Planning and Zoning

Document Sample
Planning and Zoning Powered By Docstoc
					Planning and Zoning

  Strategies for Protecting
  Indiana’s Farmland
Local Planning

   Brad Buening
   Planning degree—BSU
   15 years—local government
   Land Use Specialist, IFB
   Bridge gap between political/ag
Local Planning

   Initial charge

       Work with ISDA
       Research existing ag ordinances
       Compile list
       Create model zoning ordinances
       Allow locals to pick and choose
Local Planning

   Not self-proclaimed expert

   Work experience in planning/local gov’t

   Agriculture background

   Opportunity to visit and review local ord
Local Planning

   Visited ½ counties with P & Z

   Reviewed approx. 30 proposed ordinances

   Have seen the good, bad, and ugly of zoning
Local Planning


   The counties that are proactive are working

   70% of job has been reactive, but effective
Local Planning



      Quick refresher course on
           Indiana Zoning
Local Planning

   Types of Plan Commissions

       Metro (1)
       Area (32)
       Advisory (46)
       None (13)
Local Planning

   Zoning Ordinance
       Actual law/enforceable
       Various zoning districts (ag, res, com,ind)
       Permitted by right—No public hearings
       Special exception—meet specific criteria
       Developmental standards (setbacks, coverage,
        density, height, or area)
Local Planning

   Local Government Process

       Zoning districts are created
           Residential
           Commercial
           Agricultural
           Industrial
           Open space
Local Planning

   Local Government Process

       Uses are pigeon-holed in districts
           K.I.S.S. may not apply
               Ethanol plant
               Bio-diesel plant
           Better separation needed
               Need sub-districts
               Residential is good example
Local Planning

   Local Government Process

       Special exceptions are created
           Unique uses
           Not needed if sub-districts are created
Local Planning

   Local Government Process

       Developmental Standards established
           Setbacks (front, side, rear)
           Height
           Area
           Density
Local Planning

   Local Government Process

       Public Hearings
           Petition
           Advertise
           Notify
           Hearing
           Adopt
           Record
Local Planning

   Planning and Zoning Issues (that I see)

       Farm vs. Non-farm conflicts
       Burden on farmer vs. residents
           SE for farmer (backwards)
           Agricultural clause—for homes in ag area
       Livelihood vs. recreational (choice)
Local Planning

   I want to keep ag uses from SE (BZA)
       Emotional
       Time consuming
       Expensive
       Based on subjective criteria
           Noise, odor, property values, water usage
           Hard to measure, expensive, staff, time


   Ag zones should allow Ag uses
Local Planning

   What is AG land?


   Anything Goes

   Agriculture
Local Planning

   Model Zoning Ordinance

       Not one size fits all concept
       Sliding-scale development (2 versions)
       Multiple agricultural districts
       Farm preservation
       Other methods being used
Local Planning

   Researched several zoning concepts

   Reviewed pros and cons

   Created hybrids by combining concepts
Local Planning

   Sliding-scale (version I)

       Larger lots are allowed more development
       Larger remainder for viable farmland
           Residential (2ac max)
           Ag clause
           Contiguous to one another
Local Planning

            Sliding Scale
         Lot Area      Max. # allowed

         Up to 20 ac         1

         20-40 ac            2

         40-80 ac            3

         80-160 ac           4
Local Planning
Local Planning
Local Planning
Local Planning
Local Planning
Local Planning




If you add language that say contiguous…
Local Planning
Local Planning

   Sliding-scale (version II)

       Target smaller tracts
           Under 20 acres (already ruined)
       These tracts can be subdivided aggressively
           Residential (2ac max)
           Ag clause
           Contiguous to one another
Local Planning

   These lots were created by earlier methods

   Counties thought 15-20 ac would preserve

   It only converted faster
Local Planning

   20-acre minimum
       Does not work
       Drives price/acre up
       Takes land out of production faster
       Leaves weeds and mess
           Farmer won’t come in for 10-12 acres
           Max acreage works better
Local Planning
Local Planning

   3 highlighted lots could net 9-10 lots

   Reduced pressure from viable farmland

   Allowed housing in country setting

   Made the best of a “bad” situation
Local Planning

   Another hybrid would be a flat rate

   Allow “X” # of splits for each parent tract

   Can incorporate ag clause/contiguous

   Can control amount of growth
Local Planning

   Multiple agricultural districts

       Row crop farming (A-1)
       CAFO/CFO (A-2)
       Agri-business (A-3)
       Residential-ag (A-4)
       Ag park (A-5)
Local Planning

   Reduce land use conflicts;

   Maintain property rights;

   Efficient use of infrastructure
Local Planning

   Another simple variation is an A-2
       Housing only on small lot (2ac max)
           Need rezone/SE
           Prove to APC/BZA won’t harm A-1
   Personally did this last week
       Point system
           Land use, density, soil types, etc.
Local Planning

   Farm preservation

       PDR/TDR/LDR
       Infill incentives
       Mitigation (developers 2:1)
       Cluster development
       Conservation easements (vol)
       Bargain Sale
Local Planning

   PDR/TDR/LDR

       Great theory
           Farmer gets 401K
           Young farmer able to purchase at farm rate
           Infrastructure not taxed
           Control growth areas
       Hard to track administratively
           GIS makes it easier
Local Planning

   Infill incentive

       Tax abatement on skipped over land
       Higher densities
           Adjacent to infrastructure
           Lessen pressure on farm land
Local Planning

   Developer mitigation

       Incentivizing development near city
       Penalize for hop-scotching around
           Trip-generation causing pollution
           Closer, less pollution
               Put a monetary figure to it
Local Planning

   Cluster development (Open Space)

       Keeping adjacent/contiguous
       Not hop-scotching
       Higher density
           Preserve farm land
           Sensitive area
Local Planning
Local Planning
Local Planning
Local Planning

   Conservation easements

       Voluntary action by land owner
       Preserves in perpetuity
       Tax incentive
       Young farmer encouragement
           Long run—create larger tracts
Local Planning

   Bargain sales

       Selling land below fair market value
       Difference is charitable contribution
       Great way to initiate a land trust
Local Planning

   Other options
       Ag clause
       BMP/additional DS
       Point system
       Fences, septics, wells, mailboxes, driveways,
Local Planning

   Most of these options are still just band-aids

   Multiple zones & TDR/PDR are broader
       Separate land uses
       Longevity (create trends)
       Others will face again with more houses/CAFO
Local Planning

   Local flavor and politics will determine:

       What to use
       When to use it
       Where to use it
       How to use it
Local Planning

   Biggest concern:

       Multiple zone adoption
       No new zones created
       Have to rezone 1 by 1
Local Planning

   Glad to review wording

   Assist in ordinance revisions

   Compile other county language
Local Planning

   Brad Buening
   Land Use Specialist
   317.692.7886 office
   317.460.3785 cell
   bbuening@infarmbureau.org

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:6/16/2012
language:
pages:53