Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Preservation Zoning District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor proposes preservation zoning district to incentivize long‑term agricultural stewardship
Summary
A preservation‑zoning‑district concept was discussed to offer incentives to landowners (priority for PDR/TDR programs, development restrictions such as no solar/data centers) and supervisors asked staff to keep the idea in the county’s “tool chest” for future action.
Supervisor Underwood outlined a proposal for a preservation zoning district intended to provide positive incentives for large agricultural parcels to remain in agricultural use, and supervisors asked staff to retain the idea for future work.
Underwood proposed creating designated preservation areas where owners would be offered incentives — including priority access for PDR purchases or TDR sales, restrictions on certain uses (for example, exclusion of solar farms or data‑center development in the preservation area, to the extent permitted by law), and potential design preferences for agricultural equipment access. He suggested minimum parcel sizes (for example, 20‑ to 25‑acre minimums) and front‑of‑line access to county PDR or TDR programs as inducements.
Supervisors discussed program design details and cautioned about unintended effects, such as impacts on family divides (minor lot divisions passed to heirs) and whether being in a preservation district should exclude a parcel from selling rights or being a receiving area. “We want to make this district as attractive as possible. So it should put you at the front of the line,” one supervisor said.
No ordinance was adopted. The board asked staff to keep the preservation‑zone idea in the set of tools the county is developing — along with TDR, PDR and service‑capacity measures — and to consider family‑division exemptions, minimum lot sizes, and how the district would interact with existing agriculture and forestal districts.
