Matt Mizell: A New Conservation Vision for Davidson County
Paid Political Advertising
“Conservation means development as much as it does protection.” – Theodore Roosevelt
In a nation where almost anything can become hyper-politicized, causing passions to drive decision making, rather than principles, discussion, and information, I’d like to assert early on in this article that my goal is to separate conservation, at least as defined here, from any political ideology. We are not only called to be good stewards, but each of us has a heavy responsibility to ensure the continuation of a vibrant environment to future generations. Moreover, I have already expressed before in previous writings, but will highlight again the need to preserve Davidson County’s natural character.
That first paragraph may sound lofty – and perhaps it is, but when it comes to conservation, I’d rather us respect the gravity of it than trivialize it to an afterthought, and then regret that we did. Not every acre must be developed simply because it can be developed. The preservation of contiguous natural land impacts the community; therefore, this cannot simply be reduced down to a parcel by parcel decision.
Mark this and mark it well – the goal is not to stop growth. Of course we need new businesses and likewise our residents require a full spectrum of housing options that fit their varying budgets and preferences. Any policy or topic can be taken to an extreme point: too many stringent environmental and bureaucratic regulations, and we destroy the market for business and growth; too few and weak conservation standards and planning, and we destroy our natural character.
The key is to strike the right balance with policies that recognize the need for both economic development and land conservation, while honoring property rights.
The ideas that follow are not meant to be final answers, merely a starting point. Each deserves further study, further discussion, and further scrutiny. I am not wedded to any particular policy or plan. I am interested in identifying approaches that actually work for conservation in Davidson County.
1. Revamping the Subdivision Ordinance
While the work of our board has made progress in lot sizes and subdivisions, there remain areas of opportunity to balance residential growth with true conservation efforts. There are already standards and regulations in place for such developments such as lot density averaging. Therefore, the argument cannot be made that we are seeking to impose rules where there are not rules. The rules already exist. We seek to modify them.
While increased lot sizes may sound like conservation, larger lots do not necessarily conserve land. They can simply spread the same development across a larger footprint. Our current ordinance does not require that preserved land form a contiguous natural area. Scattered remnants of woods and open space are not the same as conserving a coherent and interconnected tract. A conservation-forward subdivision model can instead cluster homes on a smaller portion of the property while permanently protecting significant natural areas.
Chatham County provides one model worth studying. Its conservation subdivision option allows developers to cluster homes on a smaller portion of a property while requiring at least 40% of the project area to remain conservation space. In exchange, the developer receives a density allowance for lots.
A revised ordinance could also require major subdivisions to submit a Conservation Plan showing streams, wetlands, floodplains, slopes, forests, significant habitat, and farmland before the finalization of the subdivision layout.
Additionally, Union County is moving in a similar direction. In March 2026, its Board of Commissioners began discussions on a Rural Land Use Plan strategy requiring contiguous areas of open space in major subdivisions. While North Carolina general statutes limit County authority to downzone or reduce uses allowed, the subdivision of land is not a use, so their committee recommended limiting major subdivisions (those that create eight or more lots) to where water and/or sewer can be provided by a central service provider.
2. Conservation Easement Fund
One of the most important considerations in any conservation policy is respect for private property rights. This is where conservation easements can play an important role. A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement entered into by a property owner that permanently restricts certain development rights in order to protect the conservation value of the land. The easement carries with the land. Yes, the land can be sold, leased, left to heirs, or transferred, but the easement will always remain. A conservation easement is a great mechanism for property owners who want to keep their land undeveloped in perpetuity.
There are naturally fees and funding needed to create such conservation easements and pay for the legal fees, but Davidson County has an opportunity to provide a formal Conservation Easement Fund to make this more accessible to more people. Lee County is already experimenting with this, having passed a similar plan in early 2025. Applications seeking county financial assistance go through the Lee County Agricultural Advisory Board, which makes a recommendation. The ultimate funding decision remains with the Board of Commissioners.
Part of Lee County's funding comes from Present-Use Value rollback taxes collected when qualifying agricultural property leaves the program. Lee County has chosen to reinvest those funds into preservation. The fund can also complement state, federal, nonprofit, and grant funding, meaning a relatively small amount of local dollars can be leveraged.
3. A New Land Development Plan
The current Davidson County Land Development, adopted in 2009, is approaching its end and will need to be revised. While there is much to admire with the current plan, it also treats natural resources in a limited manner within the broader development strategy. An updated plan should instead treat forests, streams, farmland, wildlife corridors, scenic landscapes, and water resources as assets worth planning around.
The main weakness of the current plan and therefore opportunity for the next is that conservation is scattered across sections on agriculture, parks/open space, water quality, housing, and economic development rather than being presented as one coherent countywide conservation strategy. The revised plan should create measurable goals, such as tracking acres permanently conserved, farmland protected, miles of stream corridor protected, percentage of subdivisions using conservation design, and outside conservation dollars leveraged.
Moreover, if the current plan defines industrial nodes and corridors, then the new plan should include an overlay of a conservation map with select areas for the preservation of natural land. This would allow for a more proactive approach, rather than always relying on development to then assess the impact on the land.
I would also recommend that the Board bring together conservation organizations, farmers and other landowners, developers, Soil and Water representatives, and interested citizens to provide a thorough assessment of Davidson County's potential conservation policies.
In closing, I do not believe this should be a left-versus-right or conservative-versus-liberal argument. At the very least, these are pragmatic, common-sense ideas worth discussing. As I have laid out in the 10 Rules for Public Office that I hold myself to: Be resolute in principle, but flexible in application. Principles should be firm. Methods should be thoughtful enough to adjust to reality and changing needs.
Davidson County will continue to grow. The question before us is not whether growth occurs, but whether we plan carefully enough to ensure that the natural character we value today remains part of Davidson County for generations to come. Conservation must be a priority for citizens and this government.
