A new ordinance designed to encourage landowners and developers to preserve land is headed back to a committee for more work after it failed to get the support of Scarborough town councilors last week.

Councilors who opposed the ordinance sided with a local farmer, Dave Green, who argued that the ordinance would “put the town in the real estate business.”

However, Councilor Sylvia Most argued in favor of the ordinance, which she said could lead to higher-density housing developments that leave more land open – something called for in the town’s comprehensive plan.

In the end, however, Most moved to send it back to committee, with the hope that the ordinance could be explained more clearly there. The motion passed, 4-2, with Councilors Richard Sullivan and Shawn Babine opposed. Councilor Ronald Ahlquist was absent.

The new ordinance would have set up a couple of different methods for encouraging land preservation. The first would allow developers and landowners to negotiate with one another directly to transfer development rights.

The second method was more complicated. It required the town to act as an intermediary between developers and landowners. It was this method that some councilors opposed.

As outlined in the ordinance, a developer would pay the town a fee to be allowed to build at a greater density than allowed. The fee would be placed in a land preservation fund. Landowners who wanted to sell their development rights would come to the town, and the town would purchase the development rights with money from the fund.

Though the councilors agreed that the transfer of development rights is an important tool for the town to have, the second mechanism sparked criticism from both the public and the council during the Feb. 21 meeting.

Dave Green, a local farmer, has been outspoken about opposing the ordinance since the first reading. Though Green is an advocate for the transfer of development rights, he does not think the town should get between the developer and the landowner.

Green also thought the proposed fee of $16,000 for the development rights of one housing unit, which is the equivalent of a two-bedroom home, was too low. If developers can buy development rights for such a low cost, he asked, why would they bother negotiating with him? “This document is about as flawed as you can get,” he said.

Most explained that the fee was only a percentage of the raw value of the land, because a landowner who sold his development rights would still be able to use the land to live and farm – just not to build.

Most also explained that because there would be “two sides to this transaction,” the fee paid by the developers wouldn’t necessarily correlate to the price the town would pay to preserve the land. The purpose is, she said, “to add a tool as a way to enable the comprehensive plan to be implemented.”

Sullivan agreed with Green, calling the ordinance “flawed.” Babine added that the town shouldn’t be “influencing the market.”

Most argued that, with its involvement in the land trust, the town already is in the real estate business. She said that the community has expressed a desire to create high density.

“It’s up to us to provide mechanisms for that to happen,” she said.