< Previous Section (Social Context)
Next Section (Technical Context) >
There are a number of stakeholders that are involved in this project. First, there’s LaFarm itself, with potentially the most to gain or lose from this project. In the end they are the ones which will be tasked with the manual operation of any mechanical technology that is implemented and they will be the ones that any artistic elements reflect most directly upon. Next there is the Lafayette College administration, who stands to gain from any success from this project by including pictures of it on admissions brochures and by connecting goings-on at LaFarm to actual curriculum being discussed in classes on campus. Student Government is also a major stakeholder, along with LaFFCo and other completely student-run organizations, as they (at least, purportedly) represent the interests of the student body that will be visiting LaFarm to learn and work and find themselves. They also contribute a small portion of the funding for some LaFarm initiatives, as does the College itself. The EGRS and Arts departments also have a stake in this project, as, much like the College, they stand to benefit from any of its successes by utilizing them to advertise themselves and attract new students. More than this, though, the EGRS department in particular, as well as the Arts department (to a lesser extent) are the ones responsible for actually carrying out this project, or at the very least, spearheading it. Campus dining halls, of course, are generally associated with LaFarm affairs, though they likely will not be impacted directly by this project as it is more aesthetically focused, though of course they are not completely separate, because campus dining halls are still impacted by LaFarm’s overall success and failures. LaFarm, Bon Appetit (the company which leads nearly all of Lafayette’s dining services on campus), and the Sustainability Office together form the sustainable food loop, which ensures that food grown locally at LaFarm is used on campus, and most importantly, that the loop is completed by campus food waste coming back to the LaFarm to be used as fertilizer. Facilities operations have a potentially greater stake than one might expect. Put simply, the mechanical elements of this project should ideally keep working after the students that designed them have graduated. For that to be true, either the systems must be designed to be simple enough for non-experts to maintain and repair, or facilities have to be there every time something goes wrong. As this is hardly the first project of its kind, facilities may be opposed to taking on further responsibilities. Finally, if any large-scale structures are being built (like the greenhouse that has been in the works for a number of years) zoning permits and other permissions will need to be obtained by Forks Township. While this is by no means an exhaustive list of all the groups (or groups of groups) that stand to gain or lose from this project, hopefully it paints a more comprehensive picture of some of those first- and second-order effects.
The largest formal policy structure this project could have conceivably involved would be situated at the local level, that is Forks Township. Even then, as previously mentioned, this would only be a problem if the greenhouse being proposed is larger than 5,000 square feet, which it is far from exceeding. Forks Township overviews its regulations regarding small community farms like LaFarm in Part II, Chapter 200, Article V, Section 200-28 of the Code of the Township of Forks. In subsection A-4 of said section, Forks stipulates that
- Buildings of more than 5,000 square feet of floor area shall not be located any closer than 100 feet to any property line or closer than 50 feet to any delineated one-hundred-year floodplain or wetland. All such buildings and structures shall require an approved stormwater management plan in accordance with Chapter 175, Subdivision and Land Development, and a plan for the recycling of all fertilizers, pesticides and other organic or inorganic chemicals used in or associated with the use.
- The maximum permitted impervious surface ratio shall be 35%, unless a more restrictive requirement is established by the district regulations.
Another potentially relevant clause from the Forks Code is contained under part (b) of subsection A-1 of the same section:
Buildings and structures associated with agriculture shall be permitted, provided that buildings used for the keeping of livestock and poultry shall not be located any closer than 100 feet to the lot line of a lot that is not in common ownership. Manure storage facilities shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from any lot that is not in common ownership, unless a larger setback is established by state nutrient management regulations.
In short, seeing as though LaFarm does not keep livestock or poultry, and therefore does not require any manure storage facilities, any and all existing structures that could have been considered as part of design considerations for this project were up to code. Depending on the size of the eventual greenhouse, however, LaFarm may at some point have to contend with subsection A-4 of the Forks Code.