[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6578142,"mediaKeyId","3071286-09c8e1e318e9f7bedeb65602b6490927","parentId",3071286,"title","Commissioners seek ways to make Marion County’s TDR program easier to use after staff describes supply, barriers to redemption","audioSeconds",2247,"startMs",3737000,"endMs",5984000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3071286-09c8e1e318e9f7bedeb65602b6490927&start=3737&end=5984","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3071286-09c8e1e318e9f7bedeb65602b6490927/thumbnail_3737000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6578142/Marion-County/Florida/Commissioners-seek-ways-to-make-Marion-Countys-TDR-program-easier-to-use-after-staff-describes-supply-barriers-to-redemption","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6578142-baa93a5f08760f3c77b10ec2b24d69e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137889&Signature=YQ4nQOCfJAP5kP4drMRr34uGicAjbqmDYMAPcGuiFxXkLTD7mGR1jk7DBFj8B24Gc1TgsDuJWQciHrE-0dKcjNKesTxM70Kw9Mhz8hRSQat4ZvHSCuxASRUfXZUhc2os7EB9sox2Mg--VYLbAApS0ii0uVnezoiyZG3LjHXm6Os4~rge64agQSjjPtx1DxeZig0p4wTjnKyJPuafrj1luu5BQhmRNyqnH4-ynw47lxcvdnNdrinp8srxbywVNtZgOczRZv-~QMYMsMH3kWA0Ti7qtVgtzA1jRm~zwKl6F4zrUp0mURBPvjH6nVcb5xs0FnhHjOKRgiB924bKE~B0Nw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Marion County","date","2025-04-21T00:00:00Z","article","Marion County commissioners and planning staff reviewed the county’s transfer of development rights (TDR) program and discussed ways to increase usage and market predictability for credits held by landowners.

Blair Knighton outlined the three steps of the current program: issuance of credits to qualifying sending sites (often farmland placed under conservation), transferring credits between parties (a board action), and redeeming credits to increase density on a receiving site (currently requires a PUD). Knighton said sending areas include parcels within the farmland preservation area (minimum 30 acres) and certain rural lands outside the urban growth boundary that also contain specified locally significant natural resources.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the TDR program aims to preserve rural land outside the urban growth boundary while directing development inward, but the program has seen limited use because redeeming credits is perceived as risky, administratively burdensome and hard to find on the market.

What the workshop revealed:
- Credit math and eligibility: The program’s original conversion was one credit per 10 acres, but staff said the program later moved to a one‑credit‑per‑acre ratio to create a larger supply; however, the 30‑acre minimum for participating sending sites remains in place.
- Credit supply: Staff estimated there are roughly 1,200–1,500 credits in the system at one point, while another staff figure noted “just under 2,100 credits” as of 2023. There is no county “bank” that sells credits; credits are tracked and transfers are recorded when the county reviews and approves a transfer.
- Barriers to redemption: Commissioners and staff said hurdles include the need for developers to pursue a PUD (public hearing) to use credits, time‑sensitivity for developers, transaction costs of finding and negotiating with multiple credit holders, and uncertainty in market price for credits. One commissioner noted a project that successfully used credits (an apartment complex on Sixtieth Avenue) required long negotiations.
- Options discussed: staff suggested procedural changes to streamline the process, such as removing the separate board action for transfers (folding transfer approval into the final redemption step), making small density increases administratively approvable for properties with applicable zoning, increasing outreach and a public FAQ, and considering whether open‑space buy‑downs should be priced 1:1 for easier math. Commissioners debated whether the county should act as a “bank” or marketplace for credits; some said the county should avoid becoming a market participant while others said the county could facilitate access to credits (a searchable registry and clearer process).

Directives and next steps: Commissioners asked staff to return with a written history of the TDR program (including credits sold each year since inception), examples of other communities with working TDR programs, suggested draft language to reduce procedural barriers (administrative redemption pathways and clearer LDC standards), and case studies that succeed without a county bank. Staff also noted they would present the TDR history and potential edits at a future workshop for further commission direction.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Marion County - Board of County Commissioners Workshop on 2025-04-21 2:30 PM - Workshop Regarding the Comprehensive Plan - Apr 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners and staff reviewed the county’s transfer of development rights (TDR) process, debated technical and market barriers to use, and directed staff to return with a program history and proposed language to streamline credit redemption and improve predictability.","taxTitle","Marion County, Florida","taxId",4897,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6578147,"Commissioners pare economic element language, direct annual review of economic partnerships",1371,2379000,3750000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3071286-09c8e1e318e9f7bedeb65602b6490927&start=2379&end=3750","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3071286-09c8e1e318e9f7bedeb65602b6490927/thumbnail_2379000.jpg","/articles/6578147/Marion-County/Florida/Commissioners-pare-economic-element-language-direct-annual-review-of-economic-partnerships","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6578147-5d67f63c604c4a09c2a33773dd972256/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137889&Signature=EJpg06R6GwfMAugrhb5imJx3l7l4mC-~3IXeswZiIb1YRQwvVPaMq2gGYf8zN4uGsOIRPt~vZMkzjZ-w0a591WJsQ5YfhPLBVsYo9QWRAn0lM4nGFFR95QzPeGmk8OseGCul1amyzFMs-mC01sic4rRWd4SprUbjuRdMAVRPjD~sWTVjyOQFOe8beI204ndUIL-A4NQtIgFtDEuCJmhSsenhNuHzTF5LZzli7F1pJdH372p-ZRw~i04zlXQTzEnFCvLx3OQBJlITIVGj-x0Kj-dTofToKaEGmZ9QE1IC4YG4NtMNTylCCpc0w58IXH7upfF86hS0ZK9iGeOo4j3GcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Marion County planning staff presented redlined changes to the county’s economic element that simplify policy language, remove redundancies with other comprehensive plan elements, and leave specific program design to economic partners such as the county’s community and economic partnership (CEP).

Blair Knighton, planning staff, walked commissioners through deletions and edits intended to avoid duplicating future land use, infrastructure and other elements. Knighton said several policies were struck because they described routine county procedures or directed activities that the CEP or other external partners already perform.

Why it matters: Commissioners emphasized that the county should continue to support economic growth without prescribing operational details for outside partners. Commissioner McLean and others asked how the county would track the effectiveness of incentives and partnerships; commissioners agreed to an annual review of economic partnerships and broader measures of the county’s economic health during the commission’s strategic planning session.

Key points discussed included:
- Consolidation: Staff removed or shortened policies that duplicated the future land use element or described internal administrative processes that the county already performs.
- Role of CEP: Staff proposed language that allows the county to partner with or designate entities (for example, the Ocala Marion Chamber) to facilitate priority industries, while not prescribing how CEP shall operate.
- Agritourism: Commissioners supported a new objective to promote agritourism to protect rural farms. Knighton and staff noted that changes to the land development code (LDC) would be required to allow agritourism uses that exceed state statutory limits (for example, accessory buildings for wedding venues), and any such LDC changes must comply with Florida statutes.
- Performance review: Commissioner Jared (last name not specified) and others urged that if the county establishes incentive programs, it should also regularly review their effectiveness. The board directed staff to schedule an annual review of the county’s economic partnerships and economic health to be considered during the strategic planning session.

Outcome/next steps: Commissioners supported the streamlined redlines and directed staff to add language calling for annual review of partnerships and economic health measures (which staff will calendar around the commission’s strategic plan). Staff will return with consolidated draft language and related LDC items as the comp plan update continues.","Planning staff proposed trimming and consolidating the economic element, removing policies duplicative of other elements and deferring detailed program design to the county’s economic partner; commissioners asked staff to add an annual review of partnerships and county economic health tied to the strategic plan.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6578151,"Marion County commissioners discuss limiting new landfill applications to west of I‑75, keep rules in comprehensive plan",672,1212000,1884000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3071286-09c8e1e318e9f7bedeb65602b6490927&start=1212&end=1884","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3071286-09c8e1e318e9f7bedeb65602b6490927/thumbnail_1212000.jpg","/articles/6578151/Marion-County/Florida/Marion-County-commissioners-discuss-limiting-new-landfill-applications-to-west-of-I75-keep-rules-in-comprehensive-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6578151-66eb14178c7424aa18e76b3bc94241c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137889&Signature=B8-6UrXdlsgmGgSHpm3aXas53pIU~4qL1i9aadKHeBec0buyxrpnqUS1FqrfPF6xb5XcHxEd16TF4Y2xiLzODUcgLXQrJcr9jFjJUTXapub0oooUPlCZ921Mx18Eak33KWP4RG1QmBRDHKeCsBV9Y1Q4zJbztfbPoVf0edhOIV~1xeE~7ExVF7Gyr5QxO88UgB10xgU4GfKnvRJgTFLKi7rgjYOD00~aP7DGLYFVAJeI1snCEnZNegpUIWghhVlAo8u-QIlnrcozalTza9glmdRbjA518AIOMG-FUbHHk2f~d4IwQgN2kW8wkg5kbv8HEJUqVnJs~jZybgXxC1he9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Marion County commissioners and staff debated whether the county’s comprehensive plan should restrict new solid waste landfills to the west side of Interstate 75 and clarify the approval requirements for new private facilities.

The discussion centered on a proposed change to the comprehensive plan’s solid waste policies that would allow new Class 3, C and D disposal facilities only on land west of I‑75. Blair Knighton, a planning staff member leading the workshop, presented draft policy language and said staff had revised an earlier, more detailed list of required demonstrations for new facilities to make it practical and implementable.

The change was prompted in part by comments from Mark (last name not specified), identified in the meeting as the county’s solid waste director, who told the commission the county currently has multiple disposal sites east of I‑75 and “we are lacking disposal capacity West Of the freeway.” Mark urged a geography-based approach rather than a purely categorical policy, telling commissioners the county should encourage siting where capacity is scarce.

Why it matters: commissioners said a clear policy would give staff and potential applicants guidance about where the county is willing to accept applications and would help protect prior county investments in existing facilities. Commissioner Curry asked whether the comprehensive plan is the appropriate place for location controls; Blair Knighton and other staff advised that because new landfills would require a comprehensive plan amendment, siting criteria in the plan would be enforceable and would give staff clarity on where applications could be accepted.

Commissioners discussed details and limits of the proposed language. Tracy Straub, who said the West‑of‑I‑75 preference was also included in the county’s Empowering Marion strategic plan, supported adding the West‑side language to the comprehensive plan for new landfills. Commissioner Stone and others cautioned against creating a legal “foothold” that could leave the county vulnerable if it accepted applications in a restricted area and then denied them; county counsel (referred to as Guy) commented that the comprehensive plan sets fundamental policy and the commission should not promise to accept applications in locations where it does not intend to authorize development.

Staff described required demonstrations an applicant would need to provide for a new private facility — including effects on public health, safety and welfare, the financial impact on the county solid waste system, and past performance of waste handling operations — and said those requirements had been trimmed from a longer, “onerous” list to a shorter, practical set that staff and Mark supported.

Commissioners also considered operational questions: whether waivers or extraordinary‑circumstance exceptions should be allowed if an applicant proposed a new facility outside the West‑of‑I‑75 area, and how to avoid unintentionally creating a magnet for development on the West side. Some commissioners preferred leaving siting language out of the plan and relying on case‑by‑case review in the land development code; others favored placing a geographic preference in the comprehensive plan to safeguard existing county investments.

Outcome/next steps: The commission reached a practical consensus to leave the landfill policy language as currently drafted with the West‑of‑I‑75 preference for new facilities and to not reopen the issue at this meeting. Staff will not bring the landfill language back for immediate revision, per the comment at the end of the workshop that the board had “agreed” and the item would not be returned for further change at this time.","County staff and commissioners debated adding geography-based limits for new landfill siting in the comprehensive plan, with staff recommending West of I‑75 as the preferred area for new facilities while preserving discretionary review for any application.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners seek ways to make Marion County’s TDR program easier to use after staff describes supply, barriers to redemption

Commissioners pare economic element language, direct annual review of economic partnerships

Marion County commissioners discuss limiting new landfill applications to west of I‑75, keep rules in comprehensive plan