Elevation Certificate Question

If the garage has been converted to living space, you will no longer have an elevation in C2.d. Your C2.a elevation will continue to be the lowest elevation of the crawlspace under the house, with your C2.b probably being the finished floor of the the former garage. If it has a crawlspace, usually it would not be called a split level. Normally, it would be a diagram 7, 8 or 9. Do you have a picture that you can show?

That is what I assumed.

I was hoping there was another solution as the client is a friend of the boss, and his next higher floor is now 2.5' below BFE.

> That is what I assumed.
>
> I was hoping there was another solution as the client is a friend of the boss, and his next higher floor is now 2.5' below BFE.

I'm guessing that there is a big elevation difference between the finished flood of the old garage and the rest of the house?

Yes approximately two feet.

I will put all of the information in the comments section, and hopefully they will still get rated at the higher floor elevation.

They are having foundation issues so maybe will just raise the house and depending on what their agent/underwriter says can do something with the attached garage so it wont hurt their policy so much.

thanks for the help

Regardless who he is a friend of - tough noogies! If he floods he is going to want to file a claim and his premium should be based on reality.

Your duty as a professional is to tell the truth. Not to try to save a client some premium by telling less than the truth.

The house was (originally) built as a structure with a crawlspace and an attached garage. I would report it as is and then in the notes make comments to the current status of the structure.

I would also take a couple of extra photos besides the standard 2 and attach them as well.

Let the Insurer determine how they want to assess the home. As Dave said, our duty is to only report the truth/facts.

You are certifying to the elevations that you determine, nothing else. Section D states that at the top.

Thanks Rob and Dave.

That was the plan.

As far as being accurate/honest. That goes without saying. I do not like telling people that converting their garage just added a few thousand dollars a year in premiums to their insurance is all. I was hoping there was another, legal, solution.

I am not going to go a rant of how insurance companies have ruined this country...:-X

> The house was (originally) built as a structure with a crawlspace and an attached garage. I would report it as is and then in the notes make comments to the current status of the structure.

So what elevations would you list in C2.b and C2.d? They are going to rate it based on the elevation you put in C2.b. Unless they don't have the proper amount of flood venting, then they will rate it based on C2.a.

Have you looked at this?

>I was hoping there was another, legal, solution.
>
> I am not going to go a rant of how insurance companies have ruined this country...:-X

Have you looked into why this house is so low? Did the county mess up when they approved the permit? Even a house built to BFE doesn't fly with most of the counties around here. Is it in a flood zone as a result of a resent map change? If so, grandfathering a rate my be an option. Was the house built prior to the first FIRM? If so, a pre-FIRM rate may be an option.

I am going to put the higher floor in as the next higher floor asterisk it and comment that the "garage" floor elevation is between the two. If we are actually filling out the certificate.

At this point we are doing just the field work to advise the client on venting solutions. Normally we do a elevation certificate, give advice on venting solutions (type, and/or where to buy them) and let them contact a contractor to have vents installed, then do another elevation certificate when the work is completed.

As it sits, the only legal recourse I can see is to vent the crawl space AND the converted garage, but venting a living space is hardly an elegant solution. I will not tell the clients that is their option but present them with these thoughts to pass on to their insurance agent (who in my experience will pass it on to the underwriter).

My usual suggestion depending on how long they have owned the home is to pay off the mortgage and not NEED flood insurance and/or move out of a flood zone. 😛

I do not want to do what the previous surveyor did, and just comment out C2a-d and say "to be determined by others." That is hardly professional, but when weighing the intent of the regulations against the literal interpretation it seems they wanted to make sure they absolved themselves of legal responsibility while still trying to give the higher floor elevation.

Note: The previous surveyor did NOT note the attached garage elevation.

EDIT: As far as the (A)BFE requirements for construction. The house must be pre-70's. The index date on our effective flood maps started in 71 and have not been updated since 83. The new work maps as approved by the city for new construction or "significant improvement" (50% or more of the value of the structure in improvements) are not really much different. (10 in NGVD to 9 in NAVD so a .3 foot increase), and only needs to be built to freeboard. (BFE +1')

EDIT EDIT: It was my understanding that the Pre-FIRM requirements only applies if you were the home owner pre-FIRM. (I just reread section 9-9 and it does say BUILDING pre-FIRM. I must have confused the Affordable Insurance reform Act...)

> EDIT EDIT: It was my understanding that the Pre-FIRM requirements only applies if you were the home owner pre-FIRM. (I just reread section 9-9 and it does say BUILDING pre-FIRM. I must have confused the Affordable Insurance reform Act...)

If it is Pre-FIRM, it doesn't matter what the elevations are, you get the "Pre-FIRM" rate for that kind of structure in the zone it is in. That rate will be probably be way better than a 2' below BFE rate.

food for thought....

One of your comments caught my eye. I see a lot of folks use the word 'intent' when divining the meaning of a Deed or Regulation. Consider this...
The 'Intent' of a Regulation does not have anything to do with 'what did the writers mean'. It is more properly stated 'What did the writers write'. This is especially important with things like Flood Insurance. We may want to follow some sense of fairness or common sense, but that will eventually bite you. Regulations must by their nature be objective. This means we surrender the option of perfection and yes, at times common sense. This leads us down some strange roads but at least we know where we are going...

Just came out of a FEMA Workshop 30 minutes ago..

Talk to your local floodplain administrator.

> Just came out of a FEMA Workshop 30 minutes ago..
>
> Talk to your local floodplain administrator.

Don't you run the risk of unleashing the fury of the zoning department upon this guy's client?