|
<br />ASK TH E AUTH 0 R JOIN US ONLINE!
<br />Go online from October 6 to 16 to participate in our "Ask theAuthor"
<br />forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. Rick Pruetz, FA/CP, and
<br />Noah Standridge will be available to answer questions about this article.
<br />Go to the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links to the
<br />Ask the Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the
<br />article using the e-mail link. The author will reply, and Zoning Practice
<br />will postthe answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all
<br />subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning
<br />Practice at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the
<br />answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA
<br />Zoning Practice webpages.
<br />
<br />achieve their preservation goals as well as their
<br />growth objectives with little or no public cost.
<br />At a minimum, a TOR ordinance estab-
<br />lishes three parameters forthe sending side of
<br />a transfer. The area that qualifies as a sending
<br />site is established by map, by reference to ex-
<br />isting zoning districts, or by criteria (like prime
<br />farmland or significant habitat.) The ordinance
<br />also determines the nature of the restrictions
<br />that must be placed on the site before the com-
<br />munity will grantTDRs to the owner. Finally, the
<br />ordinance states the number ofTDRs that the
<br />community will award to property owners when
<br />they record the required restrictions.
<br />
<br />PLAN-CONSISTENT TOR
<br />In the plan-consistent approach described
<br />in this article, we simplify the receiving-side
<br />mechanism of a TOR ordinance to just four defi-
<br />nitions and one requirement.
<br />TOR receiving sites are defined as
<br />upzoned land, meaning land where future
<br />changes in zoning allow additional develop-
<br />ment potential. This additional development
<br />potential is usually in the form of increased
<br />residential density, meaning bonus dwelling
<br />units. However, many communities choose to
<br />apply the requirement to increases in nonresi-
<br />dential development capacity such as building
<br />floor area, height, or lot coverage. For this ar-
<br />ticle, we confine our discussion to residential-
<br />density programs to reduce confusion. In this
<br />simplified TOR ordinance, baseline density is
<br />defined as the maximum density allowed by
<br />the zoning in effect for a receiving site prior to
<br />the upzoning.
<br />Maximum with-TOR c!ensity, as the name
<br />suggests, is the higher Jevelopment potential
<br />only available to developerswho choose to use
<br />
<br />About the Authors
<br />Riel, Pruetz, FAICP, (arje@attglobal.net) is a planning consultant
<br />specializing in TOR and the author of Beyond Takings and Givings
<br />(Arje Press, 2003), a book on TOR. More information and updates
<br />to the book are available at www.BeyondTakingsAndGivings.com.
<br />
<br />Noah Standridge (noah@centrusplanning.com) is president
<br />of Centrus Planning (www.centrusplanning.comJ, a consulting
<br />firm providing rural planning strategies throughout Florida. He
<br />previously managed the Rural Lands Stewardship Program for
<br />Collier County, Florida.
<br />
<br />the TOR option. Bonus dwelling units are those
<br />dwelling units in excess of baseline density
<br />that a developer gains by complying with the
<br />TOR requirement. Rnally, the TOR requirement
<br />itself is the number of TORs that developers are
<br />required to retire per bonus dwelling unit. De-
<br />velopers comply by buying the required num-
<br />ber of TORs from sending-site landowners at a
<br />price established by private negotiation. Alter-
<br />natively, developers may buy TORs from a TOR
<br />bank or some other intermediary, a person or
<br />organization that buys, holds, and sells TDRs.
<br />
<br />tions on the components needed forthe TOR
<br />ordinance as sketched above.
<br />Additionally, the local government may
<br />choose to adopt the TOR ordinance independent
<br />of an application to upzone any individual receiv-
<br />ing areas. This approach is less likely to elicit con-
<br />troversy since the elected officials are only con-
<br />sidering a zoning code requirement and not the
<br />development potential of any specific property.
<br />Once communities have adopted the
<br />components of a TOR mechanism, they often
<br />wait for developers to apply for future upzon-
<br />
<br />The plan-consistentapproach to TOR can
<br />increase public acceptance because it essentially
<br />implements the community's land-:use goals as'
<br />already approved in an adopted general plan.
<br />
<br />Developers then relinquish these TDRs prior to
<br />final approval of the receiving site development
<br />project requiring the TORs.
<br />To provide policy support for TOR, the
<br />general plan should state thatthe densities
<br />depicted forthe plan's horizon may only be
<br />possible via TOR. If such a statement does not
<br />already appear in the plan, it should be added.
<br />However, a plan-consistent TOR program does
<br />not require any changes to the development ca-
<br />pacity of.the existing general plan, meaning the
<br />depiction of those areas suitable for an eventual
<br />upzoning. This saves communities the time
<br />and expense of conducting new infrastructure
<br />and environmental studies as well as countless
<br />meetings dealing with residents' concerns about
<br />general plan revisions. Instead, the community
<br />can appoint a committee to make recommenda-
<br />
<br />ings. These future upzoning applications,
<br />if approved, essentially implement the TOR
<br />ordinance over time. Bear in mind that adop-
<br />tion of a TOR requirement does not compel the
<br />community to approve upzoning applications
<br />or make any other changes to its decision
<br />process. The community is still free to approve
<br />or deny the upzoning application based on
<br />relevant factors including potential environ-
<br />mental effects, compatibility with existing
<br />development, infrastructure adequacy, and
<br />of course, consistency with the general plan.
<br />However, if the upzoning is approved, the site's
<br />new zoning will require the developerto retire
<br />a specified number of TORs for all bonus dwell-
<br />ing units. These retired TORs accomplish the
<br />preservation of the sending-area land at the
<br />ratios stated in the TOR ordinance.
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 9.09
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 3
<br />
<br />97
<br />
|