Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Page 2 farmland preservation report April 2003 <br />Conlinued from page I <br />ent LESA scoring model was developed for each <br />of three zones - urban service, rural residential <br />and agricultural. In each model, one of the <br />aspects measured is the percent of area zoned <br />agricultural within 1/4 mile of the proposed <br />development tract. A tract must score at or <br />above a threshold score. Points are awarded <br />differently in each of the three zones. <br />Beck presented his LESA model to an enthu- <br />siastic audience at the recent "Farming on the <br />Edge" conference in Pacific Grove, Ca., spon- <br />sored by the American Farmland Trust. Audience <br />queries kept Beck for more than 10 minutes <br />following the session's stop time. <br />Farmland protection and smart growth are <br />the guiding principles of Linn's land use plan, but <br />private property rights figured heavily in develop- <br />ing an implementation scheme that would sit well <br />with property rights advocates, Beck said. LESA <br />fit the bill. <br />"It's very objective. The goal is to punch a <br />button and get a point score," Beck said. <br />The county's agricultural zoning allows one <br />residential unit per 35 acres, "but in the past it <br />wasn't hard to get zoning changed for develop- <br />ment purposes." <br />Beck said the LESA scorings allow staff to <br />provide objective recommendations to elected <br />officials on development proposals. Under old <br />policies, the county board agreed with staff just <br />44 percent of the time when staff recommended <br />denial of a project. <br />"Since adoption of our new land use plan and <br />development ordinance, which includes LESA, <br />we've had 100% concurrence between stag, <br />P &Z, and the board on all decisions. Obviously <br />it's still'early in the implementation process, but <br />Continued on page 3 <br />Option 1: "Development EnaMirKJ' <br />40 -- - — -- — - - -- - -- - - - --� <br />E 30 <br />W- <br />N O <br />0 <br />8 <br />SACriterion: Ag Zoning 114 Mile <br />Option 2: "Rural Protection" <br />d <br />40 <br />-- -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -� <br />E <br />w: <br />20 <br />d o <br />(n a <br />10 <br />. <br />m <br />� � <br />R <br />m o o o 0 <br />Op�p cS 0 <br />h s d' N <br />r <br />09 m to l'9 <br />SACriterion: Ag Zoning 114 Mile <br />Option 3: "Combined Approach" <br />40 - <br />30-- <br />N r <br />t 0 20 <br />am °' 10 <br />0 <br />N N - . .. •.. O e O O <br />O S 0p N O O dO ip 1- (0 to <br />SA Criterion: Ag Zoning 114 Mile <br />Source: Linn County Department of Planning <br />Linn County "Reverse" LESA Models <br />Option 1: Urban Service Area model: gives points readily <br />for sites that have little ag zoning nearby; <br />Option 2: Discourages nonfarm development, gives <br />declining number of points with. higher percent of ag <br />zoning nearby; <br />Option 3: For the Rural Residential Development Areas, <br />where points are withheld in the predominantly agricul- <br />tural setting but are awarded fairly rapidly in more <br />"suburban" surroundings. <br />