COM 0598.036 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

levels in new construction automatically. The long-term result will be more homes that are inaccessible or, if accessible, made so with increased unnecessary costs. Developers of new subdivisions are also worried about the added cost to construction that this bill may cause. A development within Zone X will not be able to apply for an exemption under the Fair Housing Act due to site impracticability. New construction required to comply with the Fair Housing Act, which requires an accessible route to the ground floor unit entrances and units accessed by elevator, will have added costs to provide additional grading or ramps to create those accessible routes since the bill requires the homes to be raised 12 to 24 inches above grade depending on the zoning of the property. There will be additional cost to developers to either get a survey done to ensure the property is not within a flood prone area or to provide ramps to new construction required to comply with the Fair Housing Act. Development in designated "flood plains or zones" in Bill 51 can apply the site impracticability exemption because they are in a zone with an established base flood level. However, in Bill 151 almost any parcel of land not in a special "flood plain" appears to be designated as Zone X. The burden of proof to show that a parcel of land is not prone to flooding will be placed on the property owner or developer. However, no base flood level has been determined for these zones, so it will be difficult to impossible to show that the property is not within a flood zone without a base flood level. The standards for construction being imposed on Zone X appear to be extreme given the fact that the chance of flooding is one-percent in one hundred years and less than one- percent in a five hundred year span. FEMA defines the `base flood' as the "flood having aone- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This is the regulatory standard also referred to as the 100-year flood". The `base flood level' or `base flood elevation' is the "computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood". The bill specifically precludes a variance based upon disability status when, in fact, it should allow a variance based upon disability status. An elimination of the option of a variance due to disability may run afoul of Title II of the ADA that requires state and local government entities to make "reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures (which would include an ordinance) when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." (CFR §35.130(b)(7). Persons with disabilities who purchase or build a home will be paying a higher cost than the general public to add ramps and or elevators to their homes as a variance will not be granted for reasons relating to a disability. For example, if a person requests a variance to build his or her home at grade to provide an accessible entry or zero-step entry, the variance would not be granted as the bill states "the owner can construct a ramp or elevator to meet flood requirements". The bill also has many ambiguities with respect to definition of flood hazard as well as land use categories, and the applicability to alterations. There is also no clear rationale for the one foot or two foot requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board submit testimony in opposition to Bill I51, as written, with the above comments as well as a detailed analysis. This Bill moves in the opposite direction as Maui County, which is looking to create more visitable standards for new housing developments. Staff further recommends that if amendments are made to the bill that DCAB re-visit the Bill to ensure that all the concerns are met.