Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

Some communities are capable of going far beyond the plan-consistent approach to TDR that we describe here by adopting a plan-amending TDR program. The plan-consistent approach to TDR can inc~ease public acceptance because it essentially implements the community's land- use goals as already approved in an adopted general plan. Hopefully, citizens will. see a plan-consistent TOR program as superiorto traditional zoning since it implements a com- munity's preservation goals as well as its development objectives. We realize that not all citizens will embrace TOR just because it is consistent with an adopted general plan. Many, if not niost, residents are unaware that their community has a gener~l plan, much less what that plan contains. So there will still be opposi- tion to individual upzoning applications as they are proposed. However, most residents will agree that the TOR component of the proposed upzoning does not cause any increase in devel- opment because the new maximum density is no higher than the density called for in the gen- eral plan. In fact, the amount of development is identical with or without the TOR mechanism. The only difference is that the community is saving sending areas while it achieves the de- velopment called for in its general plan. Bear in mind that plan-consistent TOR is notthe only approach and not even neces- sarily the most appropriate TOR approach for any given community. For the purpose of this discussion, we use the term plan-amen'ding to describe TDR programs involving general plan amendments that increase the development capacity of a commu,nity's general plan. The discussion below of the Chesterfield Township, New Jersey, TDR program highlights the advan- tages and disadvantages of a plan-amending TOR program. Even though plan-consistentTDR resolves many political concerns, there may still be those who claim that this approach changes the rules midstream. They may argue that the community already granted the density de- picted in the general plan without any precon- ditions like a TOR requirement. This argument 98 might prevail politically in some communities, particularly if the general plan did not originally mention the possibility of the later addition of a TDR requirement. When this argument pre- vails, communities would have to change the developmentcapacities of their current general plans in orderto institute a TDR program, and would not be considered TOR-ready as de- scribed in this article. Some communities are capable of going far beyond the plan.consistent approach to TOR that we describe here by adopting a plan- amendingTDR program. For example, Chester- field Township maintained a multiyear effort that brought citizens and developers together to meticulously plan and rezone a receiving area for a pedestrian-friendly, smart-growth village. The extensive public involvement promoted acceptance and the rezoned land _gave both citizens and developers certainty about where and how growth would occur. This certainty is a significant benefit to developers who do not have to apply for rezonings but are assured of exactly what they can build if they follow all the rules, including compliance with the TOR requirement. Despite these advantages, many com- munities don't have the resources or the atten- tion span to establish a comprehensive TOR program like the one in Chesterfield. For these places, a plan-consistent approach may be more appropriate since it allows communities to preserve land in the near~term future. Per- haps some of these places will prepare them- selves over time to try a comprehensive effort like Chesterfield's. DECIDING IFYOUR COMMUNITY IS READY FOR TDR The foundation for the following quiz is our study, "What Makes Transfer of Development Rights Work? Success Factors from Research and Practice," which appears in the Winter 2009 issue ofthe]ournal oftheAmerican Plan- ning Association. In that paper, we identified and ranked 10 success factors found in the 20 U.s. TDR programs that have preserved the greatest amount of land. Using the results of that study, we developed the four-question quiz below to evaluate whether a .community is "ready-made" for plan-consistent TOR. Some readers will have no trouble answering these four questions without hesitation. ~owever, if you are inclined to say maybe to any question, you may find it helpful to refer to notes that follow each question. ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 4