Preserving Open Space and Property Rights: Transfer Development Rights

1
Preserving Open Space and Property Rights
Transfer Development Rights

• Jill Clark
• Director, OSU 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
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

New York City
1916
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 ofReceiving 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 toMarket 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 PruetzsSuccess Factors

• Support
• Functioning Market
• Affordable TDRs
• Flexibility
• TDRs by Right
• Consistent application
• Ease of participation

American Planning Association, Planning and
Environmental Law, June 2007, 69(6), p4
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, OhioMadison 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, OhioMadison Township, Ohio
22
Ohio Law

• Demand - TDRs for farmland protection
• Current Bill
• HB 69
• Sponsor Wolpert
• Current Authority
• Within a jurisdiction
• Between jurisdictions

23
http//cffpi.osu.edu
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/TDR20ps2
  0File.pdf
• Resources for the Future Transfer of
  Development Rights in U.S. Communities
• http//www.rff.org/Documents/Walls_McConnell_Sep_0
  7_TDR_Report.pdf