Recently a Conservancy volunteer stopped in to a local business to drop off some of our brochures. Noting the literature rack out front, our volunteer probably expected no problems when he asked to leave a stack of brochures, but this time things didn’t go that smoothly. The man looked up and said “The Conservancy – didn’t they oppose the new development in the Narrows?” Our volunteer acknowledged that he didn’t know for sure, but he thought we might have been among many in opposition to certain aspects of the project. “No thanks,” said the businessman to displaying our brochure.

Why relay this story? It’s just a minor incident, and the business owner has every right to refuse. But what happened with our volunteer illustrates a larger problem: As the Leelanau Conservancy has grown we are asked to take a position on the issues of the day. Everything from the location of the Courthouse, a Marina in the Lake Leeelanau Narrows, a sewer system for Northport, to any number of controversial development projects or governmental proposals. They all have an impact on the “land, water, and scenic character” of Leelanau County – which our mission statement says we will do our utmost to conserve. First, why do we stay completely silent on the vast majority of these issues? Secondly, how and when do we occasionally enter the fray?

Of course, this dilemma has been with us since our inception in 1988. In fact, our then-president Ed Collins wrote a thoughtful column on the topic in 1991. Ed noted that we try to protect the most precious land “before a problem arises.” He added that, “Once a development or project reaches the stage of public presentation, the political process takes over. Then it is almost impossible to a) be 100% right, b) keep your friends and c) find the time and money for a protracted conflict.”

Early on, Ed articulated some of the principles that guide our decision-making to this day. By not publicly taking sides in issues, we retain our independence and we provide a safe haven for problem-solvers. For instance, a developer may talk to us about alternatives to an unpopular plan that had been presented to a planning commission. If we had already slammed the plan in public, how likely would it be that we could engage in a constructive dialogue?

We have a fiduciary duty to all that is Leelanau County.

Because we are the only local organization that is set up to preserve land and hold conservation easements we are uniquely positioned to work with all the parties to effect a solution. Time and again we’ve been willing to take risks to protect land that has been threatened by development when given the opportunity. Some of the most important victories for conservation over the past two decades have come only after hugely controversial development plans were proposed – and then quietly set aside. Examples abound: North Fox Island, the Lake Leelanau Narrows Marina, the Crystal River, and a number of other lesser known developments that were either wholly or partially abandoned in favor of a conservation alternative. The Conservancy attempts to balance ill-considered plans or decisions that threaten our natural assets.

What are the rules of engagement?

How do we decide when to get involved, and what is our role? Here are the guidelines we work from:

1. Provide landowners with alternatives, and do it early. If we know that an important property with great conservation value may be next in line for development, we make an extra effort to make sure that the landowner and/or the potential developer understand their options. We explain what conservation or “limited development” alternatives exist. Once a site plan for the property has been conceptualized, and money has been invested in designs and engineering, it gets much harder to shape the ultimate outcome.

2. When a project is before the local Planning Commission or another public decision-making body, the Conservancy will not take sides. Our position remains as Ed Collins stated it years ago: There are a number of advocacy groups whose role it is to carefully review such projects and provide input. We don’t want to play that role, and we can be much more effective if we maintain open channels of communication, but keep our powder dry. There is one very important exception to this rule—if we think that the proposed project will have a significant negative impact on land the Conservancy owns, such as a Nature Preserve. In such an instance we are obligated to make our concerns known just as any other neighboring property owner would.

3. Confidentiality is key to helping to broker a solution. When an opportunity presents itself, confidentiality and acting in good faith is crucial to success. If a developer thought you were passing along information to their opponents, why would they talk to you?

4. If there is no solution, or the solution is prohibitively expensive, keep quiet and move on to other projects. This also makes sense, especially since we have found that successful developments often incorporate conservation into the design. If we and others find this feature lacking, and yet the project gains the approvals needed, often the marketplace brings the project to a halt. Maintaining a good relationship, even with someone who has a bad idea, means that we may get another chance.

On some projects we have been through all of these stages, putting time effort and money into each stage. In the case of one very productive and highly visible cherry farm we approached the farmers with an offer to buy the development rights. When they chose to sell to a development company we began a discussion of alternatives. When given the opportunity to propose an alternate plan we did so, hiring a local land planner to devise a site plan which preserved the majority of the orchard land and reduced the number of houses by about 50%. That plan was rejected, and we are waiting for the roads to go in. Through it all, we never testified at a public hearing or spoke for or against any aspect of the project.

In regards to the business owner in Suttons Bay that was mentioned at the start of this article, he cited a rare case where we commented at a Public Hearing against the issuance of permit to dredge wetlands adjacent to the Lake Leelanau Narrows. We owned property just a few paces from the dredging, and felt there would be a direct and negative impact on land that we owned. This was only the second time in 17 years that we have made such public comments. And, despite our objections to the wetlands dredging, we expressed no objection to the buildings planned for the property.