Why We Not Only Need To Have Prime Agricultural Zoning, But Need To Viligantly Protect It

As you all know, I could go on and on (and often do!) about smart growth and preservation. But Nicole Anderson Ellis outlines much more succinctly and beautifully why Central Virginia and counties *everywhere* need to not only maintain their Prime Agricultural zoning, but protect it. We have seen firsthand the planning disasters that destroyed local farmland to turn western Henrico and surrounding areas into Anywhere, USA.

Let me say first: My big frustration with my encounters with my local government is that:

As a web developer, it is my job to keep up with technology trends and the latest information. My clients and my reputation depends upon it.

As a green building company, it is MY JOB to stay abreast of green building.
Yes, a note to developers and others who will jump to criticize that we're "anti-development" / progress freaks: My business is green building. I am not anti-development, I am anti mass grading, anti "I don't care about Smart Growth," anti "I am going to bulldoze and thrust up a development of homes that are inefficient with no existing need into a saturated market." I am anti doing something, anything, for which there is not an obvious need.

Do I serve a viable purpose in the building industry? Yes. How 'bout yourself?

It seems that the Board of Supervisors, as well as Richmond city council, and much of Virginia, do not look to what their peers are doing nationwide, do not expand their knowledge base to reach out to Smart Growth, preservation of farmland, and sustainability: this is their JOB.

Regarding the need for huge development locally, I see tract after tract of failed, outdated, unwanted development projects. I see house after house for sale in existing neighborhoods. I see inadequate infrastructure. I see row after row of empty retail space.

In yesterday's Times-Dispatch, Mrs. Ellis wrote:

LAND USE: To Pave or Save Henrico’s Farmland?

NICOLE ANDERSON ELLIS TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: June 5, 2009

NICOLE ANDERSON ELLIS On Tuesday, June 9, at 7 p.m. Henrico County's Board of Supervisors is holding a hearing for public feedback on the latest version of Henrico's draft 2026 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. They call it the county's "road map for growth."

At the same meeting, having supposedly weighed citizen input, the board "will consider adoption of the proposed 2026 comprehensive plan."

If the board does adopt it, for the first time in 400 years Henrico would not have a single acre of Prime Agricultural land. At least, not according to the land use map. Instead, the county's fields would be labeled "Rural Residential/Prime Ag." The draft also suggests that massive residential/retail construction is the best use -- in fact, the final use -- for thousands of acres of fertile riverfront land, America's first farms.

The changes encouraged by this "road map" would have certain consequences -- the loss of landscapes familiar to generations, rural roads clogged with traffic, etc. -- felt most sharply in the county's east end. Yet there are broader ramifications. And despite suggestions that this land use draft is a Varina problem, there is clear, quantified, and county-wide opposition to the proposed destruction of Henrico's last farm district.

ACCORDING to the county's own survey, 82 percent of county residents "support further restricting or managing new development in rural areas."

It's easy to see why. Farmland is increasingly rare, so it's increasingly valuable. Burying it under new houses is one way to cash in on this resource. But it's not the only way. And it's not the best.

Shifting consumer interests and investment trends have created a new wealth of open-space prospects. And Henrico's farmland comes "value added." Our farmland hugs the capital city. It is bordered by rivers. And it is home to historic gold.

Henrico's east end was Pocahontas' backyard. She bathed in creeks that still flow here. John Smith hunted these very forests. In our soil lie the bones of fallen Union and Confederate boys.

One million people visit Williamsburg each year, many driving through Varina on the way. So, is it time for the county to promote historic tourism? Is it time to court development of a living history site on the Henrico bank of the James River, just a boat ride across from Hopewell's Henricus State Park? Is it time for area schoolchildren to mingle with international tour groups at living museums dedicated to farm life, Powhatan culture, the role of Africans in Virginia history, the Civil War, and environmental science?

Then there's the equestrian industry, which generated $1.62 billion in the commonwealth last year. Varina is rich with barns and paddocks. Add trails, and Henrico could promote the landscape between the Chickahominy and the James as a rider's paradise, maximizing our market share.

Varina is already a destination for cyclists. They head east from the city every sunny day. And we received international attention when the 2007 U.S. Open Cycling Championship raced up Osborne Turnpike. Now the Capital-to-Capital trail is coming though the district, drawing bikers (and money) from Richmond and Williamsburg. Isn't it time to nurture that opportunity?

The Virginia Department of Forestry filed official comment noting the word "forestry" is absent from all 300 pages of Henrico's draft plan. But it doesn't have to be. The county's mature forests are a valuable resource. As green building hits the mainstream, Henrico is poised to offer builders sustainably raised and locally harvested timber.

THE IDEAS for profiting by keeping land green are limitless, and all provide healthy diversification to Henrico's tax base. In addition, open space generates revenue for the county -- the entire county -- without demanding the expensive services residential projects require.

So it's no surprise that Henrico citizens want our farmland preserved. What's surprising is that the Board of Supervisors is toying with a land use plan that pushes the county toward a future without farms.

But I have faith they'll reject this draft plan. They'll reject it, not just because it is political suicide to vote for anything that openly flouts 82 percent of voters. And not just because it is legal folly to flout the Virginia law mandating that each county's Land Use Plan "promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of inhabitants." And not just because, according to the county's own statistics, Henrico's already approved subdivisions more than satisfy projected population growth through 2026 and beyond.

Tuesday night Supervisors James Donati, Richard Glover, David Kaechele, Pat O'Bannon, and Frank Thornton will face their constituents -- people like you and me, people who work hard for every tax dollar they pay, people who would rather be home with their families than at a public hearing but come anyway because they know that sometimes elected officials need to see the people they represent. And I believe that faced with that crowd, all five supervisors will vote against this draft land use plan because Henrico's real economic growth lies in the sustainable development of the history, productivity and beauty of America's first farms.

But don't take my word for it. Come on Tuesday. Watch them vote.

Thank you, Mrs. Ellis, for your practical words.
I hope our local leaders will listen.
It amazes me the plan removes the word "forest." It floors me that with our air quality marks were recently graded so poorly, yet the area would consider further destroying habitat / razing woods and allowing farms to turn into subdivisions!

Quizzical yet? Here's more food for fodder.

• See Virginia Vanishing, Part 1 and Part 2 by our local CBS 6.
• Check out all the invaluable information a local organization, Historic Varina, has pulled together here!
• Read "For Henrico, land deals cost plenty" by Michael Paul Williams.
• See what's going on in Chesterfield and their mass leapfrog developments like Magnolia Green, filing for bankruptcy in a market consumers don't want or need:
• "I would go meetings think they'd be pro-active, but they were using outdated plans from 1989 to 1991. They just didn't understand, Durfee says. Magnolia Green, for instance, was approved for rezoning in 1991 and like many projects in Chesterfield, sat dormant for years.
  
  Supervisors did not heed long-term predictions that the demographic patterns that favored Chesterfield's family-oriented growth patterns in the 1980s and 1990s were coming to an abrupt halt now. Baby boomers who wanted the house and lot and land for their kids now aren't willing to upsize after their kids move on. The kids themselves tend not to want big, single family houses on big lots, preferring smaller units closer to urban centers.
  
  The result, according to Chesterfield's planning deparment, is that the county has about 50,000 rezoned lots not yet built upon. That's more than the rest of suburban Richmond combined and exceeds even the number in Loudoun County, once the nation's fastest-growing suburban area. Builders complain that a lot of these rezoned lots are in places where people don't want to live, ignoring the fact that they were cheerleaders for rezoning back in the day. And, due to peculiarities in state law, it is very hard to downzone upzoned property. So who knows what will happen to places such as Magnolia Green."
  
• From Historic Richmond: Preservation Begins With Grass Roots:
• "What's at stake is not just a structure, it is also a story, and an example that can give hope to future generations. The work is about bricks and mortar, of course, but it's also about broad-ranging benefits and engaging many people with varied interests to maintain and strengthen a sense of place."
• It ripples further to the historic village of Ashland, where "Developments near Ashland stir concerns."
  
  • "Four developments totaling more than 1,300 residential units and at least 850,000 square feet of commercial space could dramatically alter the landscape of Ashland's fringes.
    
    But some Hanover County residents worry that their rural community is on the verge of becoming congested, overdeveloped and indistinguishable from other suburban areas."
• For those that want to see what citizens can do, read "21 Years And Counting" on Bacon's Rebellion. It beautifully illustrates how communities can come together to shape their future, and deepen, preserve, and protect their own culture.
  

It is the responsibility of the citizens to take the time and go attend these meetings to have their voices heard. Otherwise officials only hear what they want. If Varina is paved over, if Ashland turns into a mall... it is our fault.

I believe in creating villages, pockets of community, where people can work, bike, live well.

As a region, our lack of public participation (Did I really hear that only THIRTY citizens showed up to the last comprehensive plan meeting? Really?) to *tell,* via actually showing their faces as proof of endorsement, to show their representatives what we collectively feel is an obvious growing sentiment... How can they listen and react, if you don't speak?

But it is also the responsibility of the elected officials to keep abreast in their industry to see the data to realize that this leap-frog development trend was long ago stopped in many successful cities that are now ranked highest in the nation for their quality of life.

So I will be there Tuesday, on a boring weekday evening, presenting my voice, opinion, and encouragement for Smart Growth and preservation of our natural resources.
Hope to see you there.

 

Green Building Is Dead

I just read a post by Paul Eldrencamp entitled, "Green Building Is Dead."

When I first skimmed it, I indignantly thought, "Well maybe he should try making buildings that work." Then I read it again, and again... and stewed on his credentials... and I have to say I agree, and am very much looking forward to reading his posts on this subject.

As a longterm fan of, and volunteer for, historic preservation groups and history nonprofits, I value historic preservation and how it can benefit a locale's charm and become a resource, promoting character vs. another bland "could be anywhere" cityscape for the community.

I am also a fan of what has been recently termed "Refab." Lloyd Alter's take on Refab Philosophy is practical and right on the (frugal waste-ye-not) money. (You may have noticed that I'm BIG on practical livin'...) ; )

I sell buildings.
I sell buildings that are passive solar design, that are supposed to function, to work.
How do I reconcile this with my preservation / non-waste philosophy?

Maybe we should look at crop tree release.

If we approach construction as we do crop tree release, we might be able to help our industry flourish by removing the ineffective, non-functional "weed" buildings, while preserving the ones that are of value. In crop tree release,

"...woodland owners have many different reasons for owning and managing their woodlands. Some desire woodlands that provide habitat for a variety of wildlife. Others want a woodland that supports particular types of recreation such as hiking, hunting, and bird watching. Still others want to harvest timber and non-timber products from their woods for home and farm use or to provide periodic income. Most aspire to maintain or improve the health, vigor, and attractiveness of their forest. For many private woodland owners, the ability of their woodlands to provide these and many other values can be enhanced through crop tree management. " (from http://ohioline.osu.edu/for-fact/0050.html)

Now I'm no timber-er. But using crop tree release I will better the woods and land, benefiting the wildlife and strenthening the ecosystem.

Maybe we should look at construction business models:

• Does your business sell to people who come to you with an existing need, where you provide a product that will work for generations or
  
• Do you develop blocks of buildings people might not need or want that do not take smart-growth or passive solar design into consideration?
• Are you building to just sell or fufilling a specific asked-for need?
• Does your business mass grade soil on land parcels?
• What does your business do to reduce waste?
• Do your architects design for the product (i.e. the width of a SIPs panel) utilized vs. cutting, creating waste?
• Do you encourage reuse and recycled materials when possible?
  

These are my first thoughts, and I look forward to musing over Mr. Eldrencamp's writing more. What do YOU think?

 

Land, and Legal Land Issues.

My thoughts this week have been on land.
This weekend I discovered a bunch of old pictures of our family farm, Rotherwood, on my computer. It is always a weird sensation when I think of Rotherwood- a part of me, I will carry deeply with me always, yet dead. I was in my late 20s when the farm I had grown up with since birth, told I would one day pass on to my children, was sold to my uncles.

But enough about that, you get up, work hard, and get your own darned piece of earth. It will never be Rotherwood, but it's ours and they can't take it away.

To say it has made us keenly aware of inheritance issues for our own children (and their children) is an understatement.

We have had many discussions with farming friends about how they plan to handle their own land inheritance. Dividing up property will only expose it to future sale and then development. How to protect, preserve, and pass on to the next generation in a way that envisions they work together, not feud?

My friend Steve has one way of addressing this: "Whomever is working the farm when we die, gets the farm."

Virginia's land conservation easements are generous. Maybe some of you "green construction lawyers" reading this should include land conservation in your practice area... I expect you to. Green building is not just about urban infill. But it still does not satisfy the issue of passing on the land to future generations.

My musing took a new twist when I considered the implications for a cohousing smart growth intentional community.

Suppose a group of five families pools their resources to build a smart growth, co-housing community on fifty acres. Smart growth principles have the homes clustered together to foster community, shared spaces, community recreation and other buildings (why have a guest room in each home when you can have a guest lodge for all the families?), with the remaining property dedicated to wildlife, walking trails, and other preservation means.


This raised my curiousity: Each family is not purchasing a "lot", they are all sharing in on a parcel of land. Do lawyers have recommendations on how smart growth communities can protect and pass on their philosophy to future owners or generations?

Lawyers, I'd love to hear from you... : )

P.s. My friend Mason's family lived in a similar intentional community beginning in the '60s in Sewanee, Tennesee. I will see if he has thoughts on his family's experiences as well in a group of friends pooling resources to purchase rural property and how they passed it on.

You also might enjoy learning about Monteagle Assembly, founded in the 1880s, and still in existence. There are some great pictures here, and I stayed there for Mason & Anna's wedding and experienced myself the wonderful shared community buildings, gorgeous landscape, bridges, walking trails and charming cottages that are there today.

(Here's the above link as a slideshow as this cute couple walked all over the grounds- I recommend you browse through the larger version! Beautiful smart growth space!)



Monteagle Assembly, TN

 

Wildlife + Suburbia. This really is a post about Smart Growth.

What is this, freakin' nostalgia week?

First I write about leetle lamps I saved, then a good friend sent in old pictures of us playing in a band (oh don't think I'm talented- I played the tambourine), then in my green building group I mooned over Finland and my time there in the '90s... think midnight sun, sauna, and lots of berry liquor. (I will overlook describing the mosquitoes the size of small animals in this post. The old growth birch forests more than made up for it.)

Now my dad just sent me a picture of a fox outside their (Crested Butte ski vacation) door, and suddenly I'm pulled into my days living in the Chelsea Hotel, often spent with Vali Meyers. She used to talk about her tamed foxes in Italy, who would follow her around, willing but wild pets who adapted to her presence.

In Virginia, I don't think twice about a fox dashing across the land, far away, across a hill. But this picture from my dad of a fox who adapted to tourists, sniffing about their kitchen door, thus raising the glorious, bad gypsy ghost of Vali, reminded me of the adaptability of wildlife, and that as ignorant suburbs further encroach upon quiet land... I am greatly aware of a shift, a change... They adapt. They adapt or die, and many are adapting to us.

I hear tales of turkey in Boston; friends recount their experiences of coyotes stalking the huntsmen here, peregrine falcons roost downtown, bald eagles and red tailed hawks swoop outside my office window, I see hordes of vultures on suburban doorsteps, otters in the freeway median... and this summer, the first real photo passed on to me (Thank you John! Love my cousins!) of a scouting camera image of a mountain lion in the neighboring county chasing deer... still rejected as myth by the public... (John, you really should pass on that photo to someone.)

Where I'm going with this is that green building is not just about efficiency, it's also about preservation of national resources through private purchase of acreage on the market now, to preserve and conserve. It's smart, slow, well-planned growth, allowing habitats to continue unmolested so that there is still a buffer between wildlife and allowing their avoidance and shying away from us, instead of overcoming a fear of, then depending on, then, frankly, preying on us.

Through smart growth planning, homes can cluster together, enhancing community interaction, while leaving the rest of the tract of land for wildlife and outdoors enjoyment.

I'm just saying that we need to value more our undeveloped land and let the animals be. Not that the copperheads or black widows care. But I do know that a fed bear is a dangerous bear, and it is our fault our careless communities are blending wilderness with completely-ignorant-to-real-life-in-the-country people. It is not an easy balance, and everyone loses.

Through conservation through private and public land purchases and deeds, we protect our national resources and treasure, our landscape, local histories, and wildlife.