Our project is a 3 story multi-family apartment building in a metro area. Part of the site was previously developed and contained two houses. In lieu of demolition of these structures, one of the houses was moved from the property - being sold to a 3rd party who has moved the house to a new location and is continuing to use the house as a residence - thereby extending its useful life and purpose. The second structure was in poor condition and was unlikely to continue to be used as a residence. This structure was donated to the local municipality for use by the public safety/fire department as an educational/training tool as part of a live fire training exercise. This of course means that the house was burned as part of the training exercise and is no longer on the property. Our question is two fold: 1. The house that was moved rather than demolished and diverted from the waste stream continues to be used as a house and serves a family of four. We consider this a benefit as a family is provided affordable housing without the use and extraction of additional material resources. Also, because the house was moved it is being used in its entirety - diverting even more waste than would normally be realized through job site recycling. Should we include the weight of this house in our calculations for credit MR 2, and if so, how should we best estimate the weight of the structure? We will not be able to separate the weights of the various materials and components but will rather need to estimate the weight of the house en masse and list as a separate line item. or, should we apply for an Innovation and Design Credit for the reuse of the house? 2. The house that was donated to the local municipality for use by the public safety/fire department as an educational/training tool also diverted waste from the landfill. We understand that incineration of building materials and waste is not considered to meet the intent of MR 2 unless it is used as a biomass fuel generation source as determined by the ruling on 3/23/2004. However, use of this structure benefits the public good - by providing firefighters necessary educational and lifesafety training experience so that they are better prepared to fight fires and rescue people in danger - the use of the house in this manner thereby helps to save lives and extend the public good beyond the material value of the structure. All of the burned material was removed from the site prior to the contractor\'s mobilization and control of the site. May we apply for an Innovation and Design Credit for this work? Supporting documentation will include narratives, a statement of activity by the public safety/fire department and an environmental report stating that the house contained no hazardous materials at the time of the fire fighting exercise.
The applicant is proposing two measures: to include a relocated house in the calculations for MRc2 or to receive an innovation point for this measure, and to reuse an existing house for a fire department training use and achieving an innovation point using this strategy. The relocation of the first structure mentioned warrants an innovation point, as this reuse measure achieves a higher environmental impact than recycling of the materials of the house alone. Alternatively, the house can be included in MRc2 calculations; if the total project\'s diversion rate for MRc2 is 95% or higher, an ID point for exemplary performance can be pursued. The proposal for the second structure (donation for public safety/fire department use) can be included in the MRc2 calculations but does not warrant an innovation point alone. Consulting a structural engineer on the weights of both houses for these calculations is encouraged in order for the weights of the materials to be the most accurate.