8/15/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8001 3 "E 63 annual savings increases to $147 if the home is elevated 2 feet above BFE. Mr. Woodward also explains that federal BFEs do not reflect Category 4 or 5 hurricanes. There is, however, an extra margin of safety in requiring the freeboard. The requirement of a freeboard would also result in point credits under FEMA's "Community Rating System" (CRS), which will help the County achieve a classification that could lower insurance premiums county -wide by an additional 5 percent. * Disadvantages The main disadvantage in requiring a 1 foot freeboard is additional up -front development costs for new or substantially improved structures. However, in the FEMA example, long-term savings outweigh short-term costs. Another point of consideration relates to nonconforming structures, whereby the freeboard requirement could result in inconsistencies in the elevation of new vs. nonconforming structures on the same or adjacent property. The issue was discussed at two PSAC meetings and at a PSAC sub -committee meeting. Discussions with a FEMA staff person at the sub -committee meeting indicated that the amendment could be crafted so that substantial improvements to existing structures constructed at base flood elevation (the "old" standard) would not cause the existing structure to be elevated to the "new" standard. This "exemption" is covered in the proposed ordinance. Staff also researched 39 single family Type C stormwater permit files and found that actual construction always exceeded base flood elevation by 0.51' to 5.01' (see attachment #3). At its June 9, 1994 meeting, the PSAC had its final discussion on the proposal to raise the required finished floor elevation of structures located within flood plains by 1'. The PSAC concluded that a .5' rather than a 1' increase would be acceptable because: a. FEMA would "credit" a .5' increase the same as a 1' increase within its rating system; and b. Staff's research into actual minimum elevations of structures built in flood plains shows that all of the 39 sampled single-family houses would have met a .5' increase requirement; not all of them would have met a 1' increase regulation. Thus, the PSAC recommends a .5' increase. After discussion at its July 14, 1994 meeting (see attachment #5), the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend a .5' increase. Staff recommends a 1' increase, based upon the County Engineer's opinion that: a. The full 1' increase recommended by FEMA affords better flood protection and safety; and b. The negative effects of raising the required finished floor elevation by 1' are minimal, as indicated by the fact that most of the single family houses surveyed (28 of 39) would have met a 1' increase requirement. The 11 August 15, 1994 8 M M I