Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Floodplain Management Ordinance Revisions
No action.
II.
Subject:
Next Meeting
December 18, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Nancy Carter, and Don Lochman
Susan Burgess
1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda
2. Substantial Improvement Grandfathering Discussion Paper
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to
introduce themselves.
I.
Floodplain Management Ordinance Revisions
Council member Foxx advised the group that the previous Tuesday (November 14) a
meeting was held with representatives of the Chantilly neighborhood, staff and several
Council members (Foxx, Lochman, Kinsey, Carter and Burgess). One concept that staff
was asked to look at for today’s meeting is “grandfathering” the existing homes above
the FEMA regulatory elevation and below the Community regulatory elevation.
Julie Burch then turned the meeting over to Jeb Blackwell to give some context for how
we came up with the current recommendations. He was instrumental in developing these
regulations. After he provides some of the context, staff will then discuss the
grandfathering concept. Staff is not asking for action today, but would like to discuss
next steps at the end of this meeting.
Jeb Blackwell (Deputy City Engineer) said he helped develop the current policies. There
was a time when Charlotte did not have any regulations and a lot of homes were built in
the wrong areas. In 1975, we had the first protected elevations. But, the water rose
above the FEMA elevations in the big storm of 1997. That flood event caused millions
of dollars in damage and a lot of the areas were actually higher than the 1975 lines.
Many property owners did not have insurance. We met with hundreds of residents in the
ballroom of the Adams Mark and they wanted to know why we hadn’t protected them.
The answer was that we did not know what flood levels would be due to increased
development. Now we have this information.
FEMA is largely driven by the insurance industry. If you look at the current maps we are
using lines that should be higher. These maps are the 1997 maps. Mr. Blackwell showed
a series of slides with photos from the 1997 flood event in the areas of Myers Park
Manor, Westfield, Doral/Cavalier, Midtown and Independence Boulevard.
Staff is not comfortable with grandfathering. Many of those homes will likely fall within
the FEMA floodplain once the remapping is completed.
Mumford:
So, is the driver to not allow investment for safety reasons?
Blackwell:
We don’t want a flood to happen and for folks to come back and say “we
didn’t know”. We have two concerns with the grandfathering. (1) If
someone else buys an improved home their loss is greater. (2) General
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 3
taxpayers. The cost of buying these homes out is borne by the taxpayers.
Mumford:
I agree the homeowner should know if the home floods, but what is our
obligation to “fix it”? What is the recourse from the homeowner to the
City for money?
Canaan:
I don’t know that there is any unless some action on our part caused the
loss. On a smaller scale, there is the indirect impact or loss of productivity
for the homeowner – cleaning the house instead of working. Larger
storms might result in a direct payout, not including insurance.
Homeowners may be eligible for low interest loans through the Small
Business Administration. It just depends on the magnitude of the flood.
Blackwell:
So, the legal answer is we don’t have any obligation. However, we will
get questions from the citizen – “I thought you wouldn’t let my house be
built there” and “why did you let this happen?”
Lochman:
Are there any instances where the government has not given direct
assistance?
Canaan:
Lots.
Lochman:
Is that more common?
Canaan:
The 1995 and 1997 floods while significant were not large enough to
make everyone whole.
Lochman:
Was the 1997 flood outside the FEMA boundaries?
Canaan:
Yes. There have been several instances were individual homes flooded
and the maps showed them outside the floodplain. The line on the map
isn’t fixed where the flood will stop.
Mumford:
Could they add a “no fault” clause to the deed of their house?
Blackwell:
That’s part of the grandfathering.
Canaan:
The intent of the ordinance is to make the homeowner more officially
acknowledge the risk.
Blackwell:
That is also for the future buyers benefit.
Foxx:
What are the maps based on now?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 4
Canaan:
The 1997-1998 land use maps. The Planning Commission district maps
reflect full build out of the topography. But, the maps don’t show what
might actually be filled in.
Foxx:
Is mapping a County function?
Canaan:
Yes.
Foxx:
So, we see pictures of the bad scenarios on the screen. Part of the problem
is if you limit the people coming out of the community encroachment area,
you limit their ability to improve their property. So, you don’t move folks
out or move folks in. That is why the grandfathering has such appeal.
Canaan:
There are existing City codes and regulations. For example, there may be
a commercial property that is non-conforming. They would not be
permitted to expand there, but they are allowed to continue as is until they
want to improve something. So, that is similar to a homeowner below our
community regulatory elevations, they can stay there until they want to
improve something. The 50% rule should only be allowed so many times
before the homeowner needs to be in compliance.
Blackwell:
There is some amount of grandfathering in the ordinance.
Foxx:
Personally, I have no problem subjecting new development to these rules.
It’s the people that are just stuck in this situation.
Mr. Canaan then presented the Committee with the Substantial Improvement
Grandfathering paper for discussion (attached).
Carter:
Regarding the thresholds, they are not cumulative?
Canaan:
Correct.
Lochman:
So, if you have a $250,000 house and you need to make improvements to
bring it into compliance. What is the cost to bring it into compliance?
What percentage? That is part of the issue to me.
Sprinkle:
It is 40% of the cost of construction to comply.
Canaan:
Roughly $30 to $40 per square foot of the house.
Trautman:
For a 2,000 square foot house it is $30 to $40 to raise it to compliance.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 5
Lochman:
What if the economies aren’t there to bring it into compliance? You might
not want to spend $40 plus the cost of the upgrade.
Carter:
Would construction be different if it was vertical versus horizontal?
Canaan:
Yes, there are all kinds of variables.
Tingle:
Some older structures maybe difficult to elevate.
Canaan:
If it takes six inches to come into compliance, there is an option for a
variance. The increase is one of a number of factors the Zoning Board of
Adjustment can look at to decide the relative risk.
Lochman:
How would you physically bring a house into compliance?
Canaan:
If it is on a crawl space, you can knock out the blocks, put jacks
underneath, raise the house and then bring it back down onto the new,
elevated foundation.
Foxx:
If you have a $150,000 house and want to do a major kitchen renovation
of $80,000, does that interior improvement trigger the substantial
improvement clause?
Canaan:
Yes, it counts towards that.
Mumford:
Where do the 600 homes fall on the line? Are they all 6” below?
Canaan:
We have not done that detailed of analysis.
McAuliffe:
I have it for our neighborhood – there are 62 homes.
Mumford:
6 inches or 6 feet?
McAuliffe:
It varies from 1 foot to 9 feet.
Carter:
In the grandfathering option, would homeowners be limited to three
projects?
Blackwell:
It could be more than three projects.
Canaan:
If the three projects are equal or greater than 25% each to be greater than
75%, they will trip the trigger.
Carter:
If they are under 25%, then they don’t get into that, right?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 6
Canaan:
Correct.
Mumford:
Year 1 that 25% might be on $100,000, but year 2 that 25% could be on
$125,000. Won’t the value keep increasing?
Canaan:
The value is based on the fair market value the day they come in for the
building permit. We may say the structure is at $40,000, but the
homeowner gets an appraisal that keeps them underneath the 50% rule.
Lochman:
Refresh my memory, if I am in a floodplain and if I take some action to
improve the value of my house, but have to bring it into compliance, how
is that different if I don’t improve the value? What I am doing is not
going to make a lot of difference if a flood comes. I would think it is just
a small percentage of homes that go through upgrades.
Canaan:
You have 4,500 structures in the community floodplain, including being
inside the FEMA lines, and you are talking about 600 homes that may
flood in the future. The intent is if at some point they want to increase the
value of the structure, they should bring their home into compliance. We
see about 20-24 permits per year. Half of those are for renovations and
half of those are tear downs and rebuilds.
Lochman:
So, 20 homes per year becomes substantial.
Canaan:
It is substantial to the next owner. Theoretically, after remapping some of
those homes may come off the list and some of those homes will make no
investment; they’ll just sit there.
Carter:
It makes no difference between maintenance and improvement?
Canaan:
25% or 75% for maintenance or improvement.
Blackwell:
Our intent is to not be more restrictive than FEMA. The buyer should
make the determination for them and should bear some of the
responsibility.
Lochman:
Is that different for homes in the FEMA zone for making improvements?
Do they have an obligation to inform?
Canaan:
If the homeowner is below the FEMA line (1,000 buildings), there is a
North Carolina disclosure form to be filled out by the owner and there
may be a need to purchase flood insurance. The flood zone determination
will be decided by their lender.
Lochman:
Should it be for all houses not just those that trigger the improvement
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 7
status?
Canaan:
I would not disagree with you.
Mumford:
I’m trying to reconcile the 4,500 structures impacted.
Canaan:
That is based on the community floodplain at full build out. 4,500 in the
floodplain, 1,000 are below the FEMA flood elevations and 600 are above
the FEMA flood regulatory elevations but below the community
regulatory elevations.
Lochman:
The purpose of the threshold then is to disincent people when they
upgrade. It is a disincentive to increase the value of the home.
Canaan:
It is actually reducing risk.
Lochman:
If you minimize the number of homes upgraded, there will be little direct
impact on the taxpayer.
Mumford:
From what are we trying to protect ourselves from?
Canaan:
From structures that will be eligible for buyouts.
Foxx:
Why are concerns based on improving a percentage of the value of the
property? We should be concerned with the payout. Are we confident
with the number of 24 out of the 600?
Tingle:
In the past year we have had 18 structures on the radar screen for major
work. Six were tear downs/rebuilds and 12 were potential substantial
improvements. 10 of those are in the 25% range right now.
Foxx:
Of the 4,500 what number are making improvements?
Tingle:
I don’t have that.
Foxx:
We want people not to live in the floodplain, so we are making a modest
effort to encourage people to get out of the floodplain, but a large number
are still in. What is the purpose of the policy? Does the grandfathering
option address the problem? If we are comfortable the next owner is
receiving appropriate notice, and they choose to improve, and the
improvement value is public, isn’t that enough? Why is that a problem?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 8
Blackwell:
We are aligning ourselves with the FEMA policy and it is effective
throughout the Country. If there is a flood event, the homeowner will ask
us why we let this happen.
Foxx:
Isn’t part of the problem the mapping is not up-to-date? Part of what we
are saying is we know the FEMA lines, and the community encroachment
area is giving us a larger barrier of protection. But, couldn’t the
community encroachment area be understated?
Blackwell:
The plan is to do a remapping.
Foxx:
I would suggest more frequent mapping. The FEMA rules apply though
right?
Blackwell:
Yes. The remapping is fairly expensive, so that needs to be considered
with the frequency of remapping.
Canaan:
But, yes – a remapping needs to be done.
Blackwell:
How often? The current map is 10 years old.
Mumford:
Will the community encroachment line be the same as the FEMA line at
some point? Will it be more stringent or less stringent?
Blackwell:
It will be the same.
Canaan:
Just a quick note that staff is not recommending any changes in this part of
the ordinance.
Mumford:
Are we saying we will let someone improve their property, but we won’t
help you if there is a flood and you have to inform the next owner?
Lochman:
We are asking about the accuracy of the maps, the notification, mitigation
in the event of a flood and the improvement issue which is a small
percentage of the total increase with respect to payout. We are still just
nibbling around the edges. How does FEMA help?
Canaan:
Our buyout program is 75% from the Federal government and 25% from
the State or local government.
Carter:
In looking at the map, I am concerned that we have a very active
neighborhood that is in the “gold” – but we have heard nothing from the
neighbors in the “red” and those would be the most impacted.
Canaan:
We have done mailings to all of them.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 9
Foxx:
I think we really tried to let as many people know what it is going on as
possible. This may generate an increase in interest when it gets back to
the Council level.
McAuliffe:
Two of those properties are close to my home.
Mumford:
With respect to the buyout issue, if there are no funds for flood mitigation
for improvements can we just keep the FEMA basis intact?
Lochman:
I’d like to go back to the notification issue. People would have no reason
to know these improvements occurred. Should it be required as part of the
title change? Should they be required to make sure someone knows about
them?
Foxx:
I think that is an excellent point. When I bought my house back in 2001, I
signed a lot of papers at closing and even though I was trying to look at
everything, I don’t know that I would see a notice.
Blackwell:
Even if you knew about it, it would still require a survey. Good realtors
will get the notice.
Canaan:
We have discussed more sophisticated mailings as well.
Carter:
Another thing is insurance rates will increase.
McAuliffe:
Could you create language that the homeowner is allowed to add
additional square feet above the flood line? For instance, adding a second
story.
Canaan:
For the 600 between the FEMA regulatory elevations and the Community
regulatory elevations that would be okay, but it is a problem for the 1,000
below the FEMA regulatory elevations.
McAuliffe:
Is additional square feet above the community line an acceptable option?
Can any house have a second story added as part of their structural
improvement?
Canaan:
Yes, but that is more restrictive actually.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 20, 2006
Page 10
Foxx:
I have a concern about restricting the right of property owners to improve
their property. But, I understand taking the burden off the City. If you
look at the middle zone, can’t we say you can improve the property as you
wish, but the public won’t pay if flooded?
Carter:
If they add a second story, wouldn’t they need to reinforce the foundation
to support it in a flood?
Blackwell:
There are a lot of variables.
Canaan:
It would be subject to building review and an engineer certification.
Foxx:
This is the first ordinance the Committee has had to really struggle
through. I think staff has done an incredibly good job providing an
invaluable perspective. I’d like to look at recommending the option as
presented.
Lochman:
I want to get the notification nailed down.
Carter:
That may need to be part of our legislative package.
Foxx:
We’ll look at that when this moves to Council.
Burch:
We’ll bring the options and revisions back to the December 18 meeting
and see if you all are ready to vote on the entire package.
Lochman:
I’d also like to say I have never seen a neighborhood do a better job at
grasping these issues like Chantilly.
II.
Foxx:
Next Meeting:
The agenda for the next meeting is to vote on the package and I’d also like
to see if we can get updates on Cool Cities, the Post Construction Controls
Ordinance and Environmental GDPs, just where we are.
Meeting adjourned.
The next meeting is Monday, December 18, 2006 from
3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Room 280
Environment Committee
Monday, November 20, 2006 –** 1:00 p.m.**
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
I.
Floodplain Management Ordinance Revisions – Dave Canaan and Tim Richards
The Committee held a special meeting with representatives of the Chantilly
neighborhood on November 14. At the conclusion of the meeting, Chair Foxx asked
staff to come back with options and impacts of “grandfathering” the approximately
600 structures located above the current FEMA elevations but below the community
regulatory elevations from the “substantial improvements” provision of the
ordinance. Staff will provide additional context about the establishment of the
community regulatory elevations in 2000 and the staff recommendation.
A summary of key points from the neighborhood meeting is attached.
II.
Distribution:
Next Meeting: December 18, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
SWAC Members
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders PCCO Stakeholders