Home deadline for energy efficiency improvements tax credits under The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“the stimulus package”), has been extended until December 31^st 2010. The stimulus package authorizes a whopping 30% write-off on eligible improvements (up to $1,500 combined for almost all improvements—with some important exceptions). So what qualifies? Here’s a list (for more information reference URLs are at the bottom):

• Insulation, so long as it meets the 2009 IECC guidelines. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Doors and windows, including  skylights and storm windows and doors. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Roofing, both metal and asphalt, so long as they’re Energy Star^® qualified. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Heating and cooling (HVAC) of nearly every type, including replacement of the main air circulating fan to one that uses no more than 2% of total furnace energy use. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Water heaters with an Energy Factor greater than or equal to 0.82 or that is 90% efficient. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Heat pumps that meet Energy Star^® qualifications. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Biomass Stoves (i.e. a wood burning , pellet, or “corn burning” stove) with a thermal efficiency of at least 75%. (30% credit with a $1,500 ceiling)
• Geothermal Heat Pumps that meet Energy Star^® criteria. (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Solar Hot Water Systems that are Energy Star^® rated, with the restriction that 50% of the hot water generated used must be generated by the installed system. The installed system must be certified by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCC), and must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016.  (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Photovoltaic Systems for residential use. Must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016. (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Residential Wind Energy Systems that have a “nameplate capacity” of not more than 100 kw. Must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016.  (30% of the cost, no ceiling)
• Fuel Cells for residential use. Must have an efficiency of at least 30% and a capacity of at least ½kw. Must be placed “in service” before December 31, 2016. (30% of the cost, up to $500 per ½kw of power capacity)

Visit EnergyStar.gov for complete information about the Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency program. The site has FAQs on all the above programs as well as links to tax forms, IRS notices, and the Tax Incentives Assistance Project (TIAP), an organization dedicated to making government policies such as the Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency comprehensible and accessible to us normal people.

If you need any assistance with your energy efficiency improvement project(s), don’t hesitate to contact us.

Know of an incentive program not listed above? Add it in the comments below!

Late last week I got a call from a long time customer who wanted me to give them a second opinion on what needed to be done with the 110 year old farm house on their property. To renovate or rebuild, that was the question.

As usual, another contractor had given them the sage advice: All you gotta do is leave one wall standing and you can put up a new house and call it a "renovation." He then proceeded to tell them that it was going to be cheaper to replace the old house (as a renovation) than to repair it. And as usual, the real answer wasn’t that simple.

In fact, the answer was so complex that, as I drove away from my final meeting with the client, I began to wonder if this complexity (complete with its inherent cost) is the reason so many old houses are simply abandoned; left to rot, rather than being restored or removed.

A thorough nondestructive inspection of the house revealed that it was pretty much as you would expect a house that old to be. The foundation was shot but the old, virgin redwood framing was as solid as a rock. The roof was also shot, as was the siding, the back porch, and many of the soffits and fascia boards. Wiring was, of course, an add on and electrical outlets were sparse and all over the place. The one and only bathroom had been built on top of the back porch, indoor plumbing being another afterthought.

It was a classic case of code requirements causing a cascade sequence: Leveling the house meant it would also have to be bolted to a concrete (or masonry) stem wall, which in turn meant the exterior walls would have to be opened up. That, in turn, would trigger energy efficiency requirements which effected insulation, heating, and the windows. Removing the siding would trigger the need to install shear panels. Replacing the roof would trigger installing roof sheathing. Modernizing the electrical system, of course, meant not only meeting code requirements for electrical and lighting, but opening up all the walls and ceilings to facilitate doing so.

But the building codes, agree with them or not, were simple and straight forward. Then there was the maze of non-building related land use regulations:

The house sits on an old river delta, or "bottom" that, for over a hundred years, has been farm land. Prior to early settlers re-routing a river in the late nineteenth century, it had been a wetland and was, to some, still considered to be so.

So, the house was defacto sitting in a flood plane and, putting a new foundation under it, or building a new house, meant a "hundred year flood elevation" would have to be established. A process that, unless you’re lucky enough to find an established flood elevation close by, can cost $30,000 or more! (Never mind that it’s 110 year flood-free condition is empirical evidence that it has survived all prior floods and earthquakes just fine, thank you.)

The house also sits in the "local coastal zone" and perhaps in a "wetland." Therefore, replacing the house would trigger a whole complex set of reviews and hearings called the CEQA process that would involve four different agencies with associated direct and indirect costs. Going through CEQA can take a year (or more)—and that’s if there’s a project manager on board to keep the process moving. Left unsupervised, CEQA projects can die a slow death from neglect.

Nor is demolition (or deconstruction) a cheap alternative. Because of the location (coastal zone, wet land, etc.), even that option would trigger a CEQA review.

Before I left, the client told me that their accountant had suggested buying another rental property "in town" could be a cheaper alternative. He may be right. And if that’s the course they choose, then yet another old house will be left to rot away in place thanks to the maze of regulations and their associated, astronomical costs.

So the question is: Have we gone too far? Is it time to begin to rethink some of our regulations, or at least the process? Is it time to simplify, to consolidate? Is it time to give more consideration to the growing burden these regulations place on property owners?

What do you think?

You’ve probably heard all about it: The infamous emails that started it all, the gallons of ink spent telling everyone what it meant, the grudging admission of  Phil Jones, the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit at the time (the scandal forced him to step down), that there has been no “statistically significant” warming for fifteen years. For awhile it seemed it just went on and on and on, all to the great consternation of green movement activists.

Ironically, I think this might be more of a boon than a bane to the green movement if, and only if, they remember the function, and the limitations of activism. Activism is a catalyst. Without it, society wouldn’t  change. But activism is not change. It’s only the catalyst. From the very founding of the American colonies slavery had been a divisive issue, thanks to abolition activists. And there was much celebration when President Lincoln finally eliminated it. By that time, slavery had already been abolished in the North, thanks to the hard work of activists, who had done an excellent job of changing the social consciousness. But their over-reach in trying to force the south to come along was, to a great extent, what started the War.

In the South the social consciousness had not changed. The population in the southern states was not ready for abolition. So despite the seeming activist victory in getting the President to sign a law abolishing slavery once and for all, institutionalized slavery was simply replaced by the Jim Crow laws and all they wrought: Institutionalized discrimination that fairly served the same purpose. It would take nearly another hundred years for the social consciousness to change enough to put an end to it all, and another very rocky fifty years after that to have the whole mess far enough behind us to elect a black president.

Compared to the span of a human life, social change happens very slowly, at a generational pace. Those with open minds learn the benefits of the change and pass that on to their children. When I was a child, not only were African Americans still routinely referred by the N-word, I was taught the racial names for some equipment and only the racial names. I wouldn’t discover the equipments’ real proper name, and that the name I was taught was racial, until I reached adult hood. But my children, who are now grown, don’t quite grok some older people’s problem with other races.

Alas, when it comes to environmental issues we are not anywhere near so far down the evolutionary path. And just as over-reach by the abolition movement galvanized resistance to racial change, so too have I seen the same kind of resistance to environmental change. The public has become numb to the cry of wolf. Most of the population has now been told the sky is falling for most of their lives. I’m probably showing my age, but I remember how the gas crisis of the ’70s was going to end the world as we know it. I also remember when we were supposedly staring the next ice age right in the face. (A global cooling crisis preceded the current global warming crisis.) One more appeal to “change or the world will end” now elicits more yawns than it does panic.

Now admittedly, I live in a part of the country that’s rather dyslexic. Part of the community is made up of old-time lumbermen. Another part is very progressive. But in my career, I can count the number of jobs I’ve sold on an environmental pitch on one hand. The other green jobs were sold not on the basis of green, but of personal gain: Increased energy efficiency, lower electric bills, lower water bills, lower maintenance costs, better indoor air quality. “Green” never entered the conversation; environmental conservation was not a part of the discussion. But they sure loved the results, which encompassed all of those green, environmentally friendly things. (Or pieces of them, in some cases.)

And there in lays the key. Rather than continuing to try and pitch “the sky is falling” to increasingly skeptical ears, the green movement would be better served by focusing on the personal benefits: No more electric bill, no more fuel oil bill, no more rot in the walls, no more drainage problems that flood the basement, no more toxic off gassing that make grandma’s asthma worse. Those are arguments everybody understands, whether they agree with “green” or not.

climategate, green, environmental

Powered by ScribeFire.

Click on the photos to enlarge

A shot of the expansion area. Some of the trees will stay, some will be removed to make space for the RV stalls. The other plants will be replanted along the edge of the creek.

A lovely view of Widow White Creek. That white stuff way down there is soap, unfortunately.

Here’s a better view of the soap—though the picture is a bit out of focus (especially if you enlarge it).

An old “structure” that was put in decades ago to keep the stream from cutting away the bank behind.

This picture is one frame to the right of the one above (that shows the log structure). This kind of pipe and wire setup is no longer used as fish resting in the pools can get cut up on the wire.

The fish ladders installed by CalTrans in the early ’50s. They’re too high for young fish to jump.

A view through the culvert. A very long swim in swift moving fast water for young fish. Weirs need to be installed to create resting pools and the water depth increased.

One of the most interesting things about projects like The Park Project—or any other project where the use of the land has not been previously defined—is the opportunity it presents to demonstrate how we can blend the project into the land on which it is situated and, in some cases, undo the environmental damage done by previous generations.

It is somewhat ironic that, with this project, the limited amount of damage that’s been done is not in the expansion area itself, but rather in the stream areas adjacent to the project, and North and South of the Park property. As the pictures at right show, someone up-stream is pumping a lot of soap into the creek from time to time; there are lots of invasive species (Eucalyptus and English ivy being the two big ones) in the area that date back to the turn of the last century; and the old weir structures were very poorly designed and prevent young steel head and salmon from making it upstream. (There are still a few about, but not as many as there should be.)

Now-a-days the various agencies that manage our land resources are becoming more pro-active in their desire to at least minimize further environmental damage to sensitive areas, if they don’t outright mandate that steps be taken to reverse it. And most land developers and folks in the construction industry see that stance being an intrusive roadblock to their plans for the property.

Indeed, it seems to me that there is a valid argument to be made against forcing current property owners to foot the bill for cleaning up the mess of prior generations. And in the hands of a different project designer and manager, this project certainly might have quickly gone down a confrontational (and therefore very expensive) road. Fortunately, I didn’t fall off the political turnip truck yesterday. Everything you see here is being funded by, and the work done by, NGOs in collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Game. The Park and its personnel are also volunteering some time to various aspects. The work will benefit the public; it will also benefit the project as a whole.

From the beginning my goal for the expansion was zero environmental impact. That meant no runoff into the creeks; that meant controlling public access to the stream areas, either by blocking it off completely or managing the traffic flow by installing trails. I designed and laid out the expansion accordingly.

The goal paid off in spades with the willingness of State and County agencies and NGOs to eagerly come on board to save the much abused Widow White Creek. As the plan stands now:

• The invasive species will be removed.
• Replanting with local species will take place where needed—mostly to replace removed Eucalyptus.
• The stream will be restored as needed. Old structures will be removed and where needed will be replaced. The culverts on both ends of The Park will have proper fish weirs installed so that young steel head and salmon can make it up stream.
• Fish & Game is eager to improve the upstream area beyond The Park. Something as simple as removing the pollution (especially the surfactants) will help the fish population enormously.
• Interpretive trails will be built, with bridges across the creeks and signs identifying the structural work, plant species, and so forth for Park guests and controlled public tours. (I understand the local high school botany class makes field trips to the creek every year.)

By the time the project is finished it should look as nice as any State or Federal Park, and maybe nicer than some.

Do you have a project like this planned? Let me know!

land use, enviromental restoration, stream restoration, new construction

Powered by ScribeFire.

The following article, written by Michael Anschel, is reprinted from Remodeling with both their, and the author’s permission:

Ah HA!

It came to me over a series of tweets. An epiphany of sorts, if you will.

The problem with all these green building programs (including the one I helped create) is the thought process that the user is asked to engage in. No amount of revisions or point adjustment will solve this problem. LEED, NAHB, EarthCraft, Build It Green, even the amazing MN GreenStar are all handicapped by the same thing, and this handicap may be part of what is keeping them from getting the deep market penetration they all want.

Here it is:

The programs are written kind of like a building code. Do this. Don’t do that. Test those. Guess at what that is supposed to really mean. (The funny thing is that first NAHB and now USGBC are trying to emulate a codes-style process for writing the standards as well!)

Codes are good for certain things, no question, and they are a critical part of our building process. They keep the unscrupulous in check and provide a minimal thinking path to allow construction to continue in a mildly safe manner.

But codes don’t get their users to think.

Likewise, codes, rules, and regulations are good for finite tasks – usually single component or micro-system components such as bearing capacity requirements, nailing patterns, smoke detector locations, handrail heights.

But codes are horrible at addressing complex systems. What made us think we could take a system as huge as nature and bottle it up in code?

If we are asking people to think about how everything is connected, how everything goes somewhere, how their actions impact other people, and about their relationship with nature, then why the hell are we telling them to check their brain at the door and pick up a code book? It is almost as moronic as suggesting the LEED AP test (an exercise in minutia), or the NAHB Certified Green Professional test (a joke) have the ability to turn someone into a green expert!

Green building requires you to think. In green building, there is no easy path or one-size-fits-all solution. The sooner everyone understands this, the sooner we can get back to the business of green building.

Michael has hit upon many of my pet peeves about the various green building certification programs. What he doesn’t touch upon is cost: The cost to me as a design builder in jumping through their various tests in minutia to get certified; the cost to you to have your project certified silver, gold, platinum, or whatever the rating scheme is. And for my money and your money, you’re not guaranteed to get any better performance out of your building than if you hadn’t paid to have your building certified, or I to be certified. (As recent articles about LEED rated building performance have shown.)

I also agree with Michael that green building makes those of us who do it think (which is what I like about it). But there’s something else at work here too. Something that not only cannot be defined by check lists or green building codes, but also can’t simply be thought: You have to want to design and build green. You have to like designing and building green. It has to be important to the designer and builder. It has to be a part of who they are and how they think. The old saw that “I can design/build whatever you want” doesn’t work with green building. Often times green building doesn’t begin with the building; sometimes it doesn’t even begin with the site! It might begin with a good history lesson, sometimes followed by lessons in the biology, forestry, ecology, and hydrology of the ecosystems surrounding the building site. All necessary to understand how the building and site must work together to fit seamlessly into the local environment. All concepts completely foreign to main stream designers who see this site no differently than the last dozen sites: Land to be re-arranged to their liking so that their vision will work.

To be done correctly green building has to be important to the project team; it has to be a part of who they are and so be the yard stick by which they value their craft.

To paraphrase Michael’s closing sentence: The sooner we get the right attitudes in place, the sooner we can get down to the business of green building.

LEED, NAHB, USGBC, green, building

Powered by ScribeFire.

Ever driven through a development, or looked at a building and said: “Wow! That sticks out like a sore thumb.” I’ll bet you have, and so have I. For decades, maybe millennium, man has treated the process of building as one that tames nature. We defeat her, overcome her, bring her to heel.

But there’s another way to think about nature. One that I’m incorporating into The Park Project; one that is finally gaining traction in the architectural world. And that is: Not only seamlessly integrating building projects into the environment in which they’re to be placed, but recovering and restoring the surrounding environment.

Architects Bill Reed and John Boecker talk with Michael Anschel about that very process in this video:

Now, I bet many of you are probably thinking: Yeah, but I’ll bet doing that kind of thing costs a lot more!

Do those guys charge their client for those kinds of integrated services? Do I? You bet! But here’s the deal: In more and more regulatory jurisdictions, some form of this kind of approach is already required—indirectly, if not directly—by regulatory agencies that have authority over your project. So by starting your project with integration in mind, you can sometimes actually end up saving money in the long run.

Have you had experience with an environmentally integrated building project? Tell me about it.

architecture, environment, @michaelanschel

Powered by ScribeFire.

The following article was written by Mike Bruno on the Stone Creek Builder’s Blog. I re-post it here because Mike is just so right on about the problems quality builders, and consumers now face as a result of the recession.

I was just thinking that I have been in the home improvement business for almost twenty years. In that time I have had some great experience’s with clients. Experience’s that have not only led to a satisfying career but also great friendships.

When I think about why I got into this business to begin with it was because I love working with people. Of course I love the craft as well but there is something special about building projects that enhance peoples lives. If you have ever crafted something with your hands you can understand the great feeling when you step back and admire your work.

To some old timers, 20 years may seem like a drop in the bucket but during that time the remodeling industry has seen the most dramatic changes due to the advances in technology, product development and the internet. However due to the economic fall out: consumer credit is tightened and some are choosing contractors purely on price instead of quality, experience and professionalism.

So as a result many great craftsman are going out of business. The sad thing is many of them probably went into the business for the same reason I did. And its almost a guarantee that the contractors who low bid the jobs will be out of business too. So what happens next?

• Does the home improvement industry reinvent itself?
• Does some sort of standardization happen so all professional contractors can compete on a level playing field?
• Do we out source all the construction to India?

Who knows but I look forward to meeting new people, more projects, new friends and the ride…

Maybe you’re a real wine enthusiast and have a large wine collection, or maybe you’re a budding collector whose been considering your very own custom wine cellar. The great thing about a custom built wine cellar is that it can be tailored it to your wine collection and your personal style. It’s also an excellent way to utilize the extra or odd space in your house.

But, where do you begin?

The purpose of a wine cellar is to properly store your wines so that they can age correctly, knowing that, it is important to properly construct your cellar. Check out the pictures below of how the Vintage Cellars custom wine cellar design team transformed an unfinished tool storage room into a cellar that fit over 2500 bottles.

Before After

How did we get from barren walls and a cement floor to a functioning cellar? First, we analyzed the available space. We had to keep a few practical issues in mind, such as plumbing pipes that needed access, a drain located in the cement floor that required a raised floor in case of a flood and a second door leading under the house that needed a custom manufactured exterior grade door to keep the cellar properly insulated. Additionally, we inquired about the amount of wine storage desired, and considered our client’s current wine collection, as well as wine trends, bottle sizes and varietals. This is the basic information needed to design any wine cellar. Once we had our information we were able to create a design.

With our design in hand, the next step was to prepare the room and install the cooling system. This took 7 days and required the following steps:

• Stud walls and soffit around all plumbing
• Run a cooling line or frame system
• Set cooling system evaporator coils inside wine cellar
• Set condensing unit in acceptable location
• Creating a vapor barrier
• Insulate the walls and ceiling
• Prepare the electrical and lighting

After studding the walls to frame out the wine cellar, we built a soffit to cover all the piping. Then we installed the cooling unit. We recommend using a ductless split system because it is very quiet, you control where the hot air runs and it is easily serviced. To install this system we ran a line set which runs from the ductless split location to the condenser location. We set the evaporator coils inside the wine cellar and set the condensing unit outside the house for aesthetic reasons.

Next we installed the vapor barrier. To do this, plastic sheeting was applied to the warm wall side of the cellar but was left loose around each stud cavity so they could be insulated. After the plastic sheeting you need to apply insulation to the walls and ceiling. We used rigid insulation, a hard foam with foil on the front and back. It comes in 8 x 8 foot sheets and is cut to the size of each stud cavity. We prefer rigid insulation because it has a greater insulation value per inch. Remember, the better you insulate your wine cellar, the better your cooling system runs.  Since this room had a concrete floor, the floor itself did not need to be insulated and only needed an application of water based concrete sealant with low VOC. Finally, during this stage of construction we determined where the electrical outlets and ceiling lights would be placed.

The next phase of our project was focused more on design and aesthetics. Our client wanted the cellar to be constructed mostly for storage and desired minimal display with a little room for walking and a small counter to open a bottle of wine. This was all preplanned and the materials had arrived during phase one of construction. The walls, floor, racking and lighting were a simple 4-day process. Our clients choose redwood paneling for the interior walls, which we placed over the insulation. Redwood paneling is a moisture resistant product that is both practical and visually appealing.We installed the raised floor and wine racks, which were made of heart redwood to match the wall panels. We completed the wine cellar with a few display lights and the project was complete. Remember, you can transform any room or space into a wine cellar. The best part is that you get to customize it. You can keep it simple and build for volume or make it a more inviting space with personal details specific to your taste.

The possibilities are endless.

—by Jake Austad

——————————–
Editor’s Note: Different jurisdictions will have different permitting requirements and require different amounts of paperwork to be completed before a project such as this can be completed. In some areas a permit for construction can be received in a matter of hours with plans hand drawn on grid paper. In other jursdictions (such as here in Humboldt County California) it is not uncommon for a complete plot plan and very detailed, professionally prepared plans to be required before a permit to begin construction will be issued. —Michael

wine cellar, custom, design, construction

Powered by ScribeFire.

When the quote range on your job runs from $3,000 to $75,000 you’re in trouble. I actually got an email from an individual with that big of a spread for one, single job. He was using the spread to justify his amusement at how architects price jobs based on a percentage of the cost of construction.

He saw the spread of the bids he had received for his job as making his point. I saw something completely different in his example.

First, I saw a bid spread of 400%, which means total chaos. Either there were no construction documents what-so-ever, or they were little better than napkin drawings. Often the cause of such chaotic bidding is a complete lack of construction documents. The customer walks each bidder around the job site pointing here and there, explaining “exactly what they want.” Unfortunately, those explanations often vary wildly from one bidder to the next, so each bidder leaves with a different idea about the scope of work.

Second, I saw a customer who wanted to appear more knowledgeable about the building industry than they really were, which blinded them to the warning flags the bid spread should have sent up.

If all bidders are getting the exact same information about the scope of work, the normal spread in a group of bids should be around 25%. Most of this spread represents differences in each company’s overhead costs, and an assessment of risk involved in doing the job, which the estimator builds into the price. A smaller fraction will be made up of differences in the desired profit margin and crew efficiency. The actual underlying costs remain pretty much the same for all bidders. Pay scales run within the same range, and in most communities the bidders will all be buying their materials from the same suppliers.

So what do you do if you have your job bid and the results are wild? Take a good look at your job. Ask yourself these three questions and consider the solutions:

• Do you have as set of construction documents? If not, this may be a sign that you need to spend the extra money to have some drawn up by a professional. Depending on the size and complexity of the job, you might also consider hiring a professional to manage your job and advocate for you. A construction manager can sometimes save you far more than they cost.
• Did everyone get the same information? If you didn’t have a set of drawings and specifications to hand all your bidders, did you work off of an outline? Unstructured “walk around tours” are nice and all, but you have to make sure you show the same things, and make the same points, to each bidder.
• Did you use the bidding process as an opportunity to gain information about your job? This is a really common practice. And it’s a mistake! Collect information first. Decide exactly what you want done. Pay to have construction documents drawn up if need be. Then get bids on those documents.

Once you’ve identified and corrected the problem(s), you’ll have to go through another round of bidding. Responses from the first set of contractors is likely to be mixed. Working up a bid is a lot of work. It therefore costs money for the contractor to do each and every one. So some will happily come and re-bid the job, others will decline. Be prepared. (This is one instance where a construction manager can be a big help.)

But I can guarantee, if you utilize the tools above, the results will be well worth the time, effort, and money in the quality of bids you receive, and therefore in the quality of building professionals you end up working with.

Model of the bathroom: The walls are CMU block, sealed and painted; the siding is Hardy prepainted “Select Cedarmill”; the roof is Certainteed “prchestnut”; the doors into the mens and women’s restrooms are Thermatru Smooth-Star Fiberglass entry doors; the central gate is custom made wrought iron and leads into a maintenance space that contains all the main plumbing and drain lines, as well as access to the attic space above.

If it seems like I haven’t  made very many posts about projects this year, it’s because I haven’t. But that’s not because I haven’t been busy. It’s been because most of my time has been taken up by this project: The expansion of a local RV park, complete with new a new restroom/laundry facility (shown in the model at right).

I haven’t written about it before because—well, there really hasn’t been much to write about. It’s been all about design, regulatory compliance, and so on. All of which has required a design team comprised of three engineers and three additional consulting scientists, including a Ph.d geologist. Welcome to development in California!

Overall the project has been great fun. (I’m looking forward to being able to do another project like this!) There have been a few hitches along the way (in fact, there was one big hitch), but it always seems to go that way. We got them resolved and continued trucking along. We should come out of planning by the middle of December and be filed with the State and its silly two track process by January. Ground breaking is scheduled for Spring, after the rains stop. In the mean time, the Conversion Exemption has already been approved and tree removal has begun.

Rock on!

rv parks, expansion, development

Powered by ScribeFire.