February 24, 2006,

Dear Council Member:

As you are well aware, the League supports the primary goal of land preservation programs in the Montgomery County Agriculture Reserve - the preservation of farming. In order to accomplish this goal it is necessary that large or contiguous tracts of open land be available for agricultural pursuit. We are not aware of any in depth planning effort or study to determine the best way to accomplish this under present-day conditions. Have alternatives such as residential clustering coupled with the Agricultural Easement Program been considered? Are options for getting the fifth TDR into the market place being evaluated?

A Building Lot Termination (BLT) program is being proposed for inclusion in the Capital Improvements Program. The details of how the program would work in practice have not been defined. While it is clear that the program would reduce the number of dwelling units in the RDT zone, the scale of reduction, opportunity for contiguous land to be preserved and cost effectiveness have not been spelled out.

The League of Women Voters of Montgomery County supports the current TDR program and has recognized a need to establish additional receiving areas and perhaps supplement the types of uses for TDRs in order to attract increased participation in the program. Currently TDRs may be utilized only in residential receiving areas designated by zoning at the rate of 1 TDR per single family home or 2 apartment units. The BLT program is presented as one not conflicting with the current program, but we have seen no definition of the type of development to be offered for the Super TDR, the size or location of that development, or its relationship to the existing Master Plans. The only comment in the CIP document is that to facilitate the program “changes to both the state certification and Montgomery County Executive Regulations are required and are being pursued.” What is the thrust of these changes? How does this fit into the planning process? Can the proposal possibly be evaluated before the exchange of development rights is defined and these other questions answered?

The transition from a market driven program to one in which the county acquires development rights is a substantial departure from the current program. Is there a rationale for the county purchasing these rights other than the need to expend the transfer tax funds? Is it desirable for the county now to be able to offer density for a price? What safeguards will be put into place to ensure both an equitable distribution of purchases and a fair market for the development rights? Is the county prepared to retire the development rights if the investment is too dear?

How would the BLT program relate to the current TDR program? Would properties already under TDR easements qualify for the BLT? Could non-buildable TDRs still be sold or would they be retired by the BLT? Would the BLT have an effect on parts of the parcel not contained in the designated 25 acre plot?

Since there are so many unanswered questions and potential areas of conflict with open government practices, we urge that a detailed study of this and alternative means for ensuring the

preservation of farming in the county be undertaken before a commitment is made to the BLT program. We support the budgeting of the transfer tax funds for agriculture land preservation, but want assurance the money spent will truly support the continuation of farming in the county with no deleterious impact upon land use in the county as a whole.

Thank you for taking these comments into consideration as you deliberate over the CIP budget and evaluate ways to meet the goals of the Agriculture Reserve.

Sincerely,

Nancy Soreng, President

LWVMC