ST. JOSEPH COUNTY MASTER PLAN FARMLAND PRESERVATION WORKSHOP REPORT MARCH 29, 2007

Transcription

1 ST. JOSEPH COUNT MASTER PLAN MARCH 29, 2007 FARMLAND PRESERVATION WORKSHOP REPORT

2

3 COUNT MASTER PLAN UPDATE FARMLAND PRESERVATION PLANNING WORKSHOP March 29, 2007 INTRODUCTION On March 29, 2007 approximately 25 representatives of local units of government, the St. Joseph County Agricultural Preservation Board, the County Planning Commission and members of the St. Joseph County Farm Bureau met to identify generalized areas in the county that should be shown on the proposed County Master Plan Future Land Use Map as areas preserved for agricultural purposes. Before designation of these areas, the attendees were provided information (the workshop presentation is contained in the following pages) including: location of land currently enrolled in the PA 116 program prime soils that support agricultural production locally important soils that support agricultural production (principally due to irrigation) the geographic dispersion of the current built landscape the geographic dispersion of the future built landscape as chosen by local units of government farmland preservation tools, particularly the State of Michigan Farmland Preservation Program FARMLAND PRESERVATION DESIGNATION PROCESS The attendees were divided into four geographic planning teams and charged with the responsibility to map out and provide justification for the areas chosen for farmhand preservation. Each group was asked to prepare a map and provide a presentation to all attendees. The resulting bubble map follows this summary. RATIONAL FOR DESIGNATION OF PRESERVATION AREAS The work groups were very specific in the reasons for each bubble area shown on the map. A summary of their rationale includes: pattern of enrolled PA 116 properties pattern of current agricultural land use local knowledge of current economically viable farming operations no current or potential urban built up demand for the land soils including locally important soils location of irrigated farming operations general understanding of the intent of land owners to continue farming desire to retain selected natural geographic features that are conducive to agricultural production - outwash and prairie areas The overwhelming determinant is best expressed by one committee reporter who stated we have provided adequate land for future development to support more residential population that maybe will never be needed. The rest should be left for agricultural production. FARMLAND PRESERVATION BUBBLE MAP The following page contains the consolidated work of the four committees. It shows the generalized locations of areas chosen for preservation. This information has been transferred to the proposed County Master Plan Future Land Use Map. Page 1

4 Page 2

5

6 Farmland Preservation Planning Workshop P.A. 262 of 2000 Compliance Prepared for the St. Joseph County Master Plan Update Education Program Workshop March 27, 2007 By Chuck Eckenstahler Public Consulting Team Introduction Evenings activities 1. Review the County Plan Update process 2. What has been accomplished to date 3. Draft #1 of the proposed Countywide FLUM 4. Activities of the County Land Preservation Board 5. Identify generalized areas for Farmland Preservation 6. Actions required to obtain MDA Plan certification Master Plan Update Process 1. Socio-Economic Profile 2. Composite LUG Future Land Use Plans 3. US-131 Alignment Selection 4. Natural/Physical & Utility Service Area Analyses 5. Draft # 1 Countywide FLUM 6. Farmland Preservation Workshop 7. Draft #2 Countywide FLUM 8. Four Public Input Workshops 9. Draft #3 the Public Hearing Countywide FLUM 10. County Planning Commission Review & Adoption MAJOR FINDINGS 1. Built-up up area supports 2004 population of 62, Planned Future Residential Area can support an additional 500,000 residents 3. Increased Commercial and Industrial land (2.0% to 3.7%) 4. Population growth and environmental protection will required additional utility services especially wastewater 5. Workshop participants seek additional commercial and industrial land uses 6. US-131 should use existing alignment 1

7 Tonight's Goals 1. Identify generalized areas to designated for preservation 2. Formulate a strategy to obtain MDA Certification by: County adoption of the plan Adoption of plan by Township that wish to participate Michigan's Farmland Preservation Program Brief Overview Michigan's Farmland Preservation Fund P.A. 262 of 2000 Provides 75% matching grants Funding provided by: From P.A year credit payback upon exit From P.A. 260 Ag Pop-up Tax Exemption Future Funding Efforts Association of Michigan Farmland Preservation Boards PDR An Explanation Impact of a Conservation Easement When a landowner sells their agricultural development rights, a legal agreement, called a conservation easement, is developed between the landowner and the entity purchasing the PDR. What it Does Permanently restricts a property s s use in order to protect its conservation values. Runs with the land/future owners are bound by the agreement terms. What it Doesn t Allow the public access to the land Prohibit the owner from using, leasing, or selling the property for agricultural purposes Protect against eminent domain or court order 2

8 APF Prequalification Requirements Planning Requirements Current Application Prequalification Prior to applying for a grant an entity must be certified as being qualified and eligible to make a grant application. 1. The local unit of government has a comprehensive land use plan and it has been adopted within the last 10 years and reviewed and/or updated within the last 5 years. In order for a local unit of government to qualify they must meet the following minimum standards: Planning Requirements 2. The comprehensive land use plan.... contains an agricultural preservation component, consisting of: A. A future land use map indicating the areas intended for agricultural preservation B. Text describing the strategies intended to be used in order to preserve the agricultural land, including PDR but should include other techniques C. Language indicating why farmland should be preserved in the community (cost of services studies, economic benefit to the community etc.) Application Scoring System Current System Adopted August 30, 2004 Updated in June 2006 Establishes 1. Application procedures 2. Award of Grants 3. Standards and Guidelines 1000 Point Project Selection Criteria D. A description of how and why the preservation area was selected 3

9 APF Board Scoring System APF Board Selection Criteria Criteria 1. Ag Capacity & Productivity Points 150 Land Owner Local Entity Criteria 6. Intergovernmental Cooperation Points 120 Land Owner Local Entity 2. Conservation Plan Local Planner Training Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) Participation 4. Local Farmland Preservation Commitment Local Capacity to Execute 9. Local Ag Planning 10. Local Ag Promotion Matching Funds 145 APF Board Selection Criteria APF Board Selection Criteria Criteria Points Land Owner Local Entity Emphasis of the current scoring system 11. APF Board Discretionary 95 a. Zoning for roadside farm product sales b. Long-term ag preservation funding commitment c. Use of communitywide visioning in plan update d. Use of increased density to accommodate density loss due to farmland preservation e. Extent of consultation with infrastructure providers during plan update f. Extent of connection with other resource conservation efforts Land Owner 300 points 30% of total score Local Planning / Zoning Entity 700 points 70% of total score 4

10 MDA APPROVAL Lincoln Township Berrien County April 19, 2006 Background Information 1. Prime and Unique Soils 2. PA 166 Enrolled Lands 3. Composite Future Land Use Plan 5

11 our Assignment 1. Form four quadrant break out groups 2. Discuss the information presented 3. Designate Farmland Preservation Areas 4. Prepare your rationale for your designations 5. Designate a spoken person 6. Present your recommendations 6

12 7

13

14 Carl H. Baxmeyer Charles Eckenstahler Ken Jones 800/ / /