Previously developed site definition

The November 2011 addenda that is referenced in the above FAQs defines prevously developed sites as those that are altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated. Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agrigultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development. You raise a good point, the original definition of previously developed specifically included sites that were graded but the above definition seems to reverse this when it says land that is altered by current or historical clearing or filling is considered undeveloped land. Has anyone else dealt with or been affected by this new definition?

In my opinion, I would interpret this with some reference to time. If the grading, etc., occurred years in the past, in anticipation of development, it seems to meet the new definition of previously developed. If done recently with the relevant project being considered, it feels like the definition does not apply.

Tristan, can you please explain further why you think that the "reference to time" matters to site classification? My interpretation to previously developed definition is that a site that had a permit issuance to some alterations that were actually done («altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting») can be considered as previously development regardless of the «alterations may exist now or in the past». It is the date of the permit issuance that should be used («The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development») but it's the actual alterations that qualify the site for this classification («but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development»). Am I interpreting this right?

Pedro, since this is a hypothetical example, it would help to have some specifics to understand better. It's easy to get tied up in confusing knots with hypotheticals.My reference to time is inexact, I admit. But I'm trying to use it as a proxy for LEED project scope, even if work on the site is done by a different entity. I would contend that is a site that is graded and then developed is not previously developed, no matter who does the grading. But if it was graded years ago, that simply seems different.

Tristan, I'm aware of the issues that can be raised by hypothetical assumptions, however, I believe my previous comment didn't have any "hypotheticals". I just tried to present my interpretation of the definition applied to this case in particular and was hoping that from here on, others could contribute with their view and actual experience. This is mainly because I don't feel very confident regarding the interpretation of previous developed definition when it comes to sites that don't have construction but had infrastructural alterations prior to acquisition. In that cases I don't understand why time of alteration matters...

Pedro, sorry that I haven't been able to clarify matters. Perhaps another person on the forum can help, or you could communicate with GBCI about it.