07/07/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Continued from page 4 developer to install t-dl strips on common property lines. This resulted in minimal disturbance of the wetland, yet al- lowed reasonable lake access for each lot. When the platting process falls to take ultimate devel- opment Into consideration, trouble can result. Lot owners then sometimes take things into their own hands and fill and excavate without first securing a DNR permit. The perpe- trator usually then gets an opportunity to meet a DNR Con- servation Officer and Area Hydrologist in person, whether he wants to or not. During the previously mentioned two year period in Crow Wing and Cass Counties, DNR took enforcement ac- tion against more than 30 ]andovmers, five contractors and a real estate agent, for unauthorized lakebed alterations. En- forcement action included restoration work (voluntary or otherwise), after-the-fact permits, and in some cases mis- demeanor citations. Of 18 individuals cited by conserva- tion officers, including all five contractors, 15 have been convicted in county court with fines ranging from $100 - $500, including suspended jail terms. The remaining three cases are pending. Most invoh,ed older plats which didn't benefit from a more thorough plat review process. The goal of such enforcement action is not to harass otherwise law-ablding citizens. Its meant to educate and, where necessary, to 'get the attention' of the small percent- age of lakeshore owners and contractors who for whatever reason do not feel that permit regulations are important. It appears that this goal is gradually being achieved as evi- denced by the declining incidence of such violations in the recent past. Hopefully, this trend v,411 continue. Neither the shoreland management regulations nor the protected waters regulations are intended to prevent devel- opment. Rather, they are designed to limit the detrimental impacts of development actMtles. As the amount of shore- land available for subdMslon diminishes, it will be even more critical to place ex'Ira emphasis on thorough plat re- view. The long-term benefit will be the protection of our lakes and the maintenance of the economic value of lake- shore property. Editor's Note: Ron Morrelm is Region III's Area Hydrolo- gist serving Cass, Crow V, qng and Wadena Counties. Ron started working for the Department in 1968 mapping lakes and conducting biological surveys of them for DNR's Ecological Services Section. In spite of his better judgment, he transfered to the Division of Waters in 1974 and has worked most of those years out of the Brainerd Regional office. The Financial Cost of Negligent Flood Plain Management By Tom Lutgen In the last edition of Water Talk there was an article stressing the importance of proper administration of local flood plain zoning controls. It was noted that violations have and will continue to occur un]ess code officials become knowledgeable about the requirements of their ordinance and follow proper review, certification and record keeping procedures. The impact of improper flood plain ordinance aclmin- istration is significant. Buildings constructed improperly below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation can lead to severe ramifications for the community and/or the landowner. These ramifications occur REGARDLESS of whether or not the community made an honest mistake or the landowner relied on the poor judgment or lack of knowledge of local officials. What follows is a listing of some of the potential implications. ACTUARIAL PREMIUM RATING: Flood insurance premiums for all new post-Flood Insurance Rate Map con- struction and substantlal improvements is based on the structure's lowest floor elevation in relation to the 100-year flood level. Figure 1 is being reprinted to graphically show the cost to thc landowner as the structure's lowest floor drops below the 100-year (Base Flood) elevation. At some point, flood insurance would become too expensive for most property owners. A case in Point is one Minnesota community which mistakenly allowed a number of structures with basements seven (7) feet below the 100-year flood level. As Figure 1 shows, these landowners will face a substantial premium (for the llypothetical llome, a -7 feet rating would give a yearly premium approaching $2,000). If flood insurance was a mandatory condition for securing a federally insured,- regulated, etc. mortgage, then the high premiums must be paid to satisfy the mortgage requirements. DENIAL OF FLOOD INSURANCE: Section 1316 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act gives FEMA the option to deny flood insurance to the owners of individual buildings which were constructed in violation of a local ordinance. Besides not being able to insure against future flood loss, a. landowner in the 100-year flood plain would be denied cer- tain federal disaster assistance monies made available after a federally declared disaster. Denial of policy renewal could also jeopardize those who purchased their residence with a federally insured/financed loan that was conditioned upon maintaining an active flood insurance policy. Continued on page 6 FIGURE 1. ANNUAL COST OF F'LO(X) INSURANCE FOR A HYPOTHETICALHOME VALUED AT $50,000 WITH RESPECT TO THE BASEFLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) [--'--] Pre-FIRM Co~structio~ {b~ilt b~fore effective date of FIRM) ~ Post-FIRM Coostructio~ (built after eflective date of FIRM) Assur'n~*'~ 1)Home has or~e thmor, r,o basement 3)lriclude~ $45~,~poi~cyexpenr. ecoost~t . 4) StruClural co~,t, teoje o~y; co. tents not insured e~ Rates mot availat~e from Fe~era! Ins.urar~ce ~' Admhaistratk:m. Alt structures with lowest floor ~. 2 teat c~ mo, re below th~ BFE are sent to FIA. ~ Washingloi",, D.C~ fo~ special ratir~j to~ Post-FIRM Construction I ,s60 ,t0b0 ,~kx~ ,e6o0 Annual Cost of Flood Inr. uranc..e, Gi~,en the Abo-me Assumptions