Flood Standards Workgroup Recommendations
Approved by the
1. The I-Code provisions
should be used as the basis for inclusion of flood provisions relevant to
buildings and structures into each of the respective codes (FBC). Members
agreed that on balance, ICC provisions should be retained unless there is a
specific need for a Florida Specific Requirement.
2. Adopt
ASCE 24 (Flood Resistant Design and Construction Standards) by reference as the
flood provisions in each of the codes (FBC).
3. Allow
local jurisdictions to adopt higher standards for flood resistance provision to
address local concerns within the Code (based on local flood studies), to
ensure local’s ability to be eligible for the NFIP’s Community Rating System.
4. Seek a legislative
exception so that local CRS (higher flood resistant standards) would not be
subject to the local technical amendment requirements of the Code, subject to a
consistency review with updated editions of the code.
5. Develop a model “companion”
ordinance that includes NFIP-consistent
administrative provisions and includes NFIP requirements for development other
than buildings and structures that are not within the scope of the Code. Also,
include a list of more stringent requirements that local jurisdictions could
consider for possible adoption.
6. Inconsistencies between the
CCCL and V Zone requirements shall continue to be resolved at the local level,
and on a case-by-case basis.
7. A interagency group should
be formed to develop a strategy for determining whether any inconsistencies
between the CCCL and V Zone requirements can be resolved by code changes in the
next code cycle (i.e., coordination between FBC, DEP, DEM, FEMA).
8. Adoption of flood maps and
administrative procedures shall be at the local level.
9. Retain ICC format, modify
as appropriate for
10. Seek statutory change to
section 553.80 F.S. to clarify that this provision not be used to deviate from flood
resistant requirements."