HomeMy WebLinkAboutBlue Ribbon Commission - 2002 Final ReportThe Eighty-Plus Preservation Action Plan:
Final Report of the Blue-Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold
Jul 14 2002
The Blue-Ribbon Commission (BRC) was charged by the Southold Town Board to make specific
and detailed recommendations for preserving a rural Southold Town. The charge included
establishing quantifiable targets and the tools needed to attain those targets, and to do so by June
30 2002. Commission members and the charge appear as Appendix A.
This is the final report of the BRC. It is a slightly revised version of the Draft Final Report
dated Jun 12 with appendices added. Numbers enclosed within brackets in this report refer to
votes taken by the Commission on each section of the report. The key to those votes is included
as Appendix B.
A. Targets
The BRC adopted these preservation targets:
· The permanent preservation of at least 80 % of unprotected land currently in the Town's
agricultural inventory, some 6,900 acres, most but not all of it in the AC zone [1];
· The permanent preservation of at least 80% of unprotected open space, some 3,900
acres [2];
· A reduction in potential density of housing units of at least 60 percent, relative to what
would be permitted with full buildout at current zoning [3].
The BRC also agreed to attain these targets with no substantial loss in landowner equity.
B. Tools
The BRC recommends a combination of tools to achieve the abovementioned targets. Some
are tools that have already been used here successfully; some are current tools with
significant modification; and some are new tools. They are:
1. Conservation subdivisions
The BRC recommends conservation subdivisions that give priority to preserving land rather
than to creation of house lots [4]. They must have a significant and permanent conservation
(preservation) element and a reduction in density of 60 percent or more on the entire
acreage, relative to current zoning [5].
included as Appendix C.
2
A fuller discussion of conservation subdivisions is
2. The Rural Incentive District
The BRC proposes [6] a new planned development district (PDD) which we call a Rural
Incentive District (RID). Its purpose is to facilitate the orderly preservation of farmland and
open space over many years, to promote active farming for the long term, and to maintain
the equity of the land over time. The following provisions are proposed for the RID:
The owner of any parcel of unprotected farmland or open space of minimum specified
acreage may participate in the RID simply by applying [7]. The instrument of
participation is an easement contract executed by the Town and the landowner.
Once admitted, the land must be enrolled for a minimum period of eight years [8].
Participants remain enrolled indefinitely unless they give notice to the Town of their
intention to withdraw, under guidelines described below.
While enrolled in the RID, land carries the zoning density it had when it entered the
district irrespective of zone changes that may occur throughout the Town [9].
Land enrolled in the .RID may not be subdivided by conventional processes, but it may
be subdivided by Conservation Subdivisions and it may be acquired as open space or its
development rights acquired [10]. Other preservation techniques financed by the private
sector are also available at any time for land enrolled in the district.
The BRC has considered several options in the event of a default in the Town and
landowner agreeing on the purchase of development rights when landowners opt out of
the district. Three of these options are presented below. Other options may be
considered.
Option A [11]
If a landowner elects to withdraw land enrolled in the district, he/she may do so by
filing notice of intention to withdraw not less than seven years after enrolling, subject
to these terms:
Waiting period of one year after filing notice;
During that year the Town is obliged to negotiate the purchase of the land, or the
purchase of its development rights, based on fair appraised value, in coordination
with other purchase opportunities (County and private); and
In the event that the Town and landowner default in completing the property sales
described above, the land may be withdrawn from the district one year after notice
was given to the Town. Upon withdrawal, the land still carries the zoning it
previously had when enrolled, except for the first three years immediately after
withdrawal, when it will carry a zoning density of 5 acres or current outside zoning,
whichever is the lower number.
Option B [12]
If a landowner elects to withdraw land enrolled in the district, he/she may do so by
filing notice of intention to withdraw not less than seven years after enrolling, subject
to these terms:
Waiting period of one year after filing notice;
Town has right of first refusal to purchase land during that year;
Landowner has right to pursue development outside the district but with original
zoning from within the district for a two year period after withdrawing; and
Land is rezoned to whatever outside zoning has become two years after withdrawal.
Option C [13]
If a landowner elects to withdraw land enrolled in the district, he/she may do so by
filing notice of intention to withdraw not less than seven years after enrolling, subject
to these terms:
Minimum period of one year notice of wish to withdraw, during which Town and
owner to negotiate preservation options based on owner's written offer to sell;
Town must respond to owner's offer to sell with a response within three months.
If the Town does not wish to purchase the land or its development rights, the owner
is free to leave the district and entertain other offers. If the Town does wish to
purchase, these steps follow:
Town to order an appraisal and make counteroffer to owner within six months;
- Within nine months of giving notice to withdraw, owner and Town to negotiate
sale. Owner may order separate appraisal.
If this negotiation period fails to produce a sale to the Town within twelve
months, the land is held back in the RID for an additional period of four years,
starting with the date the owner gave notice.
If at the end of this period the Town and owner are still unable to agree, the
land may leave the RID, with the zoning it had while in the district for a period
of three years.
The Commission spent considerable time working on these "exit strategies" for owners
who may seek to remove their land from the district. There was broad agreement that
the district should not be used by owners as a device to protect a preferred zoning that
could he reactivated at some future point for development without preservation. But
members also felt that some exit provisions are necessary to keep the Town's attention
on preservation, and to maintain value of the properties. Though this discussion was
protracted, it should be kept in perspective. We fully expect the Town to come forward
with realistic offers to preserve land, for owners to respond positively to them, and for
the district to serve a vital preservation purpose.
3. Purchase of development rights and of open space
· Current program [14]
The Town and County have purchased development rights to about twenty percent of
farmland in Southold Town, and have also bought many acres of open space. The
program is permanent and voluntary, subject to prices based on appraised values and has
established the principle of fair compensation for giving up the right to develop
farmland. The development rights thus acquired are permanently retired (extinguished)
under current Town law.
Open space purchases, which involve the purchase of fee title, are similar.
The Town's Land Preservation Committee coordinates the negotiations between Town
and landowner and recommends purchases to the Town Board.
· Proposed modification to the PDR program.
The BRC proposes modifying the current PDR program to permit some of the
development rights to be rejoined to the land, under carefully constructed guidelines.
To do that, the Town would keep a registry of all PDRs and decide how many could be
rejoined and on what terms. The Town would issue one Preservation Credit for each
unit of density reduction resulting from a specific PDR. The Town Board could call on
its Land Preservation Committee to recommend specific projects. We believe
Community Preservation Funds could be used for such acquisitions. Among other
things, the Town would benefit from private funding of PDRs under this program.
Some examples of its use are:
· The Town Board and ZBA could require developers to purchase preservation credits
5
from the Town commensurate with the downzoning they seek for more intensive
development [15].
A certain number of preservation credits could be required according to a ibrmula
and applied to enable landowners to have a country inn or housing for farm workers
[16].
Once the program becomes successful and a market established for preservation
credits, sales and purchases could be made directly between willing buyers and
sellers under overall Town oversight [17].
· The Town could reward longevity in the Rural Incentive District with preservation
credits according to formula [18].
4. Zone changes
The BRC heard from a number of authorities on the effect of zone changes on preservation,
and it does not have a strong prevailing view on the suitability of that tool in achieving our
targets at the present time. Some BRC members cite the long-term benefits of density
reduction expected from a change from two-a to five-a zoning; others are concerned that that
change would slow the momentum in the Town's current preservation efforts. The BRC
also noted that zone changes, or the likelihood of such, would influence appraisal values,
owners' interest in joining the RID and other preservation options.
In conclusion, the BRC considered (a) an upzoning recommendation linked to the inception
of the RID, but with provision for those entering the district, and (b) the recommendation
that the Town Board consider possible zone changes in the light of many factors and based
on the progress towards the preservation targets. The BRC endorses the second approach
[191.
In addition, the Commission recommends
That there be no general upzoning of the agricultural and open space lands until at least
one year after the inception of the RID, to give landowners time to participate in the
district at their original zoning density [20];
That the Planning Staff institute a detailed monitoring and quarterly reporting system
providing a current breakdown of the preservation and development processes (see
below) [21]; and
· That the Town Board review those reports on a regular basis and consider possible zone
changes on the basis of the reviews [22].
C. Strengthening the Town's planning and preservation capacity.
The BRC notes that Southold Town officials concerned with land preservation and related
pla~ming are hardworking and dedicated but that the demands of the current work are
substantially greater than is generally appreciated. If the Town embarks on the RID and/or
other innovations reconunended here, it will have an immediate and substantial impact on
the workload in the offices of Land Preservation, the Planning Department and Town
Attorney.
In particular the BRC strongly recommends a systematic monitoring of all development in
the Town [23]. At a minimum Town officials should have quarterly reports stating the
number of (1) applications received for the various categories of subdivision/development,
(2) acres involved, (3) acreage preserved through the various tools, and (4) the financial cost
of that preservation.
This will not only require significantly more people; it will also call for an unprecedented
ability for the various Town departments to work closely together.
The BRC notes that preserving land almost always involves decisions made jointly by
landowners and the Town. Many of those decisions are particularly difficult for families
that have ;little experience working with the Town. The role of conservation advisors in
reaching out to .those families has been important in maintaining the pace of current
preservation, and it will be even greater when these proposals are taken up.
Specific proposals for the monitoring program and staff strengthening are in Appendix D.
D. Are the targets attainable and at what costs?
It is not enough to set planning targets and list several ways to reach them. There needs to be
some assurance that the tools will achieve the desired objective within a reasonable time and at
reasonable cost.
In this section we analyze the contribution that each preservation tool can be expected to make.
We begin with the following assumptions:
· The analysis covers a ten-year time frame, that is, the 80% preservation targets are met
within ten years from the adoption of the recommendations.
All dollar costs am in constant year-2002 dollars. Inflation is certain to drive up the
per-acre cost of acquiring development rights, but it will also increase the revenues
available from the Community Preservation Fund (2% transfer tax). We therefore
assume that using constant year-2002 dollars is a fair basis for analyzing costs and
returns.
· For farmland, we assume that the total at-risk acreage is 6,900 a; that the owners of ten
percent of it (690 a) will never develop it under any condition; that 50 percent of the
remaining land is enrolled in the RID, and that at the end of ten years four out of every
five acres enrolled will remain in the RID. For open space, the comparable fignrcs are
3,900 at-risk acres, 50% of the land will be enrolled in the RID, half of it permanently.
Summary of farmland acres preserved, ten year period 2002 - 2012:
Acres
· Owners who will never develop (10%)
· 50% of balance enrolled in RID,
of which 4/5 is permanently enrolled:
· PDR of 1,600 a
· TDRs
- Country Inns and related
One acre per room above four rooms
- Business expansion~ accessary apts etc
- Private transfers
Total TDRs
· Conservation easements due to expedited
reviews and other incentives
100
250
250
690
2,484
1,600
600
300
Total acres preserved
5,674 82%
Summary of open space acres preserved, 2002 - 2012, based on 3,900 at-risk acres:
Acres
· Owners who will never develop (10%)
· PDRs or outright purchase of 400 a
· 50% of balance enrolled in RID,
of which half is permanently enrolled
· TDRs
Country Inns and related
One acre per roomabove four rooms
Business expansion, accessary apts etc
Private transfers
Total TDRs
· Conservation easements due to expedited
reviews and other incentives
· Clustering on remaining 990 acres
· Land from farmland
5O
5O
25O
39O
400
777
350
390
600
260
Total acres preserved 3,167 81%
The Commission reviewed these numbers carefully and concluded that they are realistic and
based on conservative estimates; actual preservation may be higher [24].
D. Information meetings
The BRC was charged with holding information meetings in several parts of the Town to
communicate with the public regarding our conclusions. We have been unable to do that
within the six month time frame because we have still not agreed on the specifics of our
plan. We therefore propose to hold those information meetings after the Town Board has
received our report and recommended it as a basis for those meetings [25].
E. Code amendments
The BRC has made progress in drafting proposed Town Code amendments on various parts
of our proposals (Appendix E). These drafts have been circulated to BRC members and
may be taken up when the basic provisions of the program have been agreed upon.
We have identified additional legal support to assist the Town in drafting Code amendments
after the BRCs term has expired.
Jul 14 2002
T~V
APPENDIX A.
Membership of the Blue-Ribbon Commission for the Preservation of a Rural Southold
Rey Blum
Timothy Caufield
David Cichanowicz
Douglas Cooper
Laury Dowd
Louisa Hargrave
John Holzapfel
Joshua Horton
Eric Keil
Vincent LaRocca
Ritchie Latham
William Moore
Martin Sidor
Melissa Spiro
Ronnie Wacker
Thomas Wickham
Charge to the Blue-Ribbon Commission for the Preservation of a Rural Southold
The broad charge is to preserve operating farmland in the context of overall planning in the
Town, which includes issues of environmental quality, open space, potential population
density, affordable housing, public water and others.
Specifically, the commission is charged to:
· Recommend specific preservation targets;
· Recommend feasible steps to achieve those targets; and
· Seek a consensus in the Town regarding both the targets and the steps.
Complete its work by June 30 2002.
APPENDIX B.
Members of the BRC were furnished with a first draft of this report and were asked to affirm
or reject its key reco~mnendations. In meetings on Jun 17 and Jun 24 we voted on twenty five
points forming the core of the report. Alternate members (proxies) voted in place of some
members who were unable to attend.
Each section of this report on which a vote was taken is followed by a number enclosed within
square brackets designating the vote. The results of these votes are listed below.
Recommendation Affirm Reject Abstain
[1] 12 0 1
[21 12 0 1
[31 7 4 2
[4] 13 0 0
[51 8 5 0
[61 12 1 0
['7] , 11 1 1
[8] 12 0 1
[91 13 0 0
[10] 12 ! 0
[11] 4 8 1
[12] 7 6 0
[13] 12 1 2
[14] 11 0 2
[15] 12 1 0
[16] 11 2 0
[17] 12 1 0
[18] 10 3 0
[191 9 4 0
[201 7 4 2
[21] 13 0 0
[22] 11 1 1
[231 13 0 0
[241 8 4 1
[251 13 0 0