# Renovations Below Design Flood Elevation



## Buelligan (Apr 18, 2012)

Just a quick opinion from you guys. We have an owner who purchased a property with a lower level that has been determined to be 1.4 feet below BFE. The upper floor, at street level, was the livable space and the lower level was apparently finished at some point but is currently in disrepair. He wants to renovate the lower area less than substatial (less than 50% of current value). But we understand according to 322.2.2 that area is restricted to parking, limited storage and access ONLY. Some here feel that the laguage is suggestive that it only applies to new structures constucted in these zones, therefore he can renovate the lower level. But others feel it applies to existing as well. Does anyone have any experience with this section? Would you allow non substantial improvements in this lower level or limit the work to the upper level only? We are going to get feedback from FEMA today but we are curious as to the code requirements. Thanks!


----------



## Mac (Apr 18, 2012)

Check the definition of "development" as it pertains to the Flood Plain Development Permit.

If it reads "any man made change to improved real real estate" like ours does, a FPDP cannot be approved, and the restrictions on use of the lower level apply to the existing space.

When there is flooding downstream, FEMA investigates flood plain activity in upstream communities.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 18, 2012)

a few questions ...

1. is this an A-zone or V-zone?

2. is the lower level a basement (enclosed on four sides) or a walkout (open on at least one side)

3. is this residential or commercial?

4. which edition of the code is this site under?

5. has your state/local ahj modified or amended the IRC/IBC code? (i.e, Massachusetts requires that in a velocity zone that the lowest horizontal structural member is installed a minimum of two-feet above the base flood elevation).

6. Is the owner having to take out a construction loan?

7. is the building currently covered by flood insurance? have they inquired if any work performed below the BFE would be covered?

Sometimes it's not what the building official will allow you, it's the banks and insurance companies.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 18, 2012)

are you the local building official?


----------



## Buelligan (Apr 18, 2012)

GBrackins said:
			
		

> a few questions ...1. is this an A-zone or V-zone?
> 
> 2. is the lower level a basement (enclosed on four sides) or a walkout (open on at least one side)
> 
> ...


1. it is in A zone

2. it is a walk out and I believe it was not defined as a basement by the flood plain ordinance

3. Residential

4. 2009 IRC

5. Yes we have a Flood Plain Ordinance and is certified with FEMA

6. No loan required all cash. I think he bought the house at a great price to resell.

7. I get the feeling he has no interest in insurance since he paid cash. He made some statements to that effect. Our concern is if we allow it and it does not meet the requirements, we could risk the flood insurance program for the entire county.

Again Thanks


----------



## Buelligan (Apr 18, 2012)

No I am an inspector. The Building official is looking into it and feels that the section 322 only applies to new construction. we are just trying get some opinions from various sources to help determine if we are correct. Thanks


----------



## gbhammer (Apr 18, 2012)

If you have adopted the IEBC then it may need to meet the requirements for new construction if more than 50% of the floor space on that level is being renovated.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 18, 2012)

Buelligan,

let's look at the following:

Section R104.10.1 - Areas subject to flooding. The building official shall not grant modifications to any provision related to areas prone to flooding as established by Table R301.2(1) without the granting of a variance to such provisions by the board of appeals.

Section R105.3.1.1. - Determination of substantially improved existing buildings in flood hazard zones states that "if the building official finds that the value of the proposed work equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the building or structure before the improvement is started, the findings shall be provided to the board of appeals for a determination of substantial improvement."

Section R322.1.5 - Lowest floor. The lowest floor shall be the floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basement, but excluding any unfinished flood-resistant enclosure that is useable solely for vehicle parking, building access, or limited storage provided such enclosure is not built so as to render the building or structure in violation of this section.

Section R322.2.2 - requires flood vents for enclosed areas below the design flood elevation.

it would seem they will need to file for a variance from the board of appeals. In Massachusetts that is a state and not a local board. At least in MHO.


----------



## Buelligan (Apr 18, 2012)

GBrackins said:
			
		

> Buelligan,let's look at the following:
> 
> Section R104.10.1 - Areas subject to flooding. The building official shall not grant modifications to any provision related to areas prone to flooding as established by Table R301.2(1) without the granting of a variance to such provisions by the board of appeals.
> 
> ...


Again thanks for your thoughts it helps alot. All this reading sometimes clouds the mind  Anyway, we have already determined that his work will be be LESS than substantial. He has provided a current assessment value and a cost of work to be done. Our concern is if he can make the lower level a habitable space or not. Does the section R322 apply to proposed construction only or to an existing structure as well. Specifically

322.2.2 *Enclosed area below design flood elevation.*

Enclosed areas, including crawl spaces, that are below the design flood elevation shall:

1.	Be used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage.

2.	Be provided with flood openings that meet the following criteria:


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 18, 2012)

gbhammer is absolutely correct. under section 303 of the IEBC, any alterations that do not constitute substantial improvement of the existing structure, as defined in section 202, are not required to comply with the flood design requirements for new construction.


----------



## imhotep (Apr 18, 2012)

Buelligan said:
			
		

> Again thanks for your thoughts it helps alot. All this reading sometimes clouds the mind  Anyway, we have already determined that his work will be be LESS than substantial. He has provided a current assessment value and a cost of work to be done. Our concern is if he can make the lower level a habitable space or not. Does the section R322 apply to proposed construction only or to an existing structure as well. Specifically 322.2.2 *Enclosed area below design flood elevation.*
> 
> Enclosed areas, including crawl spaces, that are below the design flood elevation shall:
> 
> ...


The current Owner may not need to carry flood insurance, but any prospective buyer will likely be forced by their lender to purchase it.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 18, 2012)

Buelligan said:
			
		

> No I am an inspector. The Building official is looking into it and feels that the section 322 only applies to new construction. we are just trying get some opinions from various sources to help determine if we are correct. Thanks


  Your building official is taking a reasonable approach to that section of code.  In my opinion, it is not in the public's interest to stifle 50% rule construction.

  It's the sort of thing which leads to unpermitted work and/or structures falling into disrepair.

  Let your flood plane ordinance handle Federal Flood Insurance Program requirements.

  The building code is the wrong tool for it.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 18, 2012)

imhotep said:
			
		

> The current Owner may not need to carry flood insurance, but any prospective buyer will likely be forced by their lender to purchase it.


  The current owner will have to comply with the local Flood prevention ordinance, otherwise the community is not participating in the Federal Flood Insurance program.  Generally, the measures outlined in the building code are required for new construction or substantial improvements by local Flood prevention ordinances.

  They are typically not required for 50% rule projects when a community participates in the FFIP.


----------



## imhotep (Apr 19, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The current owner will have to comply with the local Flood prevention ordinance, otherwise the community is not participating in the Federal Flood Insurance program.  Generally, the measures outlined in the building code are required for new construction or substantial improvements by local Flood prevention ordinances.
> 
> They are typically not required for 50% rule projects when a community participates in the FFIP.


I reside in a community with a downtown that is located about 3' below BFE.  We're raising our town one lot at a time.

Now FEMA has run through with the updated DFIRM maps and convinced the Public Works Director to participate in a model program to elevate above the new base flood elevation plus 18" in anticipation of rising sea level caused by global warming.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 19, 2012)

I worked behind the counter in St. Pete.

  I believe it was about 40% of the lots below BFE, in a city which was pretty much built out.

  The sort of approach you are advocating would have furthered the decline of blighted areas rather than fostering their improvement.

  And would have encouraged blight in stable areas.

  All for little benefit to the community.

  Federal Flood Insurance suffers from the problem of the commons.

  Local communities, however, cannot actually solve that.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Apr 19, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I worked behind the counter in St. Pete.  I believe it was about 40% of the lots below BFE, in a city which was pretty much built out.
> 
> The sort of approach you are advocating would have furthered the decline of blighted areas rather than fostering their improvement.
> 
> ...


Well said Ben!  thanks.


----------



## BSSTG (Apr 26, 2012)

Greetings

I know I'm a little late here but I would like to point something out. I recently went to a FEMA class for the Substantial Damage Estimator software etc. What I was to understand that is if a structure is noncompliant, and the work will not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, then it is not required to come up to standard. If however, the amount of improvements exceeds 50% of the value of the structure, then the entire structure must be made compliant. Whats worse is the 50% threshold is governed by FEMA standards. It does not take a lot of work to reach the 50% threshold. Also, it does not matter what the cause of the problems initializing the work. It can be flood, fire, delapidation, etc. Here in our municipality we have a flood control ordinance which basically regurgitates all of this FEMA stuff which is what FEMA advises. That way we are not likely to get into a pile of poop with FEMA. I might add that this town was in some conflict with them a few years back. Fortunately it was resolved.

BSSTG


----------



## HCW (Mar 6, 2017)

This got my attention.  As well the substantial improvement ordinance has no business being imported into building codes *or zoning codes*, which many here in Alabama do because challenges to zoning matters are so difficult to overturn, ie "fairly debatable" is the wide open silliest standard.  Why would any community that is of any age with many pre-firm buildings ever "want" to go down the higher regulatory standards "route" when the obvious result is illegal work, dilapidated buildings, not to any reasonable level of safety in many ways, loss of upmoving ad valorem taxes, sales taxes on construction, jobs for repair and renovation, and sales taxes from the new occupant businesses, just to satisfy some hard effort to really regulate everything out of the floodplain on the economic backs of individuals ... if they want a CLEAR FLOODPLAIN, BUY THEM OUT AT FMV AND MOVE ON DON'T BE SO UNDERHANDED....


----------



## tmurray (Mar 8, 2017)

Watch the news after a disaster. 

Reporter: will you rebuild?

Person with house below flood level: yes, I've lived here all my life and this is just the way it is.

Good luck buying most of them out. Are you required by federal law to meet FEMA's standard, or does the community just miss out on funds when there is a disaster?


----------

