The high school project in question is on a 33.9 acre site, which is already the property of a public school district. However, an additional 11.5 adjacent acres will be acquired as part of this project\'s scope. The land that will be acquired is currently the property of a local Park & Planning Commission; the PPC acquired the land in 1999 with the intention of developing ball fields for school and community use. Before acquisition by the PPC, the land had been previously developed as residential property, and while the residential units have since been removed, it is not currently being used as public parkland (nor have any of the intended ball fields been developed). The impending acquisition of this property for our project will allow our project team to develop additional tennis courts, playfields and playgrounds for community use, which is in keeping with the PPC\'s original desire for this area of their park system. We are asking here for clarification and confirmation on a few points: 1) Please provide us with a definition of "parkland" (as it relates to land ownership versus land use) 2) Please provide clarification on whether the acquisition of this additional 11.5 acres from the PPC, for the above stated purposes, complies with the sixth criteria, "Land which prior to acquisition for the project was public parkland, unless land of equal or greater value as parkland is accepted in trade by the public landowner". 3) Please confirm that this land is considered previously developed (i.e., not a greenfield) because it had been developed at one time even if it is currently in a state of "non-use". In other words, is there a point in time where previously developed but unused land reverts back to greenfield status?
The project is inquiring if it is possible to achieve SSc1 despite the development of what is being referred to as "parkland." If the parkland had been intended as a restored natural area for wildlife habitat and the school had paved it over to expand the campus, then the project would not be meeting the intent of the credit and thus would not be eligible to achieve SSc1. However, since the parkland was both previously developed as residential property (i.e. not a greenfield) and slated to be developed as ballfields, tennis courts, etc, the project is meeting the intent of the credit and thus would be eligible for credit achievement of SSc1. Applicable Internationally.