Volusia County staff review floodplain rules, federal programs and local requirements

Volusia County staff gave a detailed overview of floodplain management on April 2, reviewing federal mapping, state and local building-code rules, mitigation tools and ongoing watershed studies while urging board members to consider recommended ordinance changes at a future meeting.

Staff framed the presentation as a foundation for possible updates to local rules: “The flood plain is a flat area of land that's adjacent to a water source, such as a lake river stream, subject to, not only during a flood event, but times of heavy rain and high tides,” said Kelly Matter, chief plans examiner for building-code administration, who led much of the technical explanation.

The briefing covered how communities use FEMA’s flood insurance study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps to set Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the voluntary Community Rating System (CRS). Matter described common local requirements, saying that the county and state require many structures’ lowest floors to be elevated at least 1 foot above the BFE and that detached accessory buildings larger than 600 square feet must meet elevation requirements.

Why it matters: staff said the county must balance older, pre-code development and new standards adopted after recent hurricanes. The county’s participation in NFIP and its CRS rating affect residents’ access to federally backed flood insurance and, through the CRS, can deliver community-level premium discounts.

What staff presented and discussed - Mapping and risk: Matter noted large parts of the county are in an “A” or undetermined A zone (areas without a BFE on the map), which requires additional surveys or site-specific studies for development review. She explained LOMA/LOMAR/LOMR-F processes that can amend maps for individual structures or sites and described the more complex conditional LOMR-F process for development that will change flood elevations. - Insurance and rating: staff explained NFIP basics, private-market alternatives, and recent changes to NFIP risk rating. They described the CRS program and said participation by the county and some cities reduces premiums for residents (county-wide discounts were presented as high as 25% for some residents and program discounts range from 5%–45% depending on CRS class). - State and building-code requirements: staff summarized Florida building-code provisions that exceed NFIP minimums, including protection of mechanical, plumbing and electrical equipment and elevated foundations in coastal high-hazard areas (VE zones). Breakaway walls, piling foundations and use of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) were described as state-driven standards for coastal construction. - Local ordinance & permit scope: staff reviewed County Code Chapter 72 (division 4 and division 7) requirements: plats and subdivisions must show flood hazard areas; development (dredging, filling, grading, paving) in flood hazard areas requires flood-hazard-management permits even when a building permit is not required; regulatory floodway encroachments are restricted; and coastal-specific restrictions cover dunes, mangroves and seawalls. - Compensating storage and off-site impacts: the board debated compensating-storage approaches (cup-for-cup), where engineers create compensating storage on-site or within the same hydraulically connected basin. Staff cautioned that moving compensating storage far from the impact can change flow behavior and create off-site flooding. - Septic systems, driveways and elevation trade-offs: staff said efforts to reduce structural fill (for stem-wall foundations) create real-world conflicts because driveways and septic/drain fields often still require fill or alternate wastewater systems (for example, performance-based on-site treatment or advanced systems) that can be costly. - Substantial-damage/substantial-improvement rule: staff reviewed the NFIP 50% (often described as “50/51%”) substantial-damage threshold used to determine whether an improved or damaged structure must be brought up to current code. They said FEMA and FDEM enforcement and post-disaster audits have increased scrutiny on local substantial-damage determinations. - Basin studies and projects: staff said the county is administering 30 watershed/basin studies funded through Transform 3 8 6 (county-led procurements) and an additional 18 capital projects; those studies and program management documents will be standardized so outputs can be compared and published in a central repository.

Board reaction and next steps Board members requested access to the ordinance language and comp-plan excerpts highlighted by staff and asked for data showing how many structures lie in mapped flood hazard areas and which pre-date current standards. Staff said they will return with proposed code changes and with the Florida Division of Emergency Management’s model local ordinance for reference. The board set a schedule: staff asked for any written comments on proposed changes by April 30 so they can be included in the packet for the May 7 meeting.

The presentation did not change county policy at the meeting; staff recommended a follow-up meeting with draft ordinance language and supporting materials.