litigation.
The developers paying attention to these dynamics are already repositioning their site acquisition strategies. The ones who figure it out early will be writing the case studies everyone else learns from in five years.
Ready to explore industrial land opportunities? Visit the InfraSale Marketplace today! [https://infrasale.com/marketplace](https://infrasale.com/marketplace)
[INTERNAL LINK: industrial land zoning]
[INTERNAL LINK: developer agreements]
[INTERNAL LINK: clean energy infrastructure]