Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses conserving Camp Sequoia; board member discloses Equinox ties and will recuse from vote
Summary
The Land Conservation Advisory Board discussed a proposal to conserve Camp Sequoia, heard site-visit reports highlighting water resources and historical features, and was told a board member with ties to Equinox will take part in discussion but recuse from voting. Staff and trustees agreed to use the evaluation form and site-visit notes before a future vote.
A board member disclosed at the start of the meeting that Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy had approached their firm about doing a Phase 1 ecological assessment on Camp Sequoia and said they would participate in discussion but recuse from voting and evaluation.
"I'll be part of the discussion, but I don't think, I should well, I should recuse myself from voting and evaluating the project," the board member said, and other members agreed that disclosure and participation in discussion without voting was appropriate.
Board members then turned to a detailed private discussion of Camp Sequoia. Staff and trustees described the property as two noncontiguous parcels adjacent to the Woodfin Watershed and existing conservation easements, with two headwater streams on site and other streams rated for trout water quality. One member said the property"extends areas that are already protected and just growing that conservation area," stressing connectivity and water-resource protection.
Speakers emphasized the site's historic and cultural value, including a chapel and extensive camp records and memorabilia maintained by alumni. "There's a lot of history out here and they've kept amazing records of a lot of the campers," a board member said, adding that active alumni and stewardship work have preserved the site's cultural legacy.
Staff reviewed the evaluation form the board uses to score applications, walking members through conservation values, continuity with other protected lands, natural-area scores and a leverage/funding section. Members debated how to score public-access and working-forest stewardship; some argued the property's regular alumni visits and planned guided hikes warranted a higher public-access score, while others suggested more conservative scoring based strictly on formal public access commitments.
In an update to the group, staff said the project's sponsoring land trust board has already approved the project, that funding will be committed by the end of July, and that an option agreement is expected by the end of July. A staff presenter noted Buncombe County had previously supported related conservation work through a bond referendum and that if owners bequest the remaining strip to the land trust in their wills, SHC would likely work with Buncombe County to assign the conservation easement to the county to avoid a land trust both owning land and holding its easement long-term.
The group agreed staff would circulate application materials and the evaluation form and that members should rely on site-visit impressions and the packet when scoring. No formal vote on Camp Sequoia took place in this meeting; board members will complete evaluations and continue discussion at a future meeting.
