Travis County Commissioners Court
January 8, 2008
Item 17
Number 17 is to consider and take appropriate action on a request for variance to chapter 64 Travis County regulations for floodplain management for a home located at 24607 east fm 1431.
>> > step up here? >> > yem, --yes, ma'am, if you would have a seat and get comfortable. We'll be to you in mone minute. >> > good morning. Jc pebble, Travis County tnr . This is basically another variance as a result of the flood this summer. Mrs. Lee's home was damaged by flood water back in July. These the second or third owner of this property. Basically she bought it in 2002. The home was constructed in 1999. It was constructed below the required elevation. They same in for a permit after she flooded . Tnr denied because it's not compliant with our regulations, and ms. Lee is requesting a variation to the elevation requirements. Staff is not recommending this variance because it would jeopardize our participation in the national flood insurance program. >> > how much damage was done, ms. Lee? >> > a fair amount. >> > can you estimate the percentage? >> > we pretty much cleared out the inside of it. >> > okay. Is our relationship fema close enough for us to ask them, Travis County is presented with tees --these problems. We would like to know how you see it. And get a read from it? >> > we have already asked fema the question. They expect that we do not issue variances on basically economic hardships, that this be something so specific to the property that it would be physically impossible to comply with the regulations, but they would expect that we would require a person, say, to elevate as high as they could on their property. Something like wind or topography. So fema has been consistent with us on their answer. >> > the problem is, there is some backup on that, but how many more instances are out there where persons have actually built in the floodplain and, of course, at some later stage something happens, they get flooded and stuff like that, but they actually have gone through that process, even purchased a property that is in the floodplain and needs to be elevated to an acceptable level? I知 still having a little difficulty an understanding how this happens. Are there properties out there that maybe were grandfathers in before we came under the national flood insurance program? All these other kinds of things. I知 having some allege nat concerns because this is not the only time someone has come here before this Commissioners court and has asked for a remedy to a problem such as this I知 just wondering how does it happen and is there any way we can prevent proactively to assure, please help me on that? >> > maybe I can try to answer that for ms. Lee. In her defense, she did get a standard flood hazard area determination from a flood insurance company who is sort of licensed by fema to do this. This determine ation was done in error. It showed that her property, the property she was considering buying was not in a floodplain. She did contact transportation and natural resources unfortunately, the only advice they got was collect to make sure that the land was divided in complains with our regulations--compliance with our regulations. To answer Commissioner Davis's question, we have no idea how many homes out there that are grandfathered or built in noncompliance but on Lake Travis alone there are over 2,000 structures within that floodplain. >> > oh. >> > ms. Lee, let's give you an opportunity to have your say today. >> > thank you. >> > first I appreciate your time. Second, I apologize. I知 a terrible public speaker. >> > start with your full name. >> > barbara joan lee. >> > welcome. >> > I really wanted it and worked incredibly lard for it. That was my dream. A retirement home on the creek. I put up home equity loan on my own home to buy this property. I went to the permitting department and said help me figure out what I need to do to have due diligence. I had the prior owners, the fema flood owner, 2008 dated 2003. >> > that was with who? >> > fema. >> > fema actually said this is motor in the floodplain, per se, and you're safe to proceed. >> > standard flood hazard determination, it said is this building in a flood hazard area, beginning with a or v. And the answer was no, and dated 12-12-03. >> > okay. >> > do we agree with that? Is that fema? >> > is that documentation? >> > this is actually a standard flood hazard area determination form. >> > okay. >> > it is done by a company sort of licensed by fema to produce it. >> > licensed by fema. >> > they are insured so that they make the correct determination. Typically these things are used for bank loans and determinations whether properties require flood insurance. >> > have you contacted them, do you have an action against this entity that gave you this erroneous information? >> > no, they didn't do it for me. They did it for the prior owner. And I have no no idea who they are. I just have that it's fema, you know. >> > do you have any cause of action against the prior owner for having provided you wrong information? >> > I believe the prior owner died and it went through a bank, and that's where I got it. Like I said, I went to the permitting department and asked what all I needed to do. They told me about the potential illegal subdivision and sent flee to another department. I work two months to be sure I had that squared away and was legal there. They also told me to talk to lcra and I went there and they said the prior owner had left a mess as relates to the septic. Literally my husband and I spent at least two, probably three months hand digging in the dirt to find all the septic lines so that we could fix it and be right with lcra. >> > how close to the would the is this? >> > it's on cow creek. The house itself, depending on the creek basically, the creek can be a dry creek or in this instance, obviously, far from dry. I would say maybe a hundred yards. I知 not good at that. >> > this is the second home? It's been a rental property for you? >> > yeah, it's on the other side of the lake from where we are. We can't retire yet. The goal is to have a renter in there to offset the mortgage increase until we could retire and move in there. >> > what is the likelihood that the property will flood again? >> > that flood was a phenomenal flood, 17 inches of rain in river falls and smith rick, right on the same road, 1431. I would think it's very small. >> > from a physical aspect, that was a 5-10 year event. >> > the probability is it will occur again within five or ten yearsthe home is approximately at an elevation of 699 foot. That is close to 0 foot lower than the legal--20 foot lower than the legal floodplain elevation on Lake Travis, over 20 foot from the actual floodplain of Lake Travis, 722. A pretty frequent event that would flood this property. >> > it is unbelievable that you can do all of this due diligence and not get stopped and go out and buy a property. I mean, what a travesty to a person. It is incredible about how many people signed off. It wasn't like you went over there on Thursday afternoon and just bought this place. I mean, there is an incredible amount of backup on sign-off that you got with this. You know, you are one of those really gut wrenching things, barbara. You can imagine where we are. Do we put ourselves in harm's way with fema? I mean, not ensuring --insuring the county? I read this about three times just to make sure. My god, how can this happen. It really puts us in a bind. Because I would imagine that everybody in the county would read this and go, you've got to be able to help this person. But if what this does is jeopardizes the county with regards to the fema insurance, it really puts us in a very untenable spot. My question was going to be exactly what the judge asked. Can we two to fema and say, all of these things that have happened, because we did go through this process with one other person about, okay, let's take this thing through the whole process where fema just lets you out, you know, lets us out effectively, you and us, and you do it on your own nickel, you know, whatever you were going to do knowing that fit floods again, that you are the person responsible for it. But that is, I知 willing to offer to do the same thing with you that I did with this other person am by the time we got to the end of the process with the other person, it was pretty onerous. It's almost like, barb rack you have to be ready for the county to fine you. For a long time. Where you may have $20, 30,000 worth of fines with us and at the end of the day fema still may not allow you out of the program. Then you don't get the permit from us. You owe us all of this fine money. God, I mean, you can only be in a worse situation if we did that with you. But I知 willing to go over that process with you, get stacy, in my office, and say here is what we did the last tile. --time. I知 afraid where we may be on this thing is having our hands tied because of what can happen to the countyi think what Commissioner Daugherty is talking about is a section 1316. >> > right. >> > it is a way that we can as a county go the fema and say, hey, we've done everything we possibly can on enforcement action. Please hold us harmless. Wipe this home off the flood insurance rolls. >> > right. >> > ms. Lee did have flood insurance in this flood and that is a good thing because she is able to recoup at least some of the damages that would take her property permanently off the flood insurance rolls in addition to any fines or penalties we may do in an enforcement case. >> > what you got in flood insurance proceeds, why wouldn't it make sense to take those proceeds and invest them elsewhere? If this is a five or ten year event, there is a great likelihood of another flood. >> > first off, I don't know the statistics on that specific issue. I would imagine it would not be a five or ten year event. I would imagine the neighbors around there, they stop when a new person comes around, what is mentioned, that it was a regular basis thing. >> > well, I agree. Stacy knows her statistics. My god, I can't think of the last time it rained 17 inches in seven hours anywhere. I mean-- >> > that was right down the road, on the same road, 1431, smith. >> > you know, rain efforts have increased in frequency in what was previously not floodplain and has now become floodplain over the course of continued development and changes in weather patterns. >> > applause it's 20 feet below where it should be. >> > plus it's 20 feet below. >> > the floodplain on Lake Travis this is the same floodplain that has been out since 1922 when the official maps came out. The new floodplain will slow the flood elevation at 722 is not due to increase development, it's not due to really a better an understanding of the floodplain, of the engineering, of stream gauges. This floodplain has been there, the same form and configuration since 1982. >> > the hammer that fema has, they can deny flood insurance throughout Travis County. >> > I understand that. >> > thousands of other residents would be adversely impacted by decisions that we make here. >> > I understand that. I really do appreciate that. However, I think out of the '06 flood, which was huge, or 507, --'07, whatever it was, I think I知 the second or final request on that whole flood. I can't imagine fema having a huge stink on one person, especially when they releast on fema documentation and were as thorough as they could starting with Travis County permitting. I think there are laws that should be documented so everyone knows when it comes to buying real estate, warranting assistance. Beyond that that's right ank wron and this is absolutely morally wrong. And that's why there's a process for you guys to step in and intervene when it's morally wrong. >> > was it fema insurance that you had? >> > yes. >> > I知 certainly willing to step in and walk the path as the Commissioner out there with you, barbara. Where we will get, I don't know. At the end of the day they go, Commissioner, you're right, there is something terribly wrong here, but by the way, if you all elect to do this, you may be subject to our wrath. Hopefully they wouldn't do that. But I think that's where we've got to try to work towards something like that because I can't imagine that the court, especially given the fact that we know what fema is subject to doing to us. I mean, we need to try to work with it, and I値l work with you on it. >> > I believe I was told that in the past, the Commissioners court had on some, I can't remember what flood it was, given a large number of variances, than got them in trouble with fema. So I can see where they would be especially concerned about that. On the other hand, the fact that they had done that and now being so careful about it, to me that means fema should accept that when there is a situation where there is so much effort towards due diligence and so much on the line in terms of home equity loan, that they should have that discretion. I think that is why there's even a process for doing such as this. It should be for these rare instances. That's the right thing. >> > I知 willing to do this. >> > what if your home floods again? And you have put your fema insurance money that you were able to get because we don't provide variances under economic hardship, and you put that fema money back into the same home that we now know was erroneously stated as not being in the floodplain, and it floods yet again? What is the utility in that? >> > first off, my assumption is it's not-- >> > that it won't flood again. >> > it's not going to flood every five to ten years for sure. My second thought is knowing that it has once and knowing that-- >> > you are willing to take that bet. >> > yeah. Basically I値l build in accordance with that, you know, with that thought in mind. Probably go interview people at graveyard point before I start doing anything. They probably know how the best way to not have damage in the future is. >> > which is likely that we will be buying them out because there is no way for them to not have damage in the future. >> > move that we authorize the county judge, Commissioner Daugherty to work with ms. Lee to try to get whatever relief she can from fema and that staff assist in whatever way staff ca. >> > would you all set something up to go upstairs and find barbara and put her on my schedule and see if we can work with this. Thanks, barbara. >> > you second that? >> > yes, I do. >> > all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Move that we recess until 1:30
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:00 AM