Preserving Resources and Property Rights: Transferring Development Rights

1
Preserving Resources and Property
RightsTransferring Development Rights

• Jill Clark
• Center for Farmland Policy Innovation

This project was supported by the USDA
Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service, USDA, Grant 2006-38428-16876
2
OSU 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.

3
The Concept
Buyer
Seller
4
The Concept
Buyer
Seller
5
The Mechanism
bundle of rights
6
The Concept and Mechanism
receiving zone
sending zone
7
Transfer of Development Rights
commodity development right
Buyer in receiving area
Seller in sending area
8
Transfer of Development Rights
commodity
commodity
Buyer in receiving area
Seller in sending area
TDR Bank


9
Types of Sending Areas (supply side of the
market for transferring rights)

• Farmland
• Open space
• Wetlands
• Critical habitat
• Historic buildings
• Affordable housing
• ??

10
Receiving Area

• Potential types of receiving areas
• Residential
• Retail
• Industrial
• ??
• Potential locations of receiving areas
• In fill
• Edge Development
• New amenity centers and towns
• ??

11
Potential Incentives inReceiving Zones

• Exemptions from impact fees
• Exemptions from certain development standards
  (ex. setback, open space and parking
  requirements)
• Additional floor space
• Additional floors
• Greater lot coverage
• Building permit priorities
• Increased density
• ??

12
TDR Design Features

• Plan and plan implementation features
• Administration
• Designation of sending areas
• Designation of receiving areas
• TDR allocation rate
• Incentives in receiving areas
• TDR requirement in receiving areas
• Easement provisions
• Monitoring, Evaluation,

13
Overall Approach toMarket Creation

• Reactive approaches
• Whenever an upzone or variance is requested in
  receiving zone
• Proactive approaches
• Designate specific areas
• Can use a combo of reactive and proactive

14
TDR - Upsides

• Addresses equity concerns upfront
• Market-base approach to resource protection
• Protect resources without public funds
• Voluntary growth management mechanism, with
  carrots
• More permanent resource protection than zoning
• Makes development more predictable
• More efficient use of infrastructure

15
TDR - Downsides

• Developing a functioning market is difficult
• Program success is uncertain
• Need for increased administration
• Need for increased education
• Most communities in Ohio are over zoned
• Matching the scale of resource, development and
  program

16
Alternative Descriptions

• Option
• Opportunity
• Voluntary
• Market-based
• Market-driven
• Private transactions

• Community-wide
• Landowner/Developer relationships
• Growth/Protection
• Personal choice
• Expanding development rights

17
(No Transcript)
18
Contact Information

• http//cffpi.osu.edu
• cffpi_at_osu.edu
• 614.247.6479

Jill Clark, Director OSU Center for Farmland
Policy Innovation 2120 Fyffe Rd. Columbus, OH
43210