The previously developed site definition reflected in the narrative above is one that I'm familiar with from a fairly recent addendum. Yet when I look at the 2009 Edition reference manual and the "new" rating systems on the new USGBC website, I see the following:
"Previously developed areas are those that previously contained buildings, roadways, parking lots or were graded or altered by direct human activities."
This less stringent definition would seem to imply that agricultural or farming activities that included a small house for example would qualify as altered by human activities, which is not how I interpret the definition provided on this website - "altered landscapes resulting from current or historical...agricultural...use...are considered undeveloped land"
And, the accompanying definition of Greenfield sites in the reference manual includes "rural landscapes" as a natural area modified by agro-forestry-pastoral activities.
My project is on a site that used to contain a sod farm and a small house. Is that considered previously developed or not? And more importantly, how can I be sure what the correct definition is at any given time?
April Brown
Sustainable Building ConsultantGreen Bridge Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
41 thumbs up
November 3, 2012 - 5:06 pm
In my experience your site would be considered previously developed. Furthermore, I would not consider a sod farm (mono-culture) as a natural area modified by agro-forestry-pastoral activities. Though, as you said, much of these definitions are up for interpretation and the only way to feel 100% confident is to submit a LEED interpretation. Also, you could submit in your preliminary review and see what they say.
Joseph Ford, AIA
ArchitectRSP Architects Ltd.
17 thumbs up
November 28, 2012 - 6:53 pm
Michelle, I have a situation similar to yours. When the owner of my project bought the property it was a working farm and almost all of the site was cleared and plowed fields, i.e.: bare dirt, when we started design. This was also a monoculture, with corn instead of sod.
Pursuing Case 1 and "limiting site disturbance" doesn't make any sense because there is no habitat there to preserve in the first place. Our intent is to restore over 50% of the site area to a native prairie state and pursue the credit under Case 2. I agree that this doesn't seem to meet LEED's current definition of 'undeveloped land' - but turning a monocrop into a prairie should meet the intent of the credit. Right?
As an aside, the Addendum language completely supersedes the definition in the Reference Guide. Ignore the "...graded or altered..." definition in the Guide because it's no longer valid.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
519 thumbs up
November 28, 2012 - 7:14 pm
Hi Joseph,
This one is definitely confusing and interestingly enough I got a response from the USGBC on this definition that I have never seen before:
"It appears that there is a discrepancy between the latest definition of previously developed site in the Glossary of the Reference Guide Addenda (see page 53 of this document: https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/DocumentAddendaRG%20BD+C%2010....) and the definition in the footnote to SSc5.1 of the LEED-NC v2009 Rating System, even in the latest version of the Rating System document (https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%202009%20Rating_NC-GLOBAL...).
We appreciate you pointing out this oversight, and apologize for the confusion. I have escalated the discrepancy, and hope it will be clarified in the next round of rating system updates.
In the meantime, you are free to utilize either definition, as they are both published as applicable. Please note that we recommend using the revised definition from the Reference Guide Addenda (highlighted in the previous response below), as that is the most recent and accurate of the two definitions."
Sounds like you've got your scenario covered. Thanks for sharing your situation.
John Covello
Senior Sustainability ManagerUL Solutions
9 thumbs up
April 11, 2013 - 3:54 am
I have been off of this string for a while. It turns out our site in Thailand in decades past was a rubber tree plantation which has overgrown and then partially developed for resort projects and small housing on parts of it. Would pictures of human activity (culverts, water tank foundations) provide sufficient proof if a question of the site's history comes up? Or does LEED take this on the honor system?
Matthew VanSweden
Director of Intersectional Professional Services55 thumbs up
April 11, 2013 - 8:41 am
John,
I’ll attempt to answer your question by first, not answering your question. In my experience, it is completely up to the project team to determine whether or not a site is a greenfield. Teams often try to determine which option makes the most sense, which usually means which option is the easiest to achieve, which is also quite unfortunate. I would start by trying to determine which option makes the most ecological sense. If a monocrop of rubber trees was replaced by a monocrop of a different sort, there is little ecological value if the site was protected as a greenfield. If however, considerable wildlife and biological diversity has popped up in the decades since the rubber tree plantation days, maybe it does. Keep in mind that this determination between previously developed and greenfields has implication on other credits as well. Please consider not what option is easier but which makes the most ecological sense.
With that said, I’ve never been questioned on this topic and have even been encouraged to switch from one to the other by a review team in order to meet the requirements of the credit. So, if you were to ask me, I would say it is entirely based on the honor system, so long as it is consistently defined in other credits throughout the rating system AND there is some logic to whatever conclusion the team comes to.