How can a building be both in and out of the Flood zone?

[Jay Wright]

I was hired to do an Elevation Certificate and possibly apply for a LOMA.
Client is buying one side of a duplex.

Then I find out the other side of the duplex has had the structure removed from the flood zone by an already completed LOMA. I got a copy of the determination letter and current revalidation letter.

I called FEMA saying that my client's structure is OBVIOUSLY not in the flood zone because you removed it, but because the person who did the earlier LOMA only listed one of the addresses for the duplex we have to do a separate application for the same damn building.
So according to FEMA the structure that has been removed from the flood zone is still in the flood zone.

Am I missing something here or is this insane?

[squid]

Did you, by chance, read Michael Pallamary's article about FEMA in the most recent American Surveyor magazine? Unfortunately, it won't sound insane, once you read that.

[land butcher]

Our govt at their desks.

[Jim Frame]

Am I missing something here or is this insane?

I think what you're missing is that FEMA has procedures that have to be followed in order to properly document conditions on the ground, and that those procedures haven't been met yet.

I'm wondering if what you have isn't actually a duplex, but rather a half-plex or zero-lot-line building. If it was a true duplex -- two living units on a single parcel -- I would expect that both addresses would have been removed from the SFHA by the existing LOMA.

In either case, while you can stand in front of the building and appreciate that if one half was removed from the SFHA then the other half is subject to removal as well, to FEMA the other half is still showing up as being in the SFHA, and will continue to do so until regulatory procedures are followed to effect removal.

Buildings don't remove themselves from the flood zone; someone has to apply for removal on behalf of the building (or in this case, on behalf of half the building). There's no FEMA fee for a single-lot LOMA, so the cost of preparing the application should be pretty modest.

[pls5528]

Jim,
I just completed a LOMA application with FEMA, and it was one of the most miserable experiences dealing with a governmental agency ever. It was a back and forth submittal process that got to a point where I could not justify charging the client anymore (and I told them that). One of their comments was that I had to rewrite the legal description to accommodate all lands equal to, or above the BFE. They provided me a BFE on the upstream side of a creek on our project, which differed 2-feet higher than ours. This would have put a real restriction on any development for our client. I called them and asked how they determined that elevation. Their response was that it was determined from the Profile Study along that creek (same as what we used). I check our work, and came up with the same results, and had to provide detailed overlays of the FEMA map with our property, along with drawings to support our determination.We also submitted a completed Topographic Survey Map with hard shots for the entire lot in the original submittal. A couple of weeks went by and I received an email approving the LOMA. I guess their BFE was not correct after all??? It kind of reminds me of going to DMV??

[Jim Frame]

Most of the LOMA applications I've done have been pretty straightforward, it sounds like your recent experience was much more involved. But FEMA learned some hard lessons after Katrina, and I think their initiatives to tighten up their processes are both reasonable and in the best interests of the taxpayers. As with any big agency, sometimes the interactions are going to be unwieldy, and occasionally just plain wrong. It's the same with big private-sector organizations; the bigger they are the less nimble they become.

[land butcher]

I have to disagree. Homeowners are being run thru the wringer and highrise condos on sand bars on the gulf are being removed from the flood plane.
I can't prove it but sure looks like a ex big wig from fema is carrying around a lot of envelopes with multiple copies of very similar paper in them.

[Jay Wright]

Half plex would be more appropriate.
Thanks for the distinction.

My issue in this case is more with the engineer who did the old LOMA than with FEMA. I agree that FEMA had no way of knowing they removed the structure at my clients address, although there should be a simple and immediate remedy for it, not another LOMA.

However the LOMA did not remove half a structure, it removed a structure.
The portion on the other lot is not subject to removal, it has been removed.
I don't think there is an instrument that can remove half a structure.

The buyer, my client, in order to get a loan for his new home, closing next week, needs to get an Elevation Certificate and pay for flood insurance and apply for a LOMA on a structure that has already been removed from the flood zone.

The cost for me to do an Elevation Certificate (or LOMA) on the other lot is the same as for any other client. I can't just take the LAG from the approved LOMA as my benchmark, I have to run one in.

[Jim Frame]

However the LOMA did not remove half a structure, it removed a structure.

I think the building official might disagree. In my experience, a half-plex or zero-lot-line building is actually a free-standing structure that happens to abut another free-standing structure. It has independent framing, and each of the abutting walls has a layer of sheetrock as its exterior sheathing, yielding a wall cross-section of sheetrock-stud-sheetrock-lotline-sheetrock-stud-sheetrock. My guess is that the other LOMA removed one of the structures from the SFHA.

I can't just take the LAG from the approved LOMA as my benchmark, I have to run one in.

And yet you seem to expect FEMA to do pretty much exactly that. How is it that the adjacent LOMA data isn't good enough for you to rely on, but it's good enough for FEMA to rely on?

A few years ago I did a LOMA under very similar circumstances. My client's property was a commercial condominium unit that shared the same slab with another unit and a common-area unit. I was not retained by the condo association or the other unit owner, and I had no desire to incur liability to those entities without compensation. I did the LOMA on my client's unit only. If the association or the other unit owner would like to retain me to complete a LOMA application on their properties, I'd be happy to do so. But I expect to get paid for my work in the present as well as for the risk I assume going forward.

[mpallamary]

Do not trust anything FEMA produces, does or says.

http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmerica ... ly2014.pdf


http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmerica ... ne2014.pdf

[LS_8750]

Amen.

[Jay Wright]

I feel better about doing my own survey of the property now.

You can tell me that one roof and one slab is more than one building, I'm just not going to agree.

My thanks for the relevant insights and opinions.

[PLS7393]

I have to agree with Jim, as FEMA has their protocall. I have haven't had any major issues with FEMA and LOMA's, except for minor items which I have taken care of and been successful working with them. I was a little surprised after a successful LOMA on a clients resident, that their insurance company was going to require insurance on the detached garage. I learned from FEMA that detached garages are separate structures and need to be included in the original LOMA as additional structures, or a seperate LOMA is required to for each structure to be removed. Additional work and a cooperative client gave me more work and we were successful using the previous LOMA as additional supportive documentation for FEMA.

[LS_8750]

That is a pretty damn esoteric question.
Perhaps FEMA Purgatory?

[land butcher]

Do not trust anything FEMA produces, does or says.

http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmerica ... ly2014.pdf


http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmerica ... ne2014.pdf

I would apply that to any govt agency.
Until govt agencies and employees are held responsible for their errors they will never be trustworthy.