The site is about 47 acres of woods and meadow. It was at one time part of an estate and had a home, garden etc on it. This is where the new site is going. We can easily protect 40% of the site that is wooded. Does a home/estate qualify it as previously developed? If considered a greenfield and we protect 40% of the site then do we have to go to option 2 and pay the fee?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Lene Hill
1 thumbs up
March 12, 2018 - 2:14 pm
So I did find a reference in the LEED reference guide on Pg. 15 that clarifies what is considered undeveloped. The manual calls tricky lands to assess are lands with few buildings present. It then explains that if the land previously had buildings then it is considered previously developed even if those buildings have been torn down. My question then is how far back does one review this? The estate is very old and part of the lands were gardens, fields and orchards. Are these areas considered the areas that were previously developed? The land is now overgrown with trees and vegetation and has been for the past 20 years a least. That seems counterintuitive to go back and restore 30% of this?? Any thoughts and suggestions?