1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) June, 2007 Kirby Date, Countryside Program Coordinator

9. Balancing Conservation and Development Up front community vision and planning Landowner planning and assistance Effective zoning implementation High quality development projects

16. Transfer of Development Rights A technique for guiding growth away from sensitive resources and toward development centers through the transfer of development rights from one area to another

20. What are “Development Rights”? The right to develop a piece of property as determined by zoning Severable from other rights of property ownership Also known as development credits In residential areas, one credit = one unit of development permitted In commercial areas, credits are in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or square footage of development permitted Also can be based on square footage of land coverage It is possible to transform one type to another via formula?

21. How does TDR work? Comprehensive plan identifies sending and receiving zones Zoning determines number of credits for sending and receiving properties Sending Landowner sells development credits to Receiving Landowner or to TDR bank Sending Landowner places conservation easement on property Receiving landowner receives zoning permit for project with additional credits applied

22. Options for TDR Administration Individual “swap” between two landowners, with community granting variance Two clipboards on the planning desk: interested buyers/sellers TDR bank at local financial institution – community wide – timing less critical TDR bank – cross-jurisdictional, or countywide

23. Possible Roles for the Land Trust Help with identification/prioritizing of lands to be preserved Help with community motivation/education Work with landowners considering TDR Hold conservation easements resulting from TDR Serve as TDR bank

24. Sending Areas Requires strong landowner support Education, education, education Carefully consider density in zoning Work to conserve big blocks of contiguous land Minimize “edge” of farmland and development Use in conjunction with other tools

26. Receiving Areas Require adjacent landowner/community support Education, education, education Carefully consider density in zoning Work for more compact development in areas with infrastructure Should be accompanied by design guidelines

29. A Comparison of Approaches: Large Lot Zoning Expands land conversion with extreme low density Requires extensive/expensive new infrastructure Increases traffic on roads, pressures on services Uniform growth pattern replaces rural character with suburban character Resulting open space is in fragments on private lots Serves mostly high end housing due to high land and infrastructure costs per unit

30. Comparison: Conservation Development Condenses development on one portion of a parcel to protect resources on the site Reduces impact on storm water, habitat, riparian areas, rural views (at low densities) Does not reduce overall usage of land and spreading out of population Infrastructure use is reduced for the developer, but not for the community Resulting open space conserved is in smaller blocks, often not useable for agriculture and conservation purposes Often serves high end housing only due to low densities overall

31. Comparison: TDR Condenses development community-wide Reduces infrastructure needs community-wide Allows for preservation of large blocks of rural land Allows for transportation and housing options

36. TDR across the U.S. 180 current programs ranging from local community to region to state 69 environmental 44 environment & farmland 32 farmland 15 historic preservation 12 other (housing, infrastructure, urban design, revitalization) 8 unspecified

37. Why TDR for Ohio? Works as a voluntary program Operates on the private market Accommodates incentives Suits “village-township” relationship Works at the township, county or regional level Requires little local regulation Can be coupled with a number of funding mechanisms for receiving areas

38. Challenges to implementation of TDR Public/official reluctance to adopt new programs Lack of enabling legislation to streamline process Need for methods to prevent tax base reduction via sending development credits Public reluctance to increase intensity of development in receiving areas Potential for inappropriate program design Lack of public education on the benefits of compact development in receiving areas Developer assumption of increased density without TDRs

39. Community Success Factors Voluntary, with incentives for both sending and receiving landowners Tied to comprehensive planning Receiving areas with infrastructure Provides for tax base stability in sending zones Allows transfer across jurisdictions Good education program Provides streamlined implementation/approvals Uses a TDR bank to facilitate transfer

40. Market Success Factors Market Potential: monetary incentive “match” for landowners to sell easements and developers to buy them Landowner motivations (harder to sell land than credits) Developer desire for additional density in receiving zones Consistent application of TDR requirements to all future upzonings Community commitment for the long term

41. Legal Issues Government regulation Contractual relationships Local authority Consistency with Zoning/Planning Laws Property Rights Taxation Documentation

42. Next Steps to TDR in Ohio Research successful example projects and programs Develop an understanding of TDR and Ohio real estate markets Education! Enabling legislation Develop model codes/programs

43. Initial Ohio TDR Projects Hiram Township and Village, Portage County Madison Township/Village demonstration project Orange Village, Cuyahoga County Hinckley Township, Medina County

46. Resources Rick Preutz, www.beyondtakingsandgivings.comwww.beyondtakingsandgivings.com Brandywine Conservancy Environmental Management Center, Transfer of Development Rights, www.brandywineconservancy.orgwww.brandywineconservancy.org Cleveland State University, Levin College Forum on TDR, www.urban.csuohio.edu/forum/eventswww.urban.csuohio.edu/forum/events Ohio Lake Erie Commission Balanced Growth Program, toolkit http://www.epa.state.oh.us/oleo/bg1/toolkit.html http://www.epa.state.oh.us/oleo/bg1/toolkit.html

47. HB 69 Sponsored by Rep. Larry Wolpert, R-Hilliard 3-part legislation for townships, counties, and inter-jurisdictional programs Requires community planning to designate sending and receiving zones Permissive: Programs are optional Allows for incentives and TDR credit transfers (right now the two are confused)

48. Questions? Kirby Date, AICP Countryside Program Coordinator 216-687-5477 k.date@urban.csuohio.edu