Transcript Planning and Zoning

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
[email protected]