Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transfer Development Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs suspending TDR references, debates market study and funding timeline
Summary
Commissioners reviewed draft code edits to remove references to the Transfer‑of‑Development‑Rights (TDR) program and debated whether to commit county resources to a two‑year market analysis to determine when a TDR program could be reinstated. Opinions diverged over urgency and use of scarce grant funds.
Staff presented proposed code edits that would remove references to the county—s TDR program across multiple zoning sections and tables. The change reflects the county—s proposed suspension of the TDR program; staff said the zoning tables will be rewritten so that allowable densities in specific residential zones no longer depend on TDR transfers.
The package includes a recommendation to seek grant funding (GRAMA and other sources) to pay for a market‑analysis study within two years that would identify the economic indicators and price points at which a TDR program might be viable again. Staff and the consultant explained the underlying concern: current land values and developer economics have not produced a market for TDRs, and the analysis would determine what triggers or conditions would make transfers financially attractive.
Commissioners split on the proposed two‑year deadline and the allocation of scarce grant resources. Several commissioners said they did not see urgency—citing a long history without effective TDR transactions—and preferred to "keep an eye on the market" rather than prioritize six‑figure study funding now. Others argued that delaying the analysis risks missing a narrow window of market opportunity and that seed grant funding would avoid forcing the program to compete with general‑fund priorities.
Staff described possible implementation mechanics—examples include conservation‑futures programs that subsidize purchase of development rights to enable farmer ownership rather than county ownership—but clarified they would report back with specific options. No formal vote was recorded; commissioners directed staff to incorporate the TDR‑related edits into the broader comp‑plan draft for public hearing and to provide further information on leasing, conservation futures, and potential study costs at a future meeting.
Ending: The commission did not adopt a binding timeline for study funding but gave staff direction to include the TDR edits in the public‑hearing draft and to return with additional information on costs and mechanisms for leasing or supporting agricultural uses on conserved land.
