To the Editor:

A significant Green Communities designation requirement is for the Marion Town Meeting by a majority vote to adopt a state approved “stretch building code.” Marion now uses a standard state building code, “the base code,” for construction and remodeling administered by the Town’s building inspector. This more restrictive and stringent building codes purpose is to promote energy efficacy through use of design, materials and construction practices. Thus the term “stretch building code” is used since the town’s adoption of this higher building code standard would be voluntary. It’s a check the box exercise on the EMC’s Green Communities’ agenda.

This, at first blush, seems to be a wonderful idea that Marion promotes energy efficiency. There are significant issues with this concept to be considered. The new stretch building code would become a new mandatory building code standard for Marion. All construction and remolding requiring a building permit would have to conform to the new and higher energy efficiency standards.

The basic philosophical question to be asked is: should Marion through the EMC be dictating “how green” residents should build or remodel their projects? It’s a basic question of government intervention into a person’s right to make their own decisions regarding how green they want to build or remodel. The Town Meetings of Carver, Duxbury, Fairhaven, Wellfleet and Sturbridge have all recently turned down the adoption of stretch building codes on the very issue of town intervention into private decision making as to building choice.

Cost and necessity are two obvious drivers in a person’s decision on how green to build. In remodeling a seasonal summer cottage, maybe it’s not necessary to install high thermal pane windows and high R value insulation. Maybe the economic cost savings payback of a particular project for building “extra green” does not warrant the extra expense of a higher green building standard. This should be an individual decision and not a town-mandated decision to satisfy the EMC’s check the box on its list of Green Communities’ designation criteria.

A Marion stretch building code can be expected to drive up building costs from between three to six percent and in certain cases as high as 12 percent. This means a premium of $3,000 to $6,000 in additional costs for each $100,000 in construction or remodeling costs over Marion’s base building code costs can be expected.

The town’s capital costs for future new construction and renovation will increase. For example, $12 million in new construction and renovations can be expected to increase capital expenditures from between $360,000 to $720,000. Affordable housing costs, too, will increase. Assuming there is $4 million of new affordable housing budgeted, a stretch building code, if adopted, would increase costs from between $120,000 to $240,000 over the base code. Thus, aggregate town capital costs increase from $480,000 to $960,000 as the result of adopting a stretch building code.

The impact of a stretch building code on casualty insurance cannot be ignored. Most homeowners carry replacement value property casualty coverage. In the event of a loss such as a fire, the insurance cost to replace or rebuild is impacted by the building code. If an insurance policy reimbursement is calculated on base building code replacement rates and the insured has to rebuild under the stretch building code costs, the insured will face an insurance coverage gap the difference being the cost between the base building and stretch building codes. A stretch building code adoption will require all Marion residents to review the adequacy of their insurance coverage. A green building code insurance endorsement too may be necessary for covering the building code cost gap. Bottom line, insurance premium costs go up, reflecting the green building premium.

All of a sudden, the economics of a green stretch building code are not particularly attractive for Marion.

The interrelationship between the required Town Meeting actions regarding a stretch building code and matter of right zoning and expedited permitting cannot be overlooked. If the Town Meeting rejects a stretch building code, then Marion will not qualify for the Green Communities’ designation. This will mean Marion does not need to adopt matter right zoning and expedited permitting zoning changes. The EMC agenda for changing the Town’s zoning before adoption of a stretch building code leaves Marion’s zoning protections vulnerable should the stretch code fail to pass at Town Meeting. The EMC is attempting to put the zoning “cart” before the stretch building code “horse.”

The next letter will review the remaining Green Communities’ criteria.

Ted North

Marion

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

In the April 4 issue of The Wanderer, a letter from Ted North provided a confusing and misleading view of the proposed solar bylaw, which has been developed over the past year by the Energy Management Committee (EMC) with input from the Planning Board. Marion’s bylaws currently do not address solar arrays; this has been interpreted to mean that they are not allowed. Massachusetts state law 40A specifically states, however, that solar array installations cannot be unreasonably restricted by municipalities, a difference that has already resulted in one lawsuit against the town.

The proposed solar bylaw provides reasonable requirements for roof-mounted and ground-mounted solar arrays that are both in compliance with state law and are tailored to protect Marion’s beauty and character. In conjunction with this solar bylaw, the EMC is also proposing a Municipal Solar Overlay District that encompasses the capped landfill on Benson Brook Road. This overlay supports the town vote at last spring’s Town Meeting authorizing the Selectmen to lease the top of the landfill for a solar array.

The comparison of the proposed municipal overlay to a 40B project is calculated to produce a negative reaction by town residents. Unlike a 40B project, the Solar Overlay dictates the location of a by-right installation. While a developer would not have to obtain a special permit in the district, the Planning Board still does a site plan review. Moreover, any proposed solar array installation on the landfill must meet the stringent design requirements of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Post-Closure Permit (PCP) process, which exceed special permit requirements. MassDEP recognizes that capped landfills are desirable locations for renewable energy installations and the PCP requirements are focused specifically on ensuring that the installation will not damage the landfill cap. MassDEP has already permitted 34 renewable energy installations on capped landfills: the process is proven and successful.

The establishment of a “by-right” (which means that a special permit is not required) location for a renewable energy facility would satisfy one of the five criteria needed for a town to achieve the “Green Community” designation. For this criterion, the only requirement is to have the designated location; there is no requirement that the solar installation actually be constructed. Contrary to statements in North’s letter, the responsibility to make a viable economic case for such an installation rests with the company that proposes to do the installation, not with Marion.

Becoming a Green Community is voluntary. It would represent a town-wide declaration that we need to be better custodians of our environment. Each step in the process would require a town-wide decision, each resulting in cost benefits to Marion and its residents due to reduced energy consumption by our town facilities, homes and town vehicles. Achieving Green Community designation means real and tangible improvements have been made to reduce our energy consumption and carbon footprint. It will require effort, determination and commitment; there is nothing frivolous or “window dressing” about the achievement, as was mischaracterized in the April 4 letter.

The EMC’s efforts in this direction to date have cost the town nothing. If the town decides to pursue Green Community accreditation, some initial investment will be required, but these investments will save money in the long run through reduced energy costs and cash rebates from utility incentives. Energy costs will only increase in the future, so actions that reduce town energy costs will be to our collective benefit. The statement that achieving Green Community status will cost the town from $300,000 to $500,000 is not supported by the experiences of other towns that have become Green Communities.

To date, one-third (114) of the cities and towns in Massachusetts have achieved Green Community status within only four years of the program’s commencement. This is a tremendous achievement and has contributed to Massachusetts being the most energy-efficient state in the country. Thirty-one of the 114 Green Communities have a smaller population than Marion, the smallest being Rowe at 393. Contrary to the assertion in North’s letter, small size is not a disadvantage in achieving Green Community status; all towns gain from the energy savings and incentives provided by the program.

Educate yourselves with the facts, not the rumors, and come to Town Meeting ready to help steer Marion toward a more energy-efficient future.

David Pierce, Chairman

Marion Energy Management Committee

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

We would like to express our most sincere thanks to the Mattapoisett police officers, firefighters and EMTs.

We were involved in a serious accident on Route 6 on Saturday afternoon, March 30. Our car was severely damaged; we were both transported to St. Luke’s by ambulance. What is amazing to us is how rapidly the above were able to respond and professionally take control of the situation.

Our special gratitude goes out to Sergeants King and Boivin, and EMTs Mike and Kristen, plus all of the others who responded whose names we do not have. How fortunate we are to have such great first responders in Mattapoisett.

Dorothy and Cal Ross

Mattapoisett