BUILDING in Maryland and Washington, DC

EXCLUSIVE MAGAZINE OF THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

SEPT/OCT 2012

The 2012 IECC Code Airtight Requirements Leave Builders Little Breathing Room Also in this Issue: The 2012 PROS Awards

Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association 1738 Elton Road, Suite 200 Silver Spring, MD 20903 Phone: (301) 445-5400, Fax: (301) 445-5499 E-mail: communications@mncbia.org Website: www.mncbia.org 2012 Executive Committee Steve Nardella President

Frank Bossong, IV Associate Vice President

Rick Bailey Vice President/Calvert Co.

Clark Wagner Treasurer

Doug Meeker Vice President/Charles Co.

Dave Lunden Vice President, State Legislative/Secretary

Robert J. Spalding Vice President/Montgomery Co.

BUILDING

IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC Representing Calvert, Charles, Montgomery, Prince George’s and St. Mary’s counties in Maryland and Washington, DC

FEATURES

Robert R. Harris Life Director

Hillary Colt Vice President/ Prince George’s Co.

Martin J. Mitchell Immediate Past President

Mike Mummuagh Vice President/St. Mary’s Co.

Stephen P. Elmendorf Legal Counsel

Brian “A.J.” Jackson Vice President/Washington DC

Diane K. Swenson Executive Vice President

2012 Board of Directors

Lynn Elahi Brian Afnan Hugh Carroll Jeff Caruso Chuck Covell Mike Conley Tony Crane Timothy Dugan Ken Dunn Mary Giles Tom Hudson Tom Hyde Robert A. Jacobs

Howard Katz David Little Mark MacFarland Tom Marshall Jim Plazak Steve Robins Gary Rubino Michael Schueler Charlene Thayer Peggy White Mel Willis Carter Willson

MNCBIA Staff

Executive Vice President Diane K. Swenson, CAE Vice President, Government Affairs F. Hamer Campbell, Jr.

8 2012 IECC Code Tighter Requirements on the Way

8

1 0 The 2012 PROs Awards Setting the Standard for Excellence 12 BIA’s Annual Golf Tournament Back at Blue Mash

10

DEPARTMENTS 6 A Message from the President

Associate Director/Government Affairs Robert Kaufman

15 The Legal Pad

Associate Director/Regulatory Affairs Annette Rosenblum

16 The Engineer’s Angle

Communications Director Kelly H. Grudziecki

17 MNCBIA Membership News

Director, Membership/Events Jean Mathis

New Members

Manager, Builders Development Guaranty Group Lisa S. Goheen Director, Home Builders Care Foundation/HomeAid DC Patti Kane

SEPT/OCT 2012

MNCBIA’s Most Wanted List

12

STARS Club 18 Events Calendar Index of Advertisers

Published for: Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association 1738 Elton Road, Suite 200 Silver Spring, Maryland 20903 301-445-5400 Fax: 301-445-5499 E-mail: building@mncbia.org Website: www.mncbia.org

Published by:

E&M Consulting, Inc. 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite 350 Chaska, Minnesota 55318 800-572-0011 Fax: 952-448-9928 Website: www.emconsultinginc.com Published August 2012 MNC-S0210/9844

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

|

SEPT/OCT 2012

5

FROM THE PRESIDENT

Changing the Way we Build and Work

I

Steve Nardella

6

SEPT/OCT 2012 |

hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable summer despite the extraordinarily hot temperatures and unusually strong storms that wreaked havoc over much of the region. I was able to enjoy a slightly relaxed schedule and spend time with family and friends both locally and at the beach.

As we turn the corner toward the final months of the year, most of us around the state will find ourselves building to a much more stringent energy code. Maryland law requires local jurisdictions to adopt and implement the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) after July 1, 2012. The IECC establishes energy conservation goals and construction techniques on a three year cycle and building to the new 2012 Energy Code increases energy efficiency by 15 percent over the 2009 Code. The stringent 2012 IECC contains less flexibility than previous versions and will change the way your business builds and remodels in Maryland. Be sure and read the feature story on the new code in this issue.

In the spring of 2011 representatives of the MNCBIA, the Home Builders Association of Maryland (HBAM), Frederick County, Western MD and the Eastern Shore of MD met to discuss the pros, cons and opportunities of merging the five Home Building Associations around the state. Following those meetings, it was concluded that the best opportunity was to consider a merger with HBAM, the Baltimore metro region’s 700 member association. In September 2011 the board of directors of the MNCBIA endorsed pursuing a merger between MNCBIA and HBAM, and formed a committee to continue the analysis of the feasibility of a formal plan of merger/consolidation.

Since then, a combination of each leadership group has met to fully evaluate the financial and operational impacts of a potential merger between the two groups. The reasoning for considering such a move after each group having successfully operated for decades included three primary benefits. A larger combined statewide association would; 1) Increase our strength, relevance, voice and therefore advocacy effectiveness in Annapolis where there has been a dramatic shift in negative impacts to our industry from state legislative and regulatory initiatives. 2) Help ensure financial stability, sustainability and growth through the operational efficiency and cost effectiveness of a single combined operation as both associations have been operating in deficit due to the building recession. 3) Improve and expand service and increase market opportunities for our members by combining and expanding our geography of influence and providing access to more builder and associate members.

A combined association would constitute 1,200 member

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

companies and be involved in 11 counties, Baltimore City and the District of Columbia.

In May 2012 the merger subcommittee concluded its feasibility work and the executive committees of each association met in a combined meeting on June 14th to evaluate the findings and perform its own analysis of the pros and cons of a merger of the two associations. At the conclusion of that meeting, each executive committee found that; 1) a consolidated state effort, which includes consistent and unified information and message remains the highest priority for our associations; 2) with the feasibility work to date there are not demonstrable financial benefits to each or both associations by combining operations; 3) there are many operational or efficiency questions that cannot be fully understood or answered until we do real work together first. Most importantly we need to assess and understand the impact that a merged association would have on membership and whether it would impact our effectiveness at the local and county levels.

As a result it was decided that the best course of action was that a legal merger was not warranted at this time and that we can accomplish many of the goals and continue to evaluate other ways for the Associations to work together with a documented affiliation with HBAM and the Maryland State Builders Association (MSBA). The agreement objectives could more formally coordinate our state lobbying efforts, share and participate in joint networking and education events, and examine more thoroughly with our respective staffs any opportunity to expand services to members of each group and combine any operational matters. On June 28th the MNCBIA Board of Directors voted to confirm the executive committee’s recommendation.

For the remainder of the fall, we will be working on the details of a more formal and active affiliation with HBAM and the MSBA with the goal of bringing our respective associations closer together during 2013 and building trust and effectiveness at multiple levels.

In closing, I want to again ask for your help with membership. Please take a few minutes today to contact one of your associates, vendor partners, contractors or subcontractors and try to recruit at least one new member.

You will be helping your association to improve our financial strength and influence and helping to grow our MNCBIA family.

Thank you!

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

|

SEPT/OCT 2012

7

Decoding the Code

The 2012 IECC has many new and unfathomable provisions. Builders and code officials alike are struggling to decode it.

By Michael Fickes

W

hen planning for the 2012 International Energy Conversation Code (IECC) training program got underway, Daniel F. DiVito, President of the Maryland Building Officials Association (MBAO), worried that there wouldn’t be much interest. He recalled organizing seminars for the 2009 code that attracted only 40 or so builders.

“We needn’t have worried,” he says today. “It took three days to fill up our first seminar with 150 students. The next one filled up immediately with 100 students. The same thing happened in Howard County — 150 students signed up as soon as the seminar was announced.”

Last year, DiVito moved to the County’s Department of Water Quality as Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Management, but he remains involved in the code adoption effort.

Why all this interest in 2012 IECC training? “Because of the mandates,” DiVito says. “Many of the optional provisions of the 2009 code are mandated this time around. Builders are concerned about the increasing costs of compliance.”

In addition, the mandates often involve drastically tighter specifications that appear difficult to satisfy.

The authors aimed to make the 2012 IECC code 30 percent more energy efficient than the 2006 code and 15 percent more efficient than the 2009 code.

Among many new requirements, the 2012 code tightens up the envelope, requires additional high efficacy lamps, insulates hot water pipes and seal ducts more tightly.

Pushing the Envelope Specifications calling for increased air tightness rank among the biggest, most expensive and most difficult to achieve changes in the new code.

The code mandates a checklist for creating a continuous air barrier. Then builders must conduct a 50-Pascal blower door test to prove that the air leakage rate is no more than three air changes per hour in climate zones 4 and 5 — which covers Maryland.

By comparison, the 2009 IECC offered options to builders. They could follow a specific checklist or do it their way and prove it with a blower door test. The leakage rate could be no more than seven air changes per hour.

Now builders have to do both meet the checklist and pass a blower door test.

If all this isn’t tough enough, the code has left open the question of a visual inspection, saying: “Where required by the code official, an approved third party shall inspect all components and verify compliance” (R402.4.1.1).

The major rub, of course, is moving from seven to three air changes. Builders say it is tough to reach that level and may lead to unhealthy indoor air quality.

“Air changes can be a big issue,” says George Martin, plans examiner with Howard County’s Department of Inspection, License and Permits, who heads

8

SEPT/OCT 2012 |

up the MBOA outreach group to builders for the new code. “It all depends on what an inspector says is three air changes. In Howard County, when we were enforcing the 2009 code most of our builders were getting to 3.5 and 3.8 air changes per hour. Now that we’re enforcing the 2012 code, I’ve told our inspectors that as long as the first number is a three, we’re good to go.”

Fortunately, the code does allow for discretion by code officials.

Builders are also worried about the potential for unintended consequences in a tight house.

“Tight houses hold more moisture and increase the potential for condensation inside the walls,” says Randy Melvin, director of research and standards at Winchester Homes, Inc. in Bethesda.

Won’t condensation inside a wall produce mold? “The NAHB research center is studying high performance walls in houses across the country to gain a better understanding of how this works,” continues Melvin. “This should have been studied before specifying a tighter envelope. So mold? Yes, no, maybe.”

Suppose a family buys a home, and two years later must tear out the walls because of mold. Who’s liable? The builder had no choice but to follow the code, which created those conditions. Again, there is no certainty about whether or not this may happen.

“Builders are concerned about the increasing costs of compliance.”

Laurence Cafritz Builders, a custom homebuilder based in Bethesda, isn’t taking any chances with the mold issue. “You have to take steps to reduce the risk of humidity,” says company President Laurence M. Cafritz. “I don’t think there is any way to get rid of it without a dehumidifier.

“I’d also say for certain that we have to bring in outside fresh air to prevent the house from turning into a vacuum when you turn on the exhaust fans. But an outside air duct that goes into the HVAC system — when it is 20 degrees or 100 degrees outside — defeats the purpose of an efficient HVAC.” Insulating the Walls, Windows and Ceilings While code officials and builders deal with the puzzles created by super tight houses, they are also working on questions raised by the new code’s insulation specs.

The base code calls for R-20 wood frame wall insulation and R-49 insulation in the attic. Windows must carry a U-factor of 0.32 in climate zone 5 and Marine 4 or a 0.35 U-factor in climate zone 4, except for the Marine area.

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

The code allows a modification of the wall specification with R-13 cavity insulation plus R-5 continuous insulation or insulated siding.

“You can also use the UA alternative,” Martin says. “You can add the R-values for each component of the wall assembly — the siding, air space, sheathing, insulation, inside dry wall, inside air films and so on, then convert the R-Value total to a U-Value. If you can get to a UA value of 0.35 or less, you’ve met the code.”

Winchester’s Melvin, who chairs the MNCBIA Codes and Standard Committee, adds that a builder could find cost effective alternatives by taking advantage of tradeoffs allowed under the code’s simulated performance path.

For example, moving HVAC equipment and associated ductwork out of an unconditioned attic and putting it inside the conditioned energy envelope of the home can save an appreciable amount of energy.

“The problem is that the residential section of the 2012 IECC inequitably picks winners and losers as to what energy saving components can or cannot be traded off,” continues Melvin. “For instance, many builders would rather have the option of using well-proven, energy efficient HVAC equipment than unnecessarily being forced into constructing an overly tight home, which requires the addition of outdoor air.

But the residential section of the 2102 energy code doesn’t allow trading more efficient equipment for air tightness. In fact, problematically, neither more efficient equipment nor air tightness can be traded. Even more perplexing, under the commercial section of the 2012 IECC, which would include four-story townhomes, equipment tradeoffs are allowed!”

High Efficacy Lamps, Sealed Ducts and Insulated Pipes Additional 2012 changes affect the efficiency of lighting, ducts and hot water.

The 2009 code was the first to address lighting. It required at least half of the lamps installed in permanent fixtures to be high efficacy. The 2012 code raises the requirement to 75 percent.

Then there is the duct-blaster test. “It is only if there are ducts in unconditioned space,” says Cafritz. “If the ducts are completely inside the thermal envelope, you don’t have to test.”

For ductwork that must undergo testing, the code requires pumping 25 Pascals of pressure into the system and allows a leakage rate of just 3 CFM — 4 CFM if the air handler has been installed.

“This is a big change,” Cafritz says. “The 2009 code allowed 8 CFM if the test was run before the installation of the air handler and 12 CFM with the air handler in operation.”

Still another change involves R-3 insulation for most hot water pipes.

“This is going to be costly,” Cafritz says. “It might add $1,500 to the cost of a small house.”

The code language about pipe insulation is also raising questions. One provision, for instance, requires insulation for a ½-inch piping run longer than 20 feet. “Does the insulation start at 20 feet out or does the provision apply to the entire length of pipe?” asks Martin. “This is not made clear.

“And what about vertical piping? Those pipes are usually anchored to a stud on an interior wall. How can you get the insulation around those pipes? There are standoff hooks that will support the pipe away from the stud but these are commercial grade products, and a plumber won’t want to change the pricing.”

Working Together Working out critical details like these is always part of implementing a new code.

Thanks to the many mandated and prescriptive provisions, the 2012 code has many more such details than previous codes. That’s why training seminars for the 2012 code fill up so quickly.

Answering all of these questions challenges builders and code officials to work together in affirmative ways. “Relationships between local code officials and builders shouldn’t be adversarial,” says John Gibson, technical manager for education with the International Code Council. “We can have differences of opinion, but all of us have the same collective goal — to provide good products for homeowners.

“To do that, it’s critical for builders and code officials to keep talking and figure out how to make it work.” m

The Price Tag for Energy Savings The 2012 code has a hefty price tag. Back in May, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) published a report entitled “2012 IECC Cost Effectiveness Analysis.” It concludes that the 2012 IECC will add $7,034 more to the cost of building a house than the 2006 version.

Most of that total, $5,668, represents the cost increase over the 2009 IECC.

savings for the 2012 IECC over the 2006 IECC baseline is 37.9 percent,” which is significantly higher than the stated goal of 30 percent.

Expensive? Yes. But the NAHB report says that “the national average percent energy cost

To purchase a hard copy of the I-Codes ($40), go to www.iccsafe.org.

Even so, the improved energy performance remains difficult to reach given all the details that still need to be worked out in discussions between builders and code officials.

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

|

SEPT/OCT 2012

9

The 2012 PROs Awards

A

beautiful spring day brought out a crowd of more than 300 builders, developers, trade contractors and field/service employees to Smokey Glen Farm in Gaithersburg, MD, on June 5th for the 12th annual PROS Awards to honor those men and women who excel at their craft and set the standard for excellence in the building/remodeling industry.

The awards are sponsored by the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association and the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association, who, for the past 12 years have recognized and honored the best “workers in the field” who develop the land, construct the houses and work with the customer to produce award-winning homes.

Adding to the excitement of the day was the PROS EXPO tent, which featured nearly two dozen exhibitors showcasing their latest products and services. And what PROS event would be complete without the dueling ziplines, which had the daring attendees soaring, (some upside down), over the fields of Smokey Glen. Those not fond of flying could scale the climbing wall for a great view of the park.

Nominees for the PROS Awards were submitted by their employers and interviewed by teams of judges including, Mike Anderson, Miller and Smith Homes, Lisa Conyer,

Winchester Homes, Howard Katz, Michael Harris Homes, Michael Bell, CGP, the bell company, John Goodwin, Pulte, and Mike Schueler, Winchester Homes who contributed many long hours to the adjudicating process.

Special thanks to the PROS Committee, Co-Chairs, Mike Schueler, Winchester Homes and Mike Anderson, Miller and Smith Homes, Michael Bell, CGP, the bell company, Lisa Conyer, Winchester Homes, Howard Katz, Michael Harris Homes, Sal Migliore, Augustine Homes, David O’Bryan, Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Brian Phebus, Winchester Homes Inc., Mark Sucher, Lyons & Sucher Advertising, Jim Plazak, Fireside Hearth & Home, and John Goodwin, Pulte.

Of course this event would not have been possible without the generous contributions of our sponsors and donors, of which a complete list can be found at www.mncbia.org > “Industry Awards” > “The PROs Awards.” A special thank you to Mark Sucher and Lyons & Sucher Advertising for all of their in-kind services including the print materials and Website design.

Be sure to check out all the photos from the PROs Awards at our photographer’s (Rex Reed) Website, www.amberleafarm.com. Digital photos can be downloaded for free.

Congratulations to the following individuals who achieved the PROs Award for 2012 Best Production Manager

121 Units SFH/TH Winner Bob Anderson, Stanley Martin Homes 61-120 Units Multifamily Runner Up Brian Bell, Bozzuto Homes 61-120 Units Multifamily Winner Marco Scarzella, Pulte 61-120 Units TH Winner Mark King, EYA

Best Project Manager/ Superintendent

10

121+ Units SFH Winner Randy Kolb, DR Horton

21-40 Units Multifamily Runner Up Dan Arsenault, Bozzuto Homes

121+ Units TH Runner Up Zach Hirmer, Pulte

21-40 Units SFH Winner John Dorsey, Mid-Atlantic Builders, Inc.

121+ Units TH Winner Brad Wilson, EYA

21-40 Units SFH Runner Up Bob Wilhide, Michael Harris Homes

1-5 Units TH Winner Steve Kimble, Carter Willson

21-40 Units SFH Runner Up Brent Hart, Pulte

1-5 Units SFH Runner Up Erika Luedtke, Mid-Atlantic Builders, Inc.

21-40 Units TH Runner Up Algie Risinger, Mitchell & Best Homebuilders, LLC

121+ Units Multifamily Runner Up Bob Beegle, DR Horton

1-5 Units SFH Winner Rentz Hilyer, Bowa

121+ Units Multifamily Winner Daniel Langham, DR Horton

21-40 Units Multifamily Winner Justin Campbell, Pulte

SEPT/OCT 2012 |

21-40 Units TH Winner Shawn Hughes, Miller & Smith Homes

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

21-40 Units TH Runner Up

Tom Bolt, Pulte 41-60 Units TH Winner Larry Fritz, Michael Harris Homes 41-60 Units TH Winner Devon Harris, Winchester Homes 41-60 Units TH Runner Up Robert Potter, Pulte 41-60 Units Multifamily Winner Chad O’Brien, Pulte 41-60 Units SFH Winner Pete Cook, Pulte 41-60 Units SFH Winner Matthew Makowski, Winchester Homes 61-120 Units Multifamily Winner

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

John Bell, Bozzuto Homes 61-120 Units Multifamily Runner Up Jeff Bellmer, Pulte 61-120 Units SFH Winner Michael Phelps, DR Horton 61-120 Units TH Winner Matt Robertson, Pulte 6-20 Units SFH Winner James Dabbs, Pulte 6-20-Units TH Winner Jim Scala, Bozzuto Homes

Best Land Development/ Superintendent 101-300 Units Winner Bill Dowd, EYA

21-100 Units Winner Tony Shumate, EYA 300+ Units Winner Robbie Thompson, Elm Street Development

Best Customer Service/ Manager-Field

21-40 Units SFH Winner Trevor Webb, Mid-Atlantic Builders, Inc. 41-60 Units Multifamily Winner Joseph Moore, Pulte

Best Field Tech/Customer Service/Construction 41-60 Units TH Winner John Rippey, Bozzuto Homes 61-120 Units TH Winner Philip Launay, Bozzuto Home

41-60 Units SFH Winner Ed Hancock, Pulte

61-120 Units Multifamily Winner Kevin Baer, Pulte

41-60 Units TH Winner Paul Cross, KB Home

6-20 Units SFH Winner Jorge Tellez, Bowa

61-120 Units TH Winner Dwayne Waters, Pulte 61-120 Units SFH Winner Nelson Lopez, Winchester Homes

Best Customer Service Rep-Office 121+ Units Multifamily Runner Up Brian Matte, DR Horton

Best Purchasing Agent/Manager 101-300 Units Winner Dave Small, Pulte

21-100 Units Winner Lucas Morris, KB Home 21-100 Units Winner Jenny Spicer, Michael Harris Homes

121+ Units Multifamily Winner Melody Mayes, Pulte

PUD Over 300 Units Runner Up Steve Denyer, Pulte

121+ Units SFH Winner Julia Bottiny, Pulte

PUD Over 300 Units Winner Michael Holtet, Stanley Martin Homes

121+ Units Multifamily Winner Joseph Cunningham, Pulte

121+ Units TH Winner Linda Turnbow, EYA

121+ Units SFH Winner Ron Proctor, Pulte

121+ Units TH Runner Up Veronica Henderson, Pulte

121+ Units SFH Winner Gary Phelps, Winchester Homes

Units SFH Winner Cater Willson Jr., Carter Willson

121+ Units TH Winner Lisa Hamlin, Pulte

60 Units SFH Winner Dane Hurst, Bowa

Best Office Professional, Accounts Payable

Best Office Professional, Accounts Receivable

Winner Robin Serone, Michael Harris Homes

Best Office Professional, Administrative Assistant Winner Christi Eide, Bozzuto Homes

Best Office Professional, Contract Coordinator Winner Jason Lotz, Bozzuto Homes

Best Office Professional, Permits Coordinator Winner Melissa Murray, Bozzuto Homes

Best Office Professional, Sales/Purchasing Support SFH Winner Irene Mathis, Winchester Homes

Best Office Professional, Sales/Purchasing Support TH

Winner Laurel Kitzman, Winchester Homes

Best Office Professional, Product Development Winner Samantha Williams, Miller & Smith Homes

Best Office Professional, Settlement Coordinator

Runner Up Kathy Bartlett, Mid-Atlantic Builders, Inc.

Runner Up Mary Myers, EYA

Runner Up Susan Silvern, Bozzuto Homes

Runner Up Angela Bauman, Pulte

Winner Carol O’Keefe, EYA

Winner Jill Bobick, Winchester Homes

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

|

SEPT/OCT 2012

11

BIA’s Annual Golf Tournament - Back at Blue Mash

T

he MNCBIA took its Annual Golf Tournament back to Blue Mash Golf Course in Laytonsville, MD this year. Blue Mash is an award winning golf course designed by world-renowned golf course architect Arthur Hills and it did not disappoint our players. For a little added competition, BIA also held a putting contest, which gave players three chances to make a putt (with a tricky break). No one made it into the hole but coming amazingly close, with a distance of just 1 inch, was Brian Farasy (son of past BIA President Tom Farasy).

The tournament wrapped up around 2:00pm when players were greeted to a BBQ buffet and the chance to relax and compare scores. Prizes were awarded to the top scoring teams and players with the best shots. Taking first place in the tournament with a score of 63, was the team of Kevin Kennedy, Sean Sherman, Bob Kaufman and Hans Riemer. Coming in a close second with a score of 65 was the foursome of Matt Fox, Dennis Kelleher, Leslie Hazel and Ed Messick.

In the closest-to-the-pin contest, the winners were, Steve Pettit, Sean Sherman, Craig Severson, Alex Severson and Sylke Knuppel.

12

SEPT/OCT 2012 |

A big thank you to the Golf Committee for organizing such a great event.

The committee includes, Chairman, Dana Heidemann, GE Appliances and Vice Chairman, Mel Willis, Burgess & Niple, Inc., Brooke Burns, Hanley Wood Market Intelligence and John Washington, Sears Commercial Sales, with staff support from Jean Mathis.

The event would not be successful without our loyal sponsors. Your continued support makes this a truly great affair. MNCBIA gives its sincere thanks to the following sponsors: 19th Hole Sponsor, Washington Gas, Breakfast Sponsors, Acacia Federal Savings Bank, Lessard Design and Selzer Gurvitch, Beverage Sponsor, Shipshape IT and our Tee Sponsors, Dewberry, Gutschick, Little & Weber, PA, Hanley Wood Market Intelligence, Home Buyers Warranty, Rodgers Consulting, Inc. and Shulman Rogers. And a special thank you to BIA’s 2012 STARS members whose overall support made this event possible. m

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

|

SEPT/OCT 2012

13

The Legal Pad TPAR is Mixed Blessing

By Erica A. Leatham, Ballard Spahr, LLP

I

n response to concerns over the impact of the existing Subdivision Staging Policy (formerly known as the Annual Growth Policy) strategy for measuring transportation capacity, the Montgomery County Planning Board proposed a replacement to Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR), called Transportation Policy Area Review or TPAR. Frustrations with PAMR universally centered on the fact that, despite developers making payments to mitigate new trips, the funds were not being used to enlarge roadway capacity. Therefore, the County Executive directed the Planning Board to develop methodology to “provide increased assurance that transportation improvements that form the basis for approval of new development actually take place.” Concurrently, the Council recognized that “there is little CIP [Capital Improvement Plan] spending that the Council is forced to do” and that Council was in “need of a strong incentive to program funds.”

Consequently, the new 2012 Subdivision Staging Policy TPAR test identifies the County improvements detailed in each Master Plan; specifically the improvements, road and/or transit, that the County is obligated to provide in order to implement its Master Plans. In addition, TPAR provides a separate analysis of roadway congestion and transit service and creates a “trigger” to release transportation expenditures to areas where growth is projected.

The money collected under TPAR will be used to partially fund the projects.

The benefit, or lack thereof, of TPAR will depend on where the development project is located.

Unlike PAMR, TPAR will impose on all developments a per-trip fee, irrespective of an area’s traffic capacity, similar to the “pay and go” mechanism in place in the last decade. Currently, under PAMR, developers pay an $11,400 fee to mitigate trips if the policy area is over capacity. The current PAMR fee is in addition to the Transportation Impact Tax assessed on all new development – the Transportation Impact Tax rate is determined by location (Metro, Clarksburg, or General); the rate for Detached Single family units ranges from $6,213 to $18,638 while office space is charged from $5.65 - $13.60 per sq. ft. Gross Floor Area.

The TPAR per trip fee, as suggested by the Planning Board, is a minimum fee of $600 and a maximum of $12,000 per trip; the actual fee being the cost of the County improvements within each Planning Area (split 50/50 between the public and private sectors) divided by the number of trips from the policy area. The “trips” are the number of trips projected to grow during

the 30-year period between 2010 and 2040. The fees collected under TPAR would be allocated to the improvements selected by the Council; while Park & Planning will identify the transit and road improvements necessary in each Master Plan to create the “adequacy” required by the Master Plans, the Council must add the improvement to the CIP when 10 percent of the cost is collected through TPAR. The Subdivision Staging Policy recommends that projects be placed into the Facility Planning Program when 10 percent of the needed funds are contributed by the private sector and into the Capital Improvement Program when funding agreements are in place for the remainder of the private share.

It should be noted that the Planning Board also recommended the Council eliminate the ability to offset TPAR payments through developer-funded projects (an option available under PAMR) and to eliminate the 25 percent reduction in trip mitigation costs available to developers (if they located close to a Metro station, built predominantly residential units, and agreed to meet specific energy efficiency standards).

In addition to the transportation test, the 2012 Subdivision Staging Policy also revises the current School Facilities Payment. The School Facilities payment (separate from the School Impact Tax) is levied on new residential units when school enrollment is at 105-120 percent capacity; new development is taxed with 60 percent of the construction cost per student, though there is no obligation for use of the funds to imminently solve the capacity issue at that school. The Planning Board forwarded a Resolution to decrease the School Facilities payment by up to $4,000 per student.

The benefit, or lack thereof, of TPAR will depend on where the development project is located. For properties that would otherwise require mitigation, TPAR could represent a less expensive option. For properties in policy areas that do not currently require mitigation, however, TPAR would represent an additional expense. As TPAR goes through Council revisions, the payment parameters may change and require additional analysis; once the Subdivision Staging Policy is adopted, another round of analysis will be required when the Council makes the decision to adopt, or not, a busrapid-transit system. In moving back toward a pay and go model, however, moratoriums are eliminated and the County may be able to collect enough revenue to fund overdue projects. m Erica A. Leatham of Ballard Spahr, LLP, concentrates in the areas of zoning and land use and real estate taxation appeals. She is a LEED AP and represents clients in zoning and land use matters before various administrative boards and commissions. For additional information or questions, Erica can be contacted at 301-664-6254 or leathame@ballardspahr.com.

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

|

SEPT/OCT 2012

15

The Engineer’s Angle Stream Buffers–Is More Really Better?

by Andrew T. Der, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP

E

arlier this year, the Charles County Commissioners deliberated, with public input, a proposed new Master Plan to address growth and water resource protection utilizing certain presumptions based on desktop environmental approaches. This strategy assumed scientific and technical principles to be consistent and predictable without regard to the varied character of onsite natural resources and ecosystems. Assumptions like these proved to be challenging and the County correctly chose to further analyze the proposed changes prior to implementing any county-wide planning changes.

I was invited to provide expert testimony to the Commissioners and Planning Commission on the merits of changing their current Master Plan.

Their Plan already included an effective and innovative strategy of a Deferred Development District to designate a controlled region of the County for mindful expansion in a manner that balances strict water resource protection with planned and inevitable growth. While several ecologically based strategies were deliberated as potential planning tools, the primary one of concern was the land use implications of additional stream setback buffers beyond what is already required.

The trouble with ecologically based desktop planning is – well – it is ecologically based. Natural resource and site character is insufficiently static, consistent, or predictable to make reliable planning level conclusions.

Anticipating future outcomes in this manner without some site-level evaluation and ground-truthing regarding water quality, soils, geology, contours, plants and animals can be unreliable and impractical. For example, increasing buffer setbacks beyond existing criteria may sound intuitively beneficial, but is overly simplistic if the pre-existing property condition is, say, pre-permit development and mining or agricultural. In these cases, onsite water quality controls, stream restoration and reforestation would be far more effective – and practicable as is referenced for Environmental Site Design (ESD) in the new Stormwater Management (SWM) law.

So where does that leave the industry? Right where we are - which is not at all bad. It so happens the existing processes in place statewide, as well as in Charles County, already allow and even require by ordinance, a full ecological evaluation of any property and its resources prior to any activity or development. This is primarily through the Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) or Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) process per Maryland Forest Conservation Act and delegated local ordinance, and now the newer SWM criteria three phase plan submission requirement. Once an NRI/FSD is approved, then a development concept is overlaid on the plan to produce an approved Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) where avoidance of sensitive resources and forests including mitigation areas are shown.

Both regulatory processes require, as the initial step, a property to be ground-truthed and characterized on a site plan showing extent of forests, slopes, soils, waters including wetlands, and a myriad of other descriptors.

16

SEPT/OCT 2012 |

Included is a stream setback buffer, which is locally established in almost all jurisdictions varying from usually 50 to 100 feet. This is further expanded to capture contiguous sensitive resources such as rare and sensitive species habitat and steep slopes and includes an automatic 25-foot nontidal wetland buffer, 100-foot Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) buffer, and any 100 year flood plains. Any disturbances in these areas also require authorization from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) along with the local or state CBCA office. This approval process requires avoidance of sensitive resources, water quality management and mitigation.

Both the FCP and the phase 1 of 3 SWM submission plans show in concept how a development project will avoid, minimize and mitigate any potential water quality, streamside or sensitive area impacts. The keystone constraint of such plans continues to be the regulated stream setback buffer, which will disconnect and filter any runoff even before any SWM strategies. In addition, a newly developed site must include a SWM plan that replicates “woods in good conditions” from the point of stream reference. For sites already developed in urbanizing areas, SWM Act retrofit criteria and concurrently applied TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) requirements also have mandatory measures to remediate and clean up past pre-SWM problems to meet stringent Chesapeake Bay program goals to the point re-development may actually improve water quality over existing deteriorating conditions in some situations.

So this begs the question, with all the above existing regulatory criteria fully in effect, on what basis would even more planning criteria or buffer setbacks be necessary on a desktop level as a presumption without regard to actual and existing site conditions? Further, Charles County was considering proposing an overlay of a modeled buffer based on aerially flown data and aerially mapped streams as a deliberative regulatory setback at a planning level that can be risky due to potential inherent inaccuracies associated with such data sources.

The existing regulatory buffer setback process, as well as the MDE and Corps, rely on field evaluation of the presence and limits of sensitive and regulated resources and should continue in all levels of any new regulatory criteria.

Buffer setbacks can be an effective tool in our planning toolbox but should be implemented along with other concurrent factors and incorporate mechanisms for field refinement and quality control to be effective and practicable - rather than an automatic “more is better” fix. Charles County should be commended for delaying consideration of this effort until further technical analysis can be completed. m Andrew Der is an Associate and Director of Environmental Services at Whitman Requardt & Associates, LLP and practiced in the consulting industry since 2001 previously completing 18 years of service at the Maryland Department of the Environment. He can be reached at 443-224-1824 or ader@WRALLP.com.

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

MNCBIA Membership New Members & Reinstatements (6/1/12 – 7/31/12) ASSOCIATES

American Residential Services LLC Air Conditioning/Heating Equipment Services Joe Arico 9070 Euclid Avenue Manassas, VA 20110 Ph: 703-631-2690 Fax: 703-631-0623 jarico@ars.com Sponsor: Steve Nardella Contech Engineered Solutions Engineers/Site Planning Sean Keelan 605 Colobal Way, Suite #113 Linthicum, MD 21090 Ph: 410-740-8490 Fax: 410-740-8492 skeelan@conteches.com Sponsor: Tom Marshall

D & A Dunlevy Landscapers, Inc. Landscape Contractors David Dunlevy P.O. Box 70 Barnesville, MD 20838 Ph: 301-977-7593 Fax: 301-977-9052 admin@dadunlevy.com Sponsor: Tom Marshall Davenport Insulation (dba Builder Services) Gutter & Downspout Contractors/ Insulation Contractors Pete Hernandez 15445 Depot Lane Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Ph: 301-627-1800 Fax: 301-627-6999 pete.hernandez@mascocs.com Sponsor: Marty Mitchell

Metro Landscape & Construction, Inc. Landscape/Architects/Builder Services/Fencing Michael Fanning 3853 New Design Road Frederick, MD 21703 Ph: 301-874-1801 Fax: 301-870-1809 metrolandscape@yahoo.com Sponsor: Tom Marshall New Columbia Enterprises, Inc. Real Estate Development Christian Carter 1201 15th Street NW, Suite #205 Washington, D.C. 20001 Ph: 202-835-6358 Fax: 202-249-9697 ccarter@newcolumbia.com Sponsor: Steve Nardella

Oculus Realty, LLC Property Management K. David Meit 15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite #160 Rockville, MD 20850 Ph: 301-463-9021 kdmeit@oculusrealty.com Sponsor: Michael Faerber Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver LLC Attorneys Richard Reed 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite #400 Bethesda, MD 20814 Ph: 301-951-0150 Fax: 301-951-0712 rreed@rlls.com Sponsor: Jeff Caruso

T.A.C. Ceramic Tile Co. Tile & Ceramics Contractors Keith Scott 7679 Limestone Drive Gainesville, VA 20155 Ph: 570-248-0494 william@dcf-contracting.com Sponsor: Steve Nardella YPG, Inc. (Your Personal Gardener Inc.) Landscape/Contractors Robert Lee, III 4520 Ridge Road Mt. Airy, MD 21771 Ph: 301-788-7962 Fax: 410-635-8520 icei98@aol.com Sponsor: Tom Marshall

MNCBIA’s Most Wanted List Listed here are firms whose membership in MNCBIA has lapsed in recent months. WE WANT THEM BACK!

Please encourage these companies to reinstate their membership. Also listed are prospective members we are working to add to our team.

All Temp Heating & Air Conditioning • AMEC Contracting • Augustine Plumbing • Clearwater Landscape & Nursery • Colorworld Painting & Drywall • Comstock Services • DeFore Designs • Digiterra Design, LLC • Domus • Georgetown Development Corp • Hawkins Electric • DOW Solutions • Ferguson • Guardian Realty Management, Inc. • Hatfield Equipment Services • JW Shipley, K.V. Gessford, Inc. • Lee Building Supply • Masco Home Services • McCormick Paints • Patriot Land & Wildlife • Porcelanosa • Rexel • Stang Plumbing • Tower Companies.

STARS Club The special members of MNCBIA’s STARS Club allow the Association to provide better services for your benefit, to function effectively, to continue special events dedicated to excellent networking and to strengthen our Advocacy program.

GOLD

Development Guarantee Group of Montgomery County Hanley Wood Market Intelligence Elm Street Development NVR, Inc. Pleasants Development, Inc.

SILVER

Acacia Federal Savings Bank BB& T Georgetown Insurance Service, Inc. Lerch Early & Brewer, Chtd.

Linowes & Blocher, LLP Loiederman Soltesz Associates, Inc. McMillan Metro, P.C. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. Rodgers Consulting, Inc. Winchester Homes Inc.

BRONZE

Ballard Spahr LLP Burgess & Niple, Inc. Charles P. Johnson & Associates Craftmark/Craftstar

Greenhorne & O’Mara Inc. Gutschick, Little & Weber, PA Mid-Atlantic Builders, Inc. Reznick Group Sandy Spring Bank Shulman Rogers St. Charles Community, LLC Washington Gas

FRIEND

Baker Tilly Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. Bozzuto Homes Caruso Homes Inc. Dewberry Dico, Inc. EYA Furey Doolan & Abell, LLP Geo-Technology Associates Inc. K Hovnanian Homes Liberty Homebuilder, Inc. Macris Hendricks & Glascock, P.A. Michael Harris Homes Miller & Smith Homes Mitchell & Best Homebuilders LLC O’Malley Miles Nylen & Gilmore Ward & Klein Chtd.

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

|

SEPT/OCT 2012

17

Events Calendar 25 Record Plat Subcommittee meeting

SEPTEMBER 2012 4 Custom/Small Builders Committee meeting

5 Development Review Process Subcommittee meeting Environmental Committee meeting

26 Membership Committee meeting 27 MNCBIA’s Board of Directors meeting Builder Connections event

7 Prince George’s County Liaison Committee meeting

11

OCTOBER 2012

Real Estate Finance Committee meeting Codes & Standards Committee meeting

3

12

5

Environmental Committee meeting

Green Building Committee meeting

Prince George’s County Liaison Commettee meeting

13

9

FIL’s Speaker Series III WSSC Liaison Committee meeting MNCBIA’s Executive Committee meeting BIA’s Business Networking Event

19 Calvert & St. Mary’s County Joint Liaison Committee meeting Montgomery County Liaison Committee meeting Charles County Liaison & Chamber PGM Committee meeting

Codes & Standards Committee meeting Certified Aging-in-Place Specialist (CAPS I)

10 Green Building Committee meeting Design/Build Solutions for Aging and Accessibility (CAPS II)

20 Home Builders Care Foundation Board meeting 2012 GALA Awards

INDEX OF ADVERTISERS Appliance Distributors Unlimited, Inc..............................................Back Cover Builders Mutual Insurance Company..................................................Page 19 GE Appliances...............................................................................Page 03 Georgetown Insurance Service, Inc....................................................Page 18 Hanley Wood Exhibitors Remodeling Show.........................................Page 17 Linowes & Blocher LLP...................................................................Page 07 Louis Tenenbaum...........................................................................Page 17 Monument Bank............................................................................Page 13 Shulman Rogers............................................................................Page 07 Signature Companies......................................................................Page 04 Tremco Barrier Solutions.................................................................Page 14 Vintage Security.............................................................................Page 02

18

SEPT/OCT 2012 |

BUILDING IN MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, DC

11 Business Management for Building Professionals (CAPS III) WSSC Liaison Committee meeting MNCBIA Executive Committee meeting

17 Calvert & St. Mary’s County Liaison Committees Joint meeting Charles County Liaison & Chamber PGM Committee meeting

18 Home Builders Care Foundation Board meeting MNCBIA’s Board of Directors meeting Membership Dinner with Environmental & Member of the Year Awards

31 Membership Committee meeting

1738 Elton Road, Suite 200 Silver Spring, MD 20903