It’s the brainchild of Greensboro hotelier and restaurateur Dennis Quaintance, who has made his mark in the Triangle as owner of the Lucky 32 restaurant in Cary. Proximity opened in 2008 as the first hotel in America to earn the highest rating offered by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system. With water heated by 100 solar panels on the roof, a high-tech elevator that feeds energy back into the building’s electrical grid and an array of ultra-efficient materials, the Proximity uses 39 percent less energy and 33 percent less water than comparable hotels.

“The widely held notion that building and operating hotels with a commitment to sustainable practices is too expensive is a myth,” Quaintance said. “We wanted to get to the point where we’re not wasting energy and the guest is still very comfortable – and that’s where we ended up.”

But why aren’t more developers joining him? And what can they learn from Quaintance’s project that might serve both their bottom line and sustainable construction?

“Most property owners start with a calculator” – and often hastily decide green buildings cost too much, said Todd Mansfield, past chairman of the Urban Land Institute and current CEO of Charlotte real-estate developer Crosland.

Developers, for example, finance up to 90 percent of the money needed to build a hotel. With that high debt load, they focus on maximizing profits quickly by selling the hotel in three to five years. “There’s also been a long-standing misperception about the cost of green elements, that they add 20 to 25 percent to the cost of a project,” Mansfield said. In fact, he said, those costs more typically run less than 5 percent – and developers are gradually catching on.

Quaintance estimates the green elements of the Proximity added a net cost of about $800,000, or 3 percent, to his $29 million hotel. He expects to recoup it by 2012 through energy savings, state and federal tax credits and other incentives. He’s rooted in Greensboro, put considerable equity into the hotel with his investors and is willing to wait for his payoff – but many developers aren’t. Nor are they inclined to create more work for themselves by vetting the myriad green options that are available – from sensors that switch off the lights in empty rooms to high-tech drapes that retain heat more efficiently.

The result: In the two years since the Proximity opened, just one other hotel in the United States has achieved the platinum LEED rating. Quaintance finds that more disappointing than gratifying. He didn’t build the hotel to make a social statement; he did it because it made business sense.

The hotel’s energy efficiency will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the bottom line in coming years. And, already, about 15 percent of the Proximity’s revenues come from clients who want to hold weddings, meetings and charitable events there precisely because it is a green hotel.

In the Triangle, there are several dozen LEED-certified office, university and public buildings under way or finished. Durham, in fact, is among the national leaders in LEED buildings per capita. Duke University sets the pace with 16 buildings completed and another 12 seeking certification. Scientific Properties and Trinity Design/Build have kept pace with their own LEED-certified buildings. Greenfire Development, one of the city’s largest developers, has several innovative projects using green technology.

To prod more developers in this direction, Quaintance offers a few modest proposals. For example, he said, what if developers received incentives for earning LEED certification? What if they got accelerated tax depreciation for new buildings with energy and water consumption that exceed efficiency thresholds? What if colleges, universities, school systems and government agencies required that all new buildings include an estimate for the first five years of utility costs in their capital expenditure items? The math would show where the long-term savings from green features, such as solar panels, exceeded upfront costs.

“My hope,” Quaintance said, “is that in just a short while our accomplishments with the Proximity will be overshadowed by other hotels and restaurants that surpass our performance.”

Christopher Gergen is on the founding team of Bull City Forward and Director of the Entrepreneurial Leadership Initiative at Duke University. Stephen Martin, a former business and education journalist, is a speechwriter at the nonprofit Center for Creative Leadership. They can be reached at authors@bullcityforward.org.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/06/515631/green-hotel-proves-saving-energy.html#ixzz0qXmNlEyz

“When the area of driveways, parking lots, streets and other impervious cover reaches 10 percent of a watershed area, many types of pollution sensitive aquatic insects decline by as much as one third, compared to streams in undeveloped forested watersheds,” said Tom Cuffney, USGS biologist. “We learned that there is no ‘safezone,’ meaning that even minimal or early stages of development can negatively affect aquatic life in urban streams.”

As a watershed becomes developed, the amount of pavement, sidewalks and other types of urban land cover increases. During storms, water is rapidly transported over these urban surfaces to streams. The rapid rise and fall of stream flow and changes in temperature can be detrimental to fish and aquatic insects. Stormwater from urban development can also contain fertilizers and insecticides used along roads and on lawns, parks and golf courses.

“Stream protection and management is a top priority of state and local officials, and these findings remind us of the unintended consequences that development can have on our aquatic resources,” said Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network coordinator. “The information has been useful in helping us to predict and manage the future impacts of urban development on streams and reinforces the importance of having green infrastructure to control stormwater runoff and protect aquatic life.”

USGS studies examine the effects of urbanization on algae, aquatic insects, fish, habitat and chemistry in urban streams in nine metropolitan areas across the country: Boston, Mass.; Raleigh, N.C.; Atlanta, Ga.; Birmingham, Ala.; Milwaukee-Green Bay, Wis.; Denver, Colo.; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Portland, Ore.

These USGS studies also show that land cover prior to urbanization can affect how aquatic insects and fish respond to urbanization. For example, aquatic communities in urban streams in Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth and Milwaukee did not decline in response to urbanization because the aquatic communities were already degraded by previous agricultural land-use activities. In contrast, aquatic communities declined in response to urbanization in metropolitan areas where forested land was converted to urban land, areas such as Boston and Atlanta.

Comparisons among the nine areas show that not all urban streams respond exactly the same. This is mostly because stream quality and aquatic health reflect a complex combination of land and chemical use, land and storm-water management, population density and watershed development, and natural features, such as soils, hydrology, and climate.

These USGS studies represent an integrated approach to understanding urban streams that includes physical, chemical and biological characteristics associated with urbanization. This is critical for prioritizing strategies for stream protection and restoration and in evaluating the effectiveness of those strategies over time.

For more information, listen to USGS Corecast Episode 127. The full report and extended video podcasts are available at the National Water Quality Assessment program urban studies website.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2475&from=news_side

Read more:  http://www.cbf.org//Page.aspx?pid=1839&srctid=1&erid=3090984

BY DAN FLYNN | MAY 12, 2010

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/05/cleaner-water-goal-of-nutrient-trading/

Rebecca Rush, right, with the Land and Cultural Preservation Fund, talks to an audience at the Women’s Club in Hagerstown about the documentary that Washington County Technical High School students from left, Hannah Leizear, Heaven Burkhammer, Christine Johnson and Kenise Lewis made about the Garden City movement in Hagerstown. (Credit: By Ric Dugan / Staff Photographer)

05/09/2010

Garden City movement inspires student documentary

By JANET HEIM
janeth@herald-mail.com

HAGERSTOWN — Clara Hamilton was ahead of her time, with her plan for what is now known as the Oak Hill Historic District in Hagerstown’s North End.

Even though she lived from 1837 to 1919, her ideas would fit in with the current interest in home gardens, green technology and healthier lifestyles.

Hamilton’s development plan came from the Garden City movement started in England in 1898, and she started putting it into action in Hagerstown in 1909. It focused on the preservation of trees, land for home-based gardens for healthier eating and a walk-to-work concept.

A new generation of Washington County students now knows about Hamilton’s efforts, thanks to a Maryland History Day project. This year’s theme was “Innovation in History: Impact and Change.”

As part of a course requirement for Advanced Placement U.S. History, four Washington County Technical High School students — Heaven Burkhammer, Christine Johnson, Hannah Leizear and Kenise Lewis — were feeling the stress as the last group in their class to pick a project topic.

Nothing seemed to be clicking and multiple snow days slowed the group’s progress. Their teacher, Rossana Larrick, had heard about Hamilton’s efforts through a friend of hers, Rebecca Rush.

Rush recently moved to Hagerstown and knew of the Oak Hill Historic District through her work with the Land and Cultural Preservation Fund, which is headquartered in Frederick, Md.

It was a topic that caught the girls’ attention and although they could focus on something of national interest, they liked the local connection.

“It was a peaceful anti-industrial resistance,” Lewis said of Hamilton’s movement.

The four seniors juggled work and internships to find time to work on the project just about every day for three weeks. Most of it was done out of class, and adding to that challenge was the fact that two of the students live in Hagerstown and two are from Clear Spring.

The girls divided the tasks to create an almost 10-minute documentary. There was research to be done, photographs to be taken, a script and bibliography to write, and lots of editing to be done.

One of the girls was assigned the task of interviewing Steve Sager, who was mayor of Hagerstown in 1987 when the Oak Hill neighborhood was named to the National Register of Historic Places.

“There was a lot of stress putting it together,” Burkhammer said.

“I was still burning CDs the night before,” Leizear said.

The documentary, titled “Hamimlton Plants a Seed: The Garden City Movement of Hagerstown,” won first place for high school documentary — group in the Washington County competition for Maryland History Day. A little more editing was required before it went on to the state level, although it did not place at that level. That version will be sent to the State Women’s History project, in which Rush is involved.

The girls presented their research and showed their documentary on May 3 at the Women’s Club on South Prospect Street in Hagerstown. Other venues, such as the local-access TV station, are being considered.

“With this documentary, Hannah, Heaven, Christine and Kenise have become real historians,” Larrick wrote in an e-mail. “They brought a piece of local history alive — something that very few people actually knew about our hometown. They worked together to analyze and interpret documents and primary sources, they conducted interviews and their documentary became a true group effort.

“I am very proud of their work and their efforts, and how composed they were during the judges’ interviews at both county and state level competition. This is why the National History Day program is so valuable — it keeps history important.”

The state contest was at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, on April 24. The top two county winners, and in some cases the top three, for each category advanced. More than 500 students competed.

Washington County student Sarah Eckstine from Springfield Middle School won the Barry A. Lanman Award for oral history, sponsored by John D. Williard V (of the Maryland Humanities Council), for her exhibit “Tractors: Rolling Through Time.” Her teacher was Linda Martin. 

Ginger Scally, social studies Teacher at E. Russell Hicks Middle School in Hagerstown, received two awards for her leadership in the Maryland History Day program. In addition to being named the Washington County District History Teacher of the Year, she was also given the statewide Patricia Behring Middle School Teacher of the Year Award.

“The Maryland Humanities Council is so proud of our state winners,” said Executive Director Phoebe Stein Davis. “They’ve worked so hard for the past year on their projects, and we hope that our winners go on to win awards at the national competition in June.”

Participants in History Day underwent a yearlong process of intensive research and competitions at the county level. Students conduct research at libraries, museums and historic sites, and through oral history interviews, and present their findings in one of five categories: papers, performances, documentaries, websites and exhibits. 

A complete list of students and teachers honored at the state contest can be found on the Maryland Humanities Council website at www.mdhc.org. 

The Herald-Mail

http://www.herald-mail.com/

The joint letter respectfully requested an allocation in the FY 2011 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill of $10 million for a pilot program for land conservation that contributes to the protection of water quality, wildlife habitat and cultural and other significant landscapes throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Read the Senate letter here

Read the House letter here

Mandatory Adoption

Every municipality in Maryland is required to adopt a “municipal growth element” as part of its comprehensive plan.  The initial deadline for meeting this requirement was October 1, 2009.  For good cause shown, the Maryland Department of Planning may grant up to two six month extensions of this deadline — to either April 1, 2010 or October 1, 2010.

The Maryland Legislature has provided for the suspension of zoning authority in any municipality that fails to adopt a municipal growth element within the prescribed time limits.  By establishing this extraordinary penalty, the Legislature has underscored its commitment to sound planning at the municipal level.

Download the Municipal Growth Element Fact Sheet here.

Purpose

In developing its growth element, a municipality must, among other things, evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of its planned growth on county-wide services and facilities (e.g. roads; schools; water and sewer; parks; fire and emergency services etc.).  This information, in turn, will enable the county to project the likely costs of accommodating proposed municipal growth plans.

Mandatory Consultation

A municipal corporation is required to consult with the county in developing a municipal growth element.  In the course of this consultation, the county may provide the municipality with information related to the cost to the county of accommodating proposed municipal growth.

Mandatory Period of Review and Comment

A municipal corporation is also required to provide a copy of its proposed municipal growth element to the county and, for a period of 30 days thereafter, to accept comments from the county.  In its comments on the municipal growth element, the county may request additional information on the impacts of planned growth on county-wide services and facilities.  The county may also request that the municipality decrease the size of its planned growth area where (i) county-wide services and facilities are not sufficient to accommodate municipal growth plans; and (ii) the county will not in the foreseeable future have the resources to expand its infrastructure to accommodate this planned municipal growth.

Mandatory Meeting of County and Municipal Officials

Within 30 days following the close of the comment period, the county and the municipal corporation “shall meet and confer regarding the municipal growth element.”

This meeting provides the county and municipality an opportunity to resolve differences of opinion regarding (i) the likely costs to the county of municipal growth, as proposed; and (ii) the appropriate size of the planned growth area.  According to the Maryland Department of Planning, “HB 1141 mandates that jurisdictions meet and confer on this subject before the municipal growth element can be adopted.”

Mediation by the Maryland Department of Planning

Following this meeting, “on the request of either party”, the county and the municipality shall employ the mediation and conflict resolution office of the Maryland Department of Planning to resolve any remaining differences of opinion.  The Maryland Department of Planning has stated that:

Good planning dictates that the municipality and county agree on those land areas that will someday become part of the municipality.