Schools often cannot afford "choice" sites. We have a school with a 155 acre site, 70% of the site is a wetland. If we include the entire property area based on the lot size, we do not meet the minimum 2% gross building area to site area (even though the building is 75,000 sf.) The owner does not plan to develop the wetland. We do not need to count the wetland area for our openspace requirements or any other credits. We have only developed in the open field upland of the wetland. The wetland is completely out of the limits of construction. Can we reasonably exclude the wetland from the LEED property boundary, or can we be considered exempt from the 2% requirement because the land is being preserved? Would the parcel have to actually be divided or the land be put into a trust for this to count?
Two additional parcels of land were purchased adjacent to this site at the same time with the intent of building a future school, it is easy to leave those out, but it is complicated by the fact that the second school would actually use part of the 155 acre parcel used by the current LEED registered project. I can reasonably justify excluding that portion of the 155 acre parcel because we have a plan showing the future development, but it is not enough area to get the ratio down to 2%. Any suggestions?
Kimberly Frith
323 thumbs up
October 24, 2012 - 7:14 am
Patricia,
Based on the MPR Supplemental Guidance for MPR #3, your boundary has to include all land that will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project. Since you mention that the wetland is completely out of the limits of construction, I think you've got a good case for excluding it from your LEED project boundary. It's common to use the limits of construction for your LEED project boundary, and you don't have to include adjacent parcels owned by the same party if they aren't a part of your project.