19
T
he Home Builders and Remodelers
Association
of
Massachusetts
is
committed to the principle of a uniform
State Building Code that ensures public safety,
facilitates innovation in construction techniques,
products and materials, promotes cost
effectiveness and furthers energy efficiency in all
buildings and structures in the commonwealth.
It is with this principle in mind that we set forth
below our concerns with House Bill No. 2089,
An Act Relative To Enhanced Fire Protection In New One And Two
Family Dwellings. This legislation would amend G.L. c. 148, § 26J to
require the installation of automatic sprinklers in new or substantially
rehabilitated one and two-family dwellings, subject to local acceptance.
Following on the heels of the adoption of the “Stretch Energy Code” by
the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) in 2009,
this proposed “local option” fire sprinkler bill further undermines the
uniformity of the State Building Code. Moreover, we are strongly opposed
to the adoption of construction codes through legislation, thereby
circumventing the process and expertise of the State Board of Building
Regulations and Standards within the Department of Public Safety.
In addition, mandating fire sprinklers will add substantial upfront
cost to every newly constructed home and will require homeowners
to incur ongoing costs to maintain these systems, with little evidence
that the life-safety benefit to them of installing such systems is realistic
or even measurable relative to their expense. Indeed, mandating the
installation of fire sprinkler systems in one- and two-family homes
could likely price many prospective homebuyers out of the market.
It is for these reasons that the HBRAMA also opposes House Bill No.
2095, An Act To Prevent Deaths By Fire.
Background
Prior to the early 1970s, Massachusetts had a costly and outdated
building regulatory system. Each of the 351 cities and towns had its
own building construction standards that were enforced by untrained
and uncertified individuals.
A study done by the Department of Community Affairs during the
administration of Governor Francis Sargent had concluded that a
mandatory, uniform set of housing and building regulations were
required to correct the then existing fragmented system. The study
also recommended that such a uniform code be promulgated by a
diverse group of construction industry professionals who could, in
part, be responsible for allowing the use of new building materials and
techniques that would facilitate the production of affordable housing
without compromising public health and safety.
With the support of a broad coalition that included architects,
engineers, builders, developers, housing advocates, local building
officials, fire chiefs, the Massachusetts League of Women Voters and
the League of Cities and Towns, the recommendations contained
in that study were enacted into law as Chapter 802 of the Acts of
1972. That landmark legislation established the State Building Code
Commission whose members produced the first edition of the State
Building Code that became effective on January 1, 1975. The Board of
Building Regulations and Standards was established as the successor to
the commission by Chapter 348 of the Acts of 1984.
The State Building Code (780 CMR) is a mandatory uniform code for
the construction of all buildings and structures in the commonwealth.
No city or town may impose more restrictive construction standards
than set forth in the State Building Code without the prior approval of
the BBRS. (See G.L. c. 143, §98).
During the course of the past forty years, Massachusetts has been
recognized nationally for many innovations and advancements in the
State Building Code and the regulation of building construction. Some
of these innovations include:
• The early adoption of energy conservation/efficiency provisions
• The development of standards for the rehabilitation and reuse of
existing buildings
• The development of fire safety requirements in buildings,
including the mandatory installation of smoke detectors and the
use of fire suppression systems
• The development of reasonable provisions for the housing of
mentally ill and mentally retarded individuals in group residences
• The licensing of construction supervisors
Pending Legislation (H. 2089 & H. 2095)
Uniformity
Every construction organization and real estate development
association had opposed the adoption of the “Stretch Energy Code”
by the BBRS. They did so because the “Stretch Energy Code” allowed
cities and towns to adopt its provisions on a “local option” basis. The
Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts said at
the time, that such an outcome—no matter how laudatory in its intent
to promote energy conservation—would have the effect of undoing the
uniformity of the State Building Code and will serve as a precedent for
the adoption other “local option” codes, depending upon the lobbying
strength of any particular manufacturer, business or interest group.
House Bill No. 2089 is proof of the prescience of its position.
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATION TO MANDATE THE INSTALLATION OF
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ONE AND TWO-FAMILY HOMES
By Ben Fierro
Government
A F FA I R S
