WHERE WE STAND

Over the past several months, WVAS has written the SJRWMD opposing surface water withdrawals, we have stood before County Council during a budget hearing and asked for the Environmental Management Department to be spared from job cuts, and we have asked the County Council to send Miami Corp's Farmton plan up to the Department of Community Affairs for the next stage of plan review.

            Both the Farmton and Restoration projects are new approaches to development that have caused a philosophical schism in the environmental community.  Both of these projects utilize a trade off between compact dense build-out and the conservation (and in some cases restoration) of large tracts of land to create wildlife corridors.  These proposed projects in Volusia County came in the wake of the successful negotiation of the Babcock Ranch purchase in southwest Florida wherein 80% of the land (74,000 acres) was preserved in a density trade-off.  Audubon of Florida worked long and hard for this acquisition, bringing to near completion a natural land corridor stretching from Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico, and providing a much needed water-recharge area for southwest Florida.  If this weren't good enough, over the next 20 years, the remaining 17,000 acre city of Babock Ranch will become the first city on earth powered by zero-emission solar energy.

            "We sued to stop the permit," recalled Frank Jackalone, the Sierra Club's Florida staff director.  The ranch had been zoned for one house per 10 acres.  In settlement negotiations, "we developed very strong rules on how they should operate," said Jackalone, including the use of renewable energy, water restrictions and open space.  But the announcement in April 2009 of this new solar project went far beyond the agreement worked out with the Sierra Club.  "That was a very pleasant surprise," said Jackalone.  "We were thrilled.  It provides a model for the country--a high benchmark for others to try to reach." (www.developerimplode.com/Babcock-Ranch-Solar-City-Kitson+Partners-Florida-2009-04-1.0html)

            Audubon of Florida is now working to bring the same "green print" to Volusia County with the Restoration and Farmton projects.  Opponents to these plans argue that the increased density of the Farmton and Restoration projects exceeds the water resources.  How can we add thousands more people to Volusia County in the next fifty years when we're already looking to withdraw surface waters from the rivers to feed our hungry lawns? Who will pay for the infrastructure? 

And do we really want more people clogging the roads around where we live and play?  For although our neighborhoods are dotted with an inventory of empty homes, as soon as the economy recovers and people up north are able to sell their homes, the inflow of new Florida residents will resume.  Let's face it:  the baby boomers don't want to retire to Michigan or Kentucky-they want to come to Florida.  Because of the specter of Florida Hometown Democracy being passed, developers are racing to get their plans approved and be grandfathered-in to preserve their future development rights.  This presents the opportunity for projects such as Babcock, Restoration and Farmton.
            Understandably, it is a tough decision for those who must weigh the opportunity to conserve large wildlife corridors with what can be seen as perhaps too much of a density trade-off.  Some feel as if the trade-off can be worth it.  Who knows if the land planned for high density development will ever be developed at all, much less to the density approved?  If there is no demand for housing in those areas, there will ultimately be less supply.  In fact, the Farmton project's density build-out will be contingent on meeting job-to-housing ratios, public school capacity, and will have to meet a demonstrated residential needs analysis.  What if the Florida Hometown Democracy passes and large projects get approved by voters?  In the cases of Babcock, Restoration and Farmton projects, we don't know what future density will ultimately look like, but we do know what we've got in the way of protected wetlands and uplands, and that is worth the uncertainty.
            If left as currently Permitted by the County, people could still build ranchettes (one per 25 acres) all throughout the Miami Corp. property, even in NRMA areas.  Supporters of the existing ranchette layout say not all of those tracts could be built on because they are on wetlands, NRMA or ECO areas.  According to the County Planning office, this is untrue and would amount to "inverse condemnation" of the owner's land.  The landowner could build within certain rules and regulations.  And then they'd be able to chop down trees, put up fences and ask for power lines to be run out to their property.  Wells would be drilled, septic tanks set up.  Who will haul out their trash?  Who will pay for the firefighters to protect their homes when dry season fires occur? (and yes, even wetlands can burn--the Everglades is a perfect example of this). In fact, the land could be sold today in 5, 10, 20 and 25 acre tracts without any approval from the County.  Or the land could be sold in pieces to other large developers.  According to Charles Pattison, Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Florida, either of these options would be an environmental disaster.  Every driveway and road that divides a wilderness area increases the risk of death to wildlife.  It is "the worst form of sprawl," says Eric Draper, Deputy Director/Policy Director for Audubon of Florida.  "Your typical 5 to 10 acre rural landowner cuts down almost all the native vegetation and converts their landscape to a hobby ranch or lawn.  People that live in ranchettes consume land, a scarce, nonrenewable resource.  Our open space should either be used for producing food or producing wildlife."  Conservationists should try to "get the people moving here squeezed onto the smallest piece of land possible."

            Audubon of Florida has taken the position that fragmentation of habitat by ranchette style development has not achieved the goal of creating the wildlife corridors we seek.  Thus, for the past several years, strategic initiatives have been developed and voted on at the annual Audubon Assembly each year.  The resolutions for 2009 that pertain directly to this issue are:

"Audubon of Florida, deploying professional staff and expertise and using information derived from sound science in alignment with the volunteer leadership of local Audubon chapters will call on our members and grassroots networks, and work with conservation allies, business and community leaders and public officials to:

• build regional community consensus on the adoption of a "greenprint" or similar mapped database of habitats and natural lands that must be conserved.
• encourage the protection of land with new land use tools such as transferable development rights, density/conservation land tradeoffs, "rural land stewardship" and other mechanisms that can permanently protect natural lands without public purchase.
• influence decisions on land development projects by state, regional, and local government agencies which result in substantial permanent commitments to preserve natural areas.
• seek changes in local Comprehensive Plans which favor compact urban development forms associated with public transportation systems which minimize the need for automobile-based travel.
   

           To date, West Volusia Audubon Society's actions have been consistent with Audubon of Florida's strategic goals.  We will support Audubon of Florida as they work to build the stewardships that will oversee these corridors in the future.  To name a few examples, the ideal stewards of these corridors will be composed of groups such as The Nature Conservancy, Audubon, and The Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission.  It will take time to negotiate details and transfer ownership, and much work must be done to make this happen. 

            We can also exert influence over the development plans.  Restoration is a good example of this negotiation process, as the proposed golf course no longer exists and the entire footprint of the development has been moved to the east side of the property near I-95.  We are also advocating the concept of low-density, job producing projects such as solar arrays. 

            By seeking alternatives and exploring the possibilities of these projects, the Board of West Volusia Audubon Society is upholding the National Audubon Society's Core Values:  "We are solution oriented.  We seek to advance answers rather than questions, and to achieve solutions through consensus instead of conflict." 

            What can you do as a member of Audubon and a citizen of Volusia County do to support this approach?  Within 60 days from the mid-October date when Council sent the plan to the Department of Community Affairs, the DCA will comment on the proposed amendments and the Volusia County Council can revise them.  We need to emphasize to the DCA that it is crucial that innovative projects that break from the usual "sprawl subdivision" pattern be fostered through DCA decisions.  Our members can write to DCA and encourage them to be open to this innovative approach (as happened with Babcock Ranch) to deal with the "need" issue, where landowners are willing to engage in clearly identifiable specific trade-offs that guarantee large scale conservation through dedication of perpetual easements.  In the absence of Florida Forever dollars, innovative trade-offs for increased density may be the only practical way to assure we can continue to acquire and preserve large land areas.

            You can email Tom Pelham at the DCA at tom.pelham@dca.state.fl.us or write to them at: Florida Dept of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100.  Please be sure to include your name and address in the communication, and you might also share that you are a member of Audubon.  As always, we encourage our members to become involved and let both your local Chapter and Audubon of Florida know how you feel about these issues.