Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transfer Of Development Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors ask staff for model and feasibility study of transfer‑of‑development‑rights program
Summary
Board heard an overview of transfer‑of‑development‑rights options, including Frederick and Arlington County examples, and asked staff to research local implementation, pricing and sending/receiving area design before returning with recommendations.
Culpeper County staff outlined transfer‑of‑development‑rights (TDR) and purchase‑of‑development‑rights (PDR) models on March 21 and the Board asked staff to return with a feasibility analysis and examples from other localities.
Mr. Cooley summarized basic TDR mechanics: designate sending areas (agricultural A‑1 land, for example), determine the quantity of development rights per parcel, and allow landowners to sell rights to receiving‑area parcels in identified growth zones. He explained some localities set a fixed price for development rights (he cited examples of $25,000–$35,000) while others rely on negotiated market transactions.
Supervisors discussed program design choices: whether to make all A‑1 parcels available to sell rights, whether RA should be eligible, and how to limit concentrations of transferred density in receiving areas. “You can bring back an additional 10% or 15% of the number of rights you have at the time,” Mr. Cooley said, describing a sample receiving‑area cap used in other programs. Supervisor Lee and others asked staff to collect Frederick County and Arlington County materials to show how those programs identify sending/receiving areas and track transactions.
Board members raised implementation and legal constraints. Staff noted deed restrictions and extensive legal work are necessary when rights are severed from a parcel. Mr. Cooley also flagged state‑law limits that affect other tools (for example, the ability to implement new impact‑fee ordinances depends on population‑growth thresholds). Several supervisors asked whether the county could require an independent traffic impact review paid for by developers for large rezoning requests; staff said the rezoning process provides more leverage than by‑right divisions but that some road‑related tools have been limited by state action in the past.
The board did not adopt program rules at the meeting. Instead, supervisors asked staff to return with (a) a written feasibility memo describing TDR and PDR options, (b) examples and outcomes from Frederick County and Arlington County, (c) options for pricing or appraisal approaches, and (d) legal considerations and potential ordinance language for review.
