APB agenda 112701 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

34 Page 4 (Conference, continued from page 3) farmland preservation report rights have invested ever larger sums of money in easements, and now acknowledge they are jeopardizing their investments with zoning that permits incompatible levels of development surrounding preserved areas. She highlighted particularly permissive ag- ricultural zones in Harford and Carroll Counties in Maryland, both of which have committed among the nation's highest lev- els of monetary investment in PDR. Bowers urged participants to "test assumptions" about land values in relation to allowed den- sity as a means of pursuing better agricul- tural zoning. Illinois contingent calls agricultural zoning attainable Mark Cordes of the Northern Illinois University School of Law, outlined the legal restraints of agricultural zoning and the im- pact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island. He argued that although Palazzolo "provides addi- tional protection for property owners, agri- cultural zoning should still rarely constitute an unconstitutional taking." Cordes said that although agricultural zoning has the potential to impose a dispro- portionate burden on affected landowners, "agricultural zoning is not inherently unfair. Yes, it may be that you are losing value, but so are your neighbors. Property rights have a limited nature. Property has never been absolute." Cordes, who lives in Dekalb County, Ill., said in an interview that farmers in Dekalb support agricultural zoning, because adjacent DuPage County "lost the war, and Dekalb is where the line has to be drawn." J. Dixon Esseks and Lela Long of Northein Illinois University outlined their recent study on the political acceptability of agricultural zoning. Their survey of agricul- October 2001 tural zone actions nationwide showed cer- tain circumstances enabled agricultural zon- ing to occur, including the understanding that zoning is not permanent, that is, farm- ers whose land is nearest to development activity can make a case for conversion at some point; profitability of local farming is important, to preclude the idea that a tak- ings case may be justified; many farmers need to believe that agricultural zoning comes with benefits, the most obvious being avoiding conflicts with new non -farm neighbors; and last, Esseks and Long found that in many cases where agricultural zon- ing was enacted, farmers that opposed it were outvoted by residents seeking to hold down taxes and protect rural landscapes. Ag zoning, PDR pair up in Berks County Clyde A.B. Meyers, extension agent for Berks County, Pa., demonstrated that recent agricultural zoning initiatives are not confined to Maryland. Presenting the county's policies and activities along with Berks County planner Cheryl Auchenbach, Meyers outlined the county's comprehensive effort to get mu- nicipalities to enact agricultural zoning based on the county's model. As an incen- tive, the county pays the costs associated with amending ordinances. Under the county's Agriculture Zon- ing Incentive Program (AZIP) standards, developed in 1997, municipalities that par- ticipate are required to restrict density through a choice of zoning methods, includ- ing fixed -area based, large lot and sliding scale zoning. Prior to 1985, five townships adopted large minimum lot size zoning — a technique that allows a parcel to be divided into buildable lots, but only if those parcels meet a minimum size requirement, such as 40 acres. Since 1985, 14 municipalities have adopted sliding scale zoning, equal to, or, with more restrictive density allowances