1 / 23

Preserving Open Space and Property Rights: Transfer Development Rights

marnie
Download Presentation

Preserving Open Space and Property Rights: Transfer Development Rights

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Preserving Open Space and Property Rights: Transfer Development Rights Jill Clark Director, OSU Center for Farmland Policy Innovation

    2. Agenda OSU Center for Farmland Policy Innovation TDR mechanism History of TDRs Success factors Current legislative environment Ohio study and demonstration project

    3. Center for Farmland Policy Innovation Mission: To enable Ohio local governments to achieve farmland policy priorities by partnering on innovative projects and providing needed programming.

    4. Center for Farmland Policy Innovation What we do: Policy demonstrations Policy briefs Annual Farmland Preservation Summit Community consulting

    5. The Mechanism

    6. History Where and what year was the first TDR used? 1980s use of TDRs for open space and farmland protection became popular Now 181 programs in 33 states

    7. Experiences Montgomery County, MD – 47,000 acres Well known Farmland focus King County, WA – 92,000 acres 455 private transactions Over 1000 public banking transactions NJ Pinelands – 48,000 acres 60 jurisdictions Agricultural lands and pinelands Warwick Township, PA Partnered with land trust Used industrial zone as first receiving area

    8. TDR - Upsides Addresses equity concerns upfront Market-base approach to resource protection Protect resources with public funds Growth management with carrots More permanent resource protection than zoning Makes development more predictable

    9. TDR - Downsides Developing a functioning market difficult Need for increased administration Need for increased education Outcomes are uncertain Most communities in Ohio are over-zoned Matching the scale of urbanization and scale of program

    10. TDRs by Another Name Community Transfer Program Community Exchange Program Growth and Protection Exchange Market-Based Preservation Program Growth and Protection Initiative Development Swap Program Heritage Preservation Development Program Farmland and Development Initiative Livable Communities Development Program Rural Heritage Development Initiative Incentive-based Growth and Protection Program

    11. Alternative Descriptions Option Opportunity Voluntary Market-based Market-driven Private transactions Community-wide Landowner/Developer relationships Growth/Protection Personal Choice Expanding development rights

    12. The Mechanism

    13. Types of Sending Areas (supply side of the market for transferring rights) Farmland Open space Wetlands Critical habitat Historic buildings Affordable housing ??

    14. Types of Receiving Area Incentives Can be applied to residential, retail or industrial Increased density: Exemptions from impact fees Extension from certain development standards, like setback, open space and parking requirements Additional floor space Additional floors Lot coverage Building permit priorities

    15. Potential Locations of Receiving Zones In fill Expanding edge New amenity-center PUDs and towns

    16. TDR Design Features Planning, Planning, Planning Administration Designation of sending areas Designation of receiving areas TDR allocation rate Density bonus in receiving areas TDR requirement in receiving areas Easement provisions Monitoring, Evaluation, …

    17. Overall Approach to Market Creation Reactive approaches Whenever an upzone or variance is requested in receiving zone Proactive approaches Designate specific zones Can use a combo of reactive and proactive

    18. Adaptation of Rick Pruetz’s Success Factors Support Functioning Market Affordable TDRs Flexibility TDRs by “Right” Consistent application Ease of participation

    19. Additional Considerations Partnerships with land trusts Scale of administration, scale of processes, scale of resources Program facilitation Banking Putting in community funds

    20. Village of Madison, Ohio Madison Township, Ohio Cleveland State University sponsored a demonstration feasibility study Both ag and green space focused Assumption of a growth of about 100 units per year Allocation rate of 1 TDR per 2 acres on unconstrained land and 1 TDR per 10 acres on constrained land Assumed 1500 TDRs purchased over 50 years protecting 5000 acres of land

    21. Village of Madison, Ohio Madison Township, Ohio

    22. Ohio Law Demand - TDRs for farmland protection Current Bill HB 69 Sponsor: Wolpert Current Authority Within a jurisdiction Between jurisdictions

    24. Sources Village of Madison and Madison Township, Ohio http://urban.csuohio.edu/forum/events/pdf/04_13_07_madison.pdf Hiram Village http://cffpi.osu.edu/Hiram.htm Rick Pruetz http://www.beyondtakingsandgivings.com/index.htm Swank Program – TDRs: A Real Policy Option for Ohio? http://aede.osu.edu/programs/Swank/pdfs/TDR%20ps%20File.pdf Resources for the Future: Transfer of Development Rights in U.S. Communities http://www.rff.org/Documents/Walls_McConnell_Sep_07_TDR_Report.pdf

More Related