Committee proposes requiring BLT or equivalent TDR purchases; Ag Land Preservation Fund to broker sales

Miss Dunn, council staff, told the Planning, Housing, and Parks Committee that the planning board and Office of Agriculture propose removing BLTs and TDRs from the public-benefits menu and making the requirement a code requisite for optional-method projects in CR and the Great Seneca Life Sciences overlay. "And the 1st 1 is basically to remove both of these from the public benefit menu and instead make it a code requisite which truly is how the BLT is working," she said.

Mike Sheffel, who introduced himself as "Mike Sheffel, Office of Agriculture," described the Fund's existing mechanics: developers pay an appraised amount for partial BLTs, the money is deposited into the Ag Land Preservation Fund, and the Fund purchases BLTs and issues certificates of density. Sheffel said using the Fund to acquire TDRs would "help preservation" and "help landowners and farmers recoup the density or the equity loss from the down zone." He told the committee the Fund could receive developer payments and then acquire TDRs on the open market or via a regulated price mechanism to achieve both preservation and equitable compensation.

The committee’s discussion focused on how to set an administratively determined price, whether the Fund or a private buyer would decide to sell a BLT versus a TDR, and how parity between BLT and TDR values would be maintained so developers do not systematically prefer one instrument over the other. Councilmember Balcom and other members asked staff to return with regulatory language and an implementation list tied to relevant sector plans.