FEMA question for the coastal surveyor

Looks like a diagram 7, with an enclosure and no openings to me.

I'd agree that is was built as a #7, but FEMA says:

B. Elevated Buildings in A Zones
In an elevated building located in an A Zone (any flood
zone beginning with the letter A), the lowest floor
used for rating is the lowest elevated floor, with the
exceptions described below.
If a building located in an A Zone has an enclosure
below the elevated floor, including an attached garage,
the enclosure or garage floor becomes the lowest floor
for rating if any of the following conditions exists:
••The enclosed space is finished (having more than 20
linear feet of interior finished wall [paneling, etc.]); or
••The unfinished enclosed space is used for other than
building access (stairwells, elevators, etc.), parking,
or storage; or
••The unfinished enclosed space has no proper
openings (flood vents).

In this case, all three of those exceptions are obvious, so isn't it misleading to call it a #7 on the el cert?

BTW, there are flood vents on the outside of the "finished walls", but they have been stuffed with styrofoam and a cover placed over them. It was definetly built as a #7, but IMO, the owners have changed the designation by their actions.

It could be a diagram 6.

IMHO, based on an assumption, it is a diagram 7 with no flood openings.

My assumption is that the structure is enclosed by foundation walls around it's perimeter, excepting the garage door(s).

This is more in line with diagram 7 than diagram 6. Diagram 6 has the appearance of a house on stilts, or a cottage with supports at the corners and no foundation walls.

Hope this helps.

> I'd agree that is was built as a #7, but FEMA says:
>
> B. Elevated Buildings in A Zones
> In an elevated building located in an A Zone (any flood
> zone beginning with the letter A), the lowest floor
> used for rating is the lowest elevated floor, with the
> exceptions described below.
> If a building located in an A Zone has an enclosure
> below the elevated floor, including an attached garage,
> the enclosure or garage floor becomes the lowest floor
> for rating if any of the following conditions exists:
> ••The enclosed space is finished (having more than 20
> linear feet of interior finished wall [paneling, etc.]); or
> ••The unfinished enclosed space is used for other than
> building access (stairwells, elevators, etc.), parking,
> or storage; or
> ••The unfinished enclosed space has no proper
> openings (flood vents).
>
> In this case, all three of those exceptions are obvious, so isn't it misleading to call it a #7 on the el cert?
>
> BTW, there are flood vents on the outside of the "finished walls", but they have been stuffed with styrofoam and a cover placed over them. It was definetly built as a #7, but IMO, the owners have changed the designation by their actions.

I think you still qualify for diagram #7 - those exceptions are in effect "moving" the lowest floor from the lowest elevated floor to the lowest finished floor. But the building still most closely fits #7.

Be sure to spell out where the lowest floor is and why.

It looks like a 6 or 7 that they turned into a 1A. I don't see how it could be a 1B.

I think I would go with a 1A, take lots of pictures and add lots of notes in the comment section. Better safe then sorry.

To me, the difference between 1A and 1B is stem walls vs. a formed and poured "slab on grade". All the construction around here has stem wall foundations, then the slab poured within the stem wall, even if the stem wall just extends a few inches above ground, they are usually dug a couple of feet deep. Maybe I'm misinterpeting that, but that is my understanding of 1A vs. 1B.

But I agree with your suggestion to take a lot of pictures, and make lots of notes. In the comments section, I noted that the building was designated as 1B because the lower enclosure is "finished", and the flood vents that serve that portion of the building were disabled. I also noted that the building could otherwise be considered a #7.

For Lamon, it couldn't be a 6 because that requires the upper level be supported by columns, were as this is supported by block walls. A #6 can have walls, of course, but they can't be structural, and the building has to be able to stand on the columns if all the walls were knocked down, which isn't the case here. #6 is common in this area for V Zones where the builder uses "break away" walls.

I have always thought of 1B being where they build a block wall, back fill it and then pour a slab on top of that.
It is a raised house with no open space under the slab, at least that is what they are around here.

I would stay with what the "Building Under Construction" EC designated...(if one was performed). A 1A or 1B designed at below the BFE would not get permitted in my area.

Daniel, I could very well be wrong on this, but the description of 1B under distiguishing feature says "The bottom floor is at or above ground level on at least one side", which is why I have believed that the bottom floor does not have to be raised above ground to be called a 1B, it can just be "at" ground level. Since the descriptions are nearly identical, I go with the one that specifically says "stem wall" when it appears to be a stem wall foundation. Maybe I should rethink this, though.

I don't see any way you could justify that as any kind of "1". If it's full story foundation walls, that is a 7.. Piles, it's a 6. Either way, C2A and C2b are taken at the same floors. so the enclosed floor would be the ground level and the "next highest floor" would be the main living level, the first one above BFE. I really don't care what people use the space for, that's between them and their insurance agent.

Andy, if you call it a "7", would you note the "finished" area below the BFE on the el cert? I've considered that a valid option. But, I have a hard time with just saying it's between the buyer and the insurance agent. I think we're suposed be the "eyes" for the insurance agent, I could see not disclosing this on the el cert to be something that could come back on me in the future. For example, FEMA could void their insurance after a flood if they send out an adjuster who reports the building was way out of complaince. They'll be looking for someone to blame.

I don't really have a hard time calling it a "1", because it's not that different than a normal two story house with concrete block walls on the first level. The purpose of the "7" is that the living area is supposed to be above the BFE and bottom part is supposed be left unfinished because FEMA doesn't want claims for drywall and electrical outlets install in a lower level that they know will flood. It's hard for me to call it a "7" when it defeats the purpose of what a "7" is supposed to be

> Andy, if you call it a "7", would you note the "finished" area below the BFE on the el cert? I've considered that a valid option. But, I have a hard time with just saying it's between the buyer and the insurance agent. I think we're suposed be the "eyes" for the insurance agent, I could see not disclosing this on the el cert to be something that could come back on me in the future. For example, FEMA could void their insurance after a flood if they send out an adjuster who reports the building was way out of complaince. They'll be looking for someone to blame.
>
> I don't really have a hard time calling it a "1", because it's not that different than a normal two story house with concrete block walls on the first level. The purpose of the "7" is that the living area is supposed to be above the BFE and bottom part is supposed be left unfinished because FEMA doesn't want claims for drywall and electrical outlets install in a lower level that they know will flood. It's hard for me to call it a "7" when it defeats the purpose of what a "7" is supposed to be

You're right that it isn't necessarily between the buyer and the agent; and that you'd be to blame for omitting critical information like the finished nature of the structure below the BFE.

As others have recommended, take a boat load of pictures and fill that comments section. And yes, note the finished area below the BFE.

I still say the best bet is the 7; mostly because of what I think we all know the owners are trying to do. They appear to be trying to massage the system, ie building a thing one way then finishing it another way as a previous poster already mentioned.

The owners know it, we know it, and FEMA knows it. In my opinion, this is a perfect example of why FEMA created the exceptions to #7, and why it fits so well into a 7.

i see your point, but would say that clearly the building was not meant to be considered a "slab on grade" since the main living floor has to be above base flood to be livable insurable space.

I didn't mean that I would leave out any info, just that OUR part of the form is only one piece. I don't believe it was ever intended to remove the insurance agent from ACTUALLY looking at what they are insuring.

Most everything I see here is either some type of "1" built in the 70s or 80's (including my own home) OR a "6" and some "5's" very few 7's since the ground is so sandy, you have to drive piles to be able to build.

If you finish an enclosure below base flood and it gets damaged in a flood, you're not going to be getting any money from the insurance company to replace what shouldn't have been there in the first place, so how would I incur any liability??

Well, in this case, I'm working for a buyer, not the current owner. It seems like he'd have a good case against me if I did not disclose the potential problems before he bought the house. There are quite a few pitfalls, as I see it, such as FEMA voiding the insurance after a flood, or structural damage caused by a shortage of flood vents. There was an artical in the St. Pete Times a couple of years ago where a county official and city official said they were actively looking for these types of houses and would fine the owners, force them to restore to what was permitted, and back bill their taxes for not claiming the additional living space. This came about because around 2005 FEMA threatened to discontinue insuring houses in all of Monroe County because they were allowing lower enclosures to be finished.

I actual see quite of bit of potential liability in this situation, which is why I try to take a "cover my butt" approach to the way I present the elevation certificate.

Here's a link I found about Monroe County. It was 2002, not 2005, as I had said ... time flies. But they stated "illegal enclosures constructed under elevated buildings" as the reason for the FEMA crack down.

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=4528

Yeah, but I'm just saying what I see 1B's as around here, I am sure there are many more examples, just not around here.
I've also never done an elevation on a house with a basement.

Still looks like a 1A to me, which may not have been what it was designed as, but it is what it is.

just curious Dan... if that is a 1, then why would they have a 7 as an option on the form? Seems to me the difference is whether the enclosed floor is Above or Below the BFE. Above = 1 Below = 7 or 6. of course, I could be persuaded... haha!!