After all of the "Richard is so nice...", "Richard is the god of flood ordinances", and so on, I think that our lawyer figured that we didn't have a chance to convince the board of supervisors that Richard might be wrong. And I think that he thought that any reasonable person would be able to work with us to find a good solution. So the lawyer had high hopes of a good outcome from this morning's meeting.
My goal was to give Richard the opportunity to review the documents that show that we exceed the requirements he said we are in violation of. That way, when we went before the supervisors, he wouldn't be able to say that he had never seen the documents.
Wanna guess how the meeting went? David and I weren't the least surprised when, after reading the new documents, Richard stated, "I don't care what this document says. I have to follow what's written in the Harrison County Flood Plain Ordinance". And once the lawyer pointed out that we met the ordinance, on the basis of having a PE stamped drawing (either have a stamped drawing or meet these other requirements), Richard was out of sound arguments. So he resorted to "I told you the citation" and started yelling about how we (David and I) were granted a permit based on a house raised on pilings and that we were building to unapproved drawings. The lawyer pointed out that we had submitted the revised drawings but that the code office had failed to review them. Things went downhill fast - the lawyer got frustrated, Richard got defensive, and ultimately we were kicked out.
So, another $10K in lawyer fees for the couple of weeks, and we will go before the Board of Supervisors on August 6th.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Lawyer
Here's an exerpt from an e-mail the lawyer sent me today:
Erica,
We have been pulling every document that potentially applies. Also, made numerous attempts yesterday to get us before the Board ASAP, however, the earliest is Aug 6th. (BTW, in talking with secretaries for Benefield, Ladner and someone else, they all thought Richard Herrin was "so nice," the "one we all rely on for the Code," and similar remarks.) Ladner's secretary told me, in so many words, that if Richard Herrin said it then Ladner believed it.
Ladner is the supervisor for our district. He refused to meet with us, saying that Herrin is the expert and he only cared about Herrin's opinion. I said that our next step would be to bring it in front of the Board of Supervisors, to which he replied that there's no telling what the other supervisors might rule. i.e., don't count on his support, regardless of our arguments.
Next steps - we get an opinion regarding our "enclosure" from the surveyor and we meet, yet again, with Richard Herrin. Either Richard will say "wow, I had never seen that document from FEMA that clearly shows that your foundation is not an enclosure", or the lawyer will be correct and Richard will say "I don't care what your piece of paper says, your foundation is illegal." After that, we go in front of the Board of Supervisors. And then on to court. If it goes to court, the lawyer will be suing for damages - that's how ridiculous he thinks the code office is being and board of supervisors might be.
So, either we go to the meeting and Richard is "nice" and reasonable, and the lawyer fees were a big waste of money, or we go in front of the Board of Supervisors, who are reasonable and who realize that their "highly trained expert" isn't so smart after all, or we go to court and the lawyer earns his fees.
In the meantime, we have hit the jackpot - we were randomly selected to receive a Katrina cottage. Not sure what we would do with that. We haven't decided for sure, but will probably decline it. But if our building is stopped for another couple of months, we might need the cottage. We would have it for 2 years and then would have the option of buying it.
Erica,
We have been pulling every document that potentially applies. Also, made numerous attempts yesterday to get us before the Board ASAP, however, the earliest is Aug 6th. (BTW, in talking with secretaries for Benefield, Ladner and someone else, they all thought Richard Herrin was "so nice," the "one we all rely on for the Code," and similar remarks.) Ladner's secretary told me, in so many words, that if Richard Herrin said it then Ladner believed it.
Ladner is the supervisor for our district. He refused to meet with us, saying that Herrin is the expert and he only cared about Herrin's opinion. I said that our next step would be to bring it in front of the Board of Supervisors, to which he replied that there's no telling what the other supervisors might rule. i.e., don't count on his support, regardless of our arguments.
Next steps - we get an opinion regarding our "enclosure" from the surveyor and we meet, yet again, with Richard Herrin. Either Richard will say "wow, I had never seen that document from FEMA that clearly shows that your foundation is not an enclosure", or the lawyer will be correct and Richard will say "I don't care what your piece of paper says, your foundation is illegal." After that, we go in front of the Board of Supervisors. And then on to court. If it goes to court, the lawyer will be suing for damages - that's how ridiculous he thinks the code office is being and board of supervisors might be.
So, either we go to the meeting and Richard is "nice" and reasonable, and the lawyer fees were a big waste of money, or we go in front of the Board of Supervisors, who are reasonable and who realize that their "highly trained expert" isn't so smart after all, or we go to court and the lawyer earns his fees.
In the meantime, we have hit the jackpot - we were randomly selected to receive a Katrina cottage. Not sure what we would do with that. We haven't decided for sure, but will probably decline it. But if our building is stopped for another couple of months, we might need the cottage. We would have it for 2 years and then would have the option of buying it.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Quick Update
The meeting went terribly. We were wrong, code guy was right. He did not listen to a word we said.
After the meeting, we called our supervisor. He wasn't interested in anything we said - the code guy is a god. If the code guy says we're wrong, then we must be wrong.
Our new lawyer was very nice and thinks we have a great case. Amazing how nice and agreeable people are when you are paying them a lot of money!
And we were doing some more research tonight and came across a section in the flood insurance pages that say that 50% open walls do not form enclosures. This was in the same document that the code guy says we violate. So now we have a slam dunk case, assuming that we can get anyone to listen to us. That's where the lawyer gets to earn his fees.
After the meeting, we called our supervisor. He wasn't interested in anything we said - the code guy is a god. If the code guy says we're wrong, then we must be wrong.
Our new lawyer was very nice and thinks we have a great case. Amazing how nice and agreeable people are when you are paying them a lot of money!
And we were doing some more research tonight and came across a section in the flood insurance pages that say that 50% open walls do not form enclosures. This was in the same document that the code guy says we violate. So now we have a slam dunk case, assuming that we can get anyone to listen to us. That's where the lawyer gets to earn his fees.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Typical Day
We wake up optimistic, full of ideas on how to keep the majority of our foundation intact. We are sure that the Building Code Administrator will see reason if we point out this or that. As the day progresses, we start to doubt that things can be resolved. The Administrator won't be reasonable - he's got the same issue with a casino. If he gives us any leeway, he might lose his fight with the casino. By the end of the day, we are completely depressed.
So it's the middle of the day as I'm writing this. David and I have been arguing this for over a week now - one or the other of us playing the role of the intractable administrator. Common sense is not going to prevail, so we are taking a legal approach (without a lawyer, for now). Our arguments hinge on the definitions of two terms: "fully enclosed" and "either/or". Since "fully enclosed" is not specifically defined, we fall into "shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application." We have three possible definitions:
Our first definition is the common usage argument - all enclosures that you see on the coast and all the pictures of enclosures in FEMA documents show solid walls with small vents. We are nowhere near this. Also, if we were to list our house for sale, saying "2000 square feet of enclosed area below the house", this would imply that the space was secure and protected from weather, neither of which is the case. Our foundation complies with this definition.
The second definition is that enclosures are surrounded on all sides by walls. Fully enclosed, by definition, means that all sides must have walls. So we take out one wall and replace with columns. Now we have no enclosures.
The third definition has to do with how much of the area is enclosed. If it is the whole area, it is fully enclosed. If only a portion is enclosed, it is partially enclosed. And then the either/or sentence comes into play - either the enclosure is certified by a professional engineer, or it is less than 300 square feet.
We're still not positive we'll win, of course. We have about a 10% chance of winning against the administrator, and a 75% chance of winning in front of the Board of Supervisors, and a 95% chance of winning in a court. Let's hope the Board sees reason. We don't want this to drag on another 3 years!
It's 1:30 now - the pendulum is swinging and I am starting to get depressed...
So it's the middle of the day as I'm writing this. David and I have been arguing this for over a week now - one or the other of us playing the role of the intractable administrator. Common sense is not going to prevail, so we are taking a legal approach (without a lawyer, for now). Our arguments hinge on the definitions of two terms: "fully enclosed" and "either/or". Since "fully enclosed" is not specifically defined, we fall into "shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application." We have three possible definitions:
Our first definition is the common usage argument - all enclosures that you see on the coast and all the pictures of enclosures in FEMA documents show solid walls with small vents. We are nowhere near this. Also, if we were to list our house for sale, saying "2000 square feet of enclosed area below the house", this would imply that the space was secure and protected from weather, neither of which is the case. Our foundation complies with this definition.
The second definition is that enclosures are surrounded on all sides by walls. Fully enclosed, by definition, means that all sides must have walls. So we take out one wall and replace with columns. Now we have no enclosures.
The third definition has to do with how much of the area is enclosed. If it is the whole area, it is fully enclosed. If only a portion is enclosed, it is partially enclosed. And then the either/or sentence comes into play - either the enclosure is certified by a professional engineer, or it is less than 300 square feet.
We're still not positive we'll win, of course. We have about a 10% chance of winning against the administrator, and a 75% chance of winning in front of the Board of Supervisors, and a 95% chance of winning in a court. Let's hope the Board sees reason. We don't want this to drag on another 3 years!
It's 1:30 now - the pendulum is swinging and I am starting to get depressed...
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Nothing New
We got a copy of the code which says:
"Elevated Buildings New construction or substantial improvements of elevated buildings that include fully enclosed areas formed by foundation and other exterior walls below the base flood elevations shall be designed to preclude finished living space and designed to allow for the entry and exit of floodwaters to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls.
a) Designs for complying with this requirement must either be certified by a Mississippi registered professional engineer or architect or meet the following criteria:
(i) Provide a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding;
(ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above foundation interior grade (which must be equal to in elevation or higher than the exterior foundation grade); and,
(iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided they permit the automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions;
(iv) Limited in use to parking, storage, and building access; and
(v) Limited to less than 300 square feet."
The way I read this is that we can have a fully enclosed foundation as long as we have a PE stamped design that says that floodwaters can enter and exit, and that the foundation cannot be easily converted into living space. If we didn't want to pay a PE, then the county would accept the foundations as long as it met the provisions in (i) through (v).
That being said, the building inspector is not a reasonable person and he has indicated that he will not approve the foundation until we replace all walls with columns. Hopefully the PE can meet with him next week and then we will know for sure. Next step would be to bring it in front of the board of supervisors, and if they waffle about approving us, we will threaten to go to the media. We followed the letter of the law, are trying to build a house that exceeds all requirements, have hired a professional engineer, but because the building code office did not do their job (never reviewing the revised foundation plan), and because they are trying to rewrite the laws after the fact, we will be forced to spend a substantial amount of money to rebuild a weaker/lower house. I think that some members of the board are up for re-election...
In the meantime, it looks like our contractor is close to going belly-up, so by the time we get all this worked out, we might be looking for another contractor. There's $5K worth of trusses sitting in the yard that will probably have to be scrapped by the time we get back to building.
Happy 4th of July to everyone - the next post will probably be in a week, after we talk to the PE.
"Elevated Buildings New construction or substantial improvements of elevated buildings that include fully enclosed areas formed by foundation and other exterior walls below the base flood elevations shall be designed to preclude finished living space and designed to allow for the entry and exit of floodwaters to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls.
a) Designs for complying with this requirement must either be certified by a Mississippi registered professional engineer or architect or meet the following criteria:
(i) Provide a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding;
(ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above foundation interior grade (which must be equal to in elevation or higher than the exterior foundation grade); and,
(iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided they permit the automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions;
(iv) Limited in use to parking, storage, and building access; and
(v) Limited to less than 300 square feet."
The way I read this is that we can have a fully enclosed foundation as long as we have a PE stamped design that says that floodwaters can enter and exit, and that the foundation cannot be easily converted into living space. If we didn't want to pay a PE, then the county would accept the foundations as long as it met the provisions in (i) through (v).
That being said, the building inspector is not a reasonable person and he has indicated that he will not approve the foundation until we replace all walls with columns. Hopefully the PE can meet with him next week and then we will know for sure. Next step would be to bring it in front of the board of supervisors, and if they waffle about approving us, we will threaten to go to the media. We followed the letter of the law, are trying to build a house that exceeds all requirements, have hired a professional engineer, but because the building code office did not do their job (never reviewing the revised foundation plan), and because they are trying to rewrite the laws after the fact, we will be forced to spend a substantial amount of money to rebuild a weaker/lower house. I think that some members of the board are up for re-election...
In the meantime, it looks like our contractor is close to going belly-up, so by the time we get all this worked out, we might be looking for another contractor. There's $5K worth of trusses sitting in the yard that will probably have to be scrapped by the time we get back to building.
Happy 4th of July to everyone - the next post will probably be in a week, after we talk to the PE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)