Broward County adopts regulations that require property owners to fix seawalls and disclose whether property is in 'tidal-flooding area'

The article discusses the importance of building resilient homes to withstand severe weather events, drawing on the author's extensive experience with hurricane damage and the advancements in construction standards. The author, Patrick McCombe, recounts his early career experiences observing the devastation left by hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, highlighting the prolonged and incomplete recovery efforts in their wake. These experiences underscore the critical need for more robust building practices. The focus of the article is the Fortified Home standard, developed by the Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), a nonprofit research organization funded by the insurance industry. The IBHS conducts rigorous testing at its South Carolina research facility, simulating hurricane-force winds, rain, hail, and flying projectiles, to create standards designed to make homes more resilient. The Fortified standard offers three designation levels—Fortified Roof, Fortified Silver, and Fortified Gold—each building on the previous level with additional improvements for increased resilience against natural disasters. These standards apply to both new constructions and retrofits. The Fortified Roof standard, for instance, includes specific measures such as sealed roof sheathing, strengthened edge protection, and additional nails in the sheathing, underlayment, and drip edge. Shingles are installed according to the manufacturer’s high-wind instructions. These measures aim to prevent water intrusion even if shingles are dislodged during a storm. For Fortified Silver and Gold homes, additional enhancements include strengthened gables, sheathed walls with specific nailing patterns for enhanced impact, racking, and blow-off resistance, and a continuous load path (CLP) connecting the roof, walls, floor systems, and foundation. Fortified Gold homes in hurricane zones often require professional engineer designs for the CLP. The article features an interview with Ben Murphy, a roofing contractor and home builder in Foley, Alabama, who has been a Fortified roofer for over a decade. Murphy shares his experiences, noting that his Fortified Roofs sustained zero damage from Hurricane Sally in 2020, a Category 2 storm with 110 mph winds and significant rainfall, except for three instances where trees fell directly onto the roofs. This contrasts sharply with the widespread devastation observed in other homes in the area. Similar testimonials are provided on the fortifiedhome.org website, including a house in Mexico Beach, Florida, that survived the Category 5 Hurricane Michael in 2018. The financial implications of Fortified construction are also addressed. Building a Fortified Home entails higher costs due to additional materials like connectors, impact-rated windows, fully sheathed walls, and more stringent fastening schedules for sheathing and roofing. The work also requires more time than conventional construction, as speed is often prioritized in traditional methods. Third-party inspections by Fortified-trained inspectors, along with extensive photo documentation of nailing patterns and roof-deck sealing, are part of the certification process. Ben Murphy estimates that a Fortified Roof costs 15% to 25% more than a conventional roof, and a Fortified Gold home can cost 10% to 15% more than a standard structure, with substantial investment in components like stainless-steel fasteners and impact-rated windows. Despite the higher initial costs, there are significant long-term benefits and motivations beyond financial considerations. Insurance discounts are often provided for Fortified-certified homes, and in high-risk areas, meeting these standards may be a prerequisite for obtaining insurance at all. More importantly, building stronger homes can prevent deaths and injuries during severe weather, allow residents to shelter in place, and facilitate quicker community recovery. The availability of housing helps retain local workers, contributing to regional economic stability. The construction industry also benefits from reduced volatility and scarcity of building products that often follow major storms. The article argues that while some question building in disaster-prone areas, the appeal of locations like the coast means construction will continue, making resilient building the sensible solution. It also highlights that high winds and hail are widespread issues, affecting much of the country, not just coastal regions, and often cause more damage than hurricanes and tornadoes combined in an average year. The insurance industry's influence on building standards is presented as a historical precedent, drawing parallels to the development of early building codes after major fires in the 19th century. The article suggests that current efforts by the insurance industry to promote resilient construction are a continuation of this tradition, aiming to mitigate future losses and protect communities. Government-funded grant programs for homeowners implementing resiliency measures are seen as crucial for the widespread adoption of Fortified standards. #FortifiedHome #HurricaneResilience #SevereWeatherProtection #BuildingStandards #ConstructionMethods #Roofing #NaturalDisasters #InsuranceIndustry #HomeSafety

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which came into force on July 1, 1997, and applies across England and Wales, provides a legal framework for preventing and resolving disputes related to party walls, party structures, boundary walls, and excavations near neighboring buildings. This guide clarifies the Act's implications for both Building Owners, who initiate construction work, and Adjoining Owners, who are affected by it. It is crucial to understand that the Act operates independently of planning permission or building regulations, meaning compliance with one does not negate the need to adhere to the others. The Act defines several types of work requiring notification: building new walls up to or astride a boundary (Section 1), working on existing party walls or structures (Section 2), and excavating near neighboring buildings (Section 6). If a Building Owner plans any of these, they must notify all Adjoining Owners in writing. Failure to issue proper notice can lead to legal action, including injunctions to halt work. The Act does not empower Adjoining Owners to prevent work outright but allows them to influence its execution, timing, and manner, ensuring that unnecessary inconvenience is avoided and any damage is rectified. For works on existing party walls, the Act grants specific rights, such as repairing, underpinning, cutting into, raising, or demolishing and rebuilding the wall. Minor tasks like hanging shelves or installing electrical sockets typically do not require notice, unless they could affect the wall's structural integrity. Adjoining Owners are defined broadly to include freeholders, leaseholders, and those with properties within relevant distances of an excavation, necessitating notification to all affected parties. Written notice is essential, detailing the proposed work, its commencement date, and acknowledging it as a Party Wall Act notice. Notice periods are generally two months for party wall works and one month for new boundary walls or excavations. Upon receiving a notice, an Adjoining Owner can consent, refuse consent, or take no action. If consent is not given in writing within 14 days, a dispute is deemed to have arisen. Disputes are ideally resolved through direct discussion, but if an agreement cannot be reached, the Act provides for the appointment of a surveyor or surveyors. An 'Agreed Surveyor' can be jointly appointed, or each owner can appoint their own, who then work together to create an 'Award.' This Award is a legally binding document outlining the work, its timeline, necessary protections, and often includes a record of the adjoining property's condition before work begins. Surveyor fees are typically borne by the Building Owner if the work is solely for their benefit, but costs may be shared if the work addresses a shared defect or repair need. In cases where an Adjoining Owner refuses to appoint a surveyor, the Building Owner can appoint a second surveyor on their behalf to proceed with the dispute resolution. Access to neighboring property for works is granted under the Act, provided 14 days' notice is given, except in emergencies. Adjoining Owners also have rights to protect their property from foreseeable damage, receive compensation for losses, and request security for expenses, particularly for intrusive or complex works. The Act does not alter property ownership or resolve boundary disputes, which are matters for the courts or alternative dispute resolution. This booklet also includes example letters for various notice types and acknowledgments, guiding users through the formal communication process required by the Act. It emphasizes the importance of clear and timely communication and the structured process for resolving potential disagreements to ensure building works proceed smoothly and legally, protecting the rights and interests of all parties involved. #PartyWallAct1996 #BuildingRegulations #PropertyLaw #ConstructionDisputes #BuildingOwnerResponsibilities #AdjoiningOwnerRights #SurveyorAppointment #PartyWallAward #HomeRenovation

With rising sea levels, coastal flooding is increasing in frequency and intensity due to climate change and global warming. This poses a significant threat to homes, especially those located on the East and West Coasts of the United States, which are experiencing higher water levels and coastal erosion. It's crucial for homeowners to understand the distinction between temporary storm surges and long-term water inundation and to implement effective floodproofing strategies. This article provides guidance for those living in flood zones or owning coastal vacation homes on how to prepare their properties for rising sea levels. Two primary floodproofing methods are discussed: wet floodproofing and dry floodproofing. Wet floodproofing involves taking measures to allow floodwaters to enter specific enclosed areas of a house, primarily to mitigate the effects of hydrostatic pressure. This method reduces the load on the house and prevents structural damage by ensuring water levels inside and outside the home rise and fall simultaneously. It typically involves constructing or retrofitting foundations with openings to facilitate water flow into basements or attached garages. Essential considerations for wet floodproofing include restricting its use to non-living spaces due to water contamination risks and using flood-resistant materials like concrete, stone, masonry block, and pressure-treated lumber. Vulnerable materials such as drywall and carpeting should be avoided. Proper maintenance of foundation openings, ensuring they are free from debris, is vital for water flow. HVAC, electrical components, and oil/propane tanks must be secured above the home's base flood elevation (BFE). Post-flood cleanup involves disinfecting contaminated surfaces with agents like Clorox bleach or Pine-Sol and using a wet/dry shop vacuum to prevent mold and mildew. Dry floodproofing, on the other hand, aims to seal a home to keep floodwaters out. This method involves making all areas below the building’s flood protection level watertight using materials like plastic or rubberized sheeting and special waterproofing compounds applied to exterior walls and floors. A drainage line, plumbing check valves, and a sump pump are typically installed to manage any water penetration. Dry floodproofing is recommended for homes where flooding is not expected to exceed three feet and does not alleviate hydrostatic pressure, meaning structural damage remains a possibility. Both wet and dry floodproofing require professional construction and installation of waterproof materials. Beyond these methods, homeowners can consider elevation or relocation as more robust alternatives. Elevating a home involves rebuilding a new foundation at a higher level, while relocation moves the home to higher ground or a different plot of land. These are often the most dependable measures for protecting homes from deep or coastal flooding, especially when flood depths exceed six feet. Homeowners who have previously sustained flood damage may be eligible for federal Hazard or Flood Mitigation Grant programs to cover the costs of these preventive repairs. Given the ongoing impact of climate change and extreme weather, preparing homes with these flood mitigation tactics is crucial to prevent significant property loss and protect against natural disasters. #Floodproofing #RisingSeaLevels #CoastalFlooding #ClimateChange #HomeProtection #WetFloodproofing #DryFloodproofing #PropertySafety #NaturalDisasterPreparedness

The Party Wall Act 1996, applicable in England and Wales, addresses building work that might affect the structural integrity of shared walls, known as party walls, or adjacent properties. This legislation aims to prevent and resolve disputes between neighbors concerning such works. Party walls are defined as those situated directly on the boundary between two or more properties, exemplified by walls separating terraced or semi-detached houses or garden boundary walls. A party wall agreement is typically required for any building work conducted near or directly on a party wall. This includes alterations to shared walls between semi-detached or terraced houses, work on shared structures like floors between flats, modifications to garden boundary walls, and excavation or underpinning within three to six meters of a party wall. Other works necessitating an agreement are loft conversions involving cuts into a party wall, the insertion of a damp proof course, making party walls thicker or higher, and constructing new walls up to or off an existing party wall, or building a second-story extension above a shared wall. Minor works, such as drilling for shelving, plastering, or electrical wiring replacements, do not require an agreement. Before commencing work, a Party Wall Notice must be served to neighbors, providing two months to a year's advance notice. While not requiring planning permission, serving the notice early is advisable to prevent delays, as work can begin up to a year after notice is given. It is recommended to discuss plans with neighbors in person before formal notification to foster understanding and avoid disputes. The notice should detail the proposed work, contact information, start date, and any access requirements over their property. For leasehold properties, both owners and tenants must receive notice. Official templates and guidance are available from the Government’s website. Upon receiving a Party Wall Notice, neighbors have several options: they can provide written consent, refuse consent which initiates a dispute resolution process, or issue a counter notice requesting additional works. If consent is given within 14 days, a formal party wall agreement might not be necessary, saving on fees. A counter notice must be issued within a month. Failure to respond within these timelines leads to the dispute resolution process. Neglecting to serve a Party Wall Notice is not a legal offense but constitutes a breach of statutory duty and can lead to liability for damages, even those not directly caused by the work, and potential court-ordered repairs. It could also result in civil action, injunctions, project delays, and increased costs. If a neighbor refuses consent or does not respond, a dispute arises. Initial attempts should focus on resolving concerns directly with the neighbor to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If a counter notice is issued, and terms are agreed upon, they should be documented. The neighbor might contribute to costs for additional works that benefit them. If an agreement cannot be reached, a party wall surveyor must be appointed. Often, a single surveyor is hired to represent both parties, streamlining the process and reducing fees. The surveyor then drafts a Party Wall Award, a legal document detailing the scope of work, timeline, and cost allocation, including surveyor fees. Should either party be dissatisfied with the award, an appeal can be made to a county court. #PartyWallAct #HomeRenovation #BuildingWork #NeighborDisputes #PropertyLaw #PartyWallNotice #PartyWallAgreement #PartyWallSurveyor #ConstructionRegulations

Chuck Halberg, founder and president of Stuart & Shelby Home Builders, discusses the challenges posed by the permitting process in Palm Beach County, Florida, particularly as the region experiences significant growth. He highlights that while theoretically, permitting ensures safety and proper land use, in practice, it has become a major bottleneck, leading to substantial delays and increased costs for construction projects, especially custom homes. Halberg notes that the permitting process, which once took 30 to 45 days, now frequently extends to 90, 120, or even more, due to inconsistencies across municipalities, staff shortages, and high turnover rates. He also points out the issue of unclear standards, where identical plans can receive different correction requests depending on the reviewer, creating unpredictability and additional delays. The problem is further compounded by redundant reviews, where new issues arise after previous corrections have been addressed, leading to an administrative "whack-a-mole" scenario. Halberg emphasizes that these delays affect not only builders but also homeowners, whose dream homes are left in administrative queues for months before construction can even begin. For builders, this translates into managing complex schedules, retaining subcontractors, and dealing with frustrated clients, all while striving to keep projects on time and within budget. He clarifies that the intent is not to assign blame but to raise awareness about a systemic issue impacting the county's growth. The solution, he suggests, involves modernizing systems, ensuring adequate staffing in permitting departments, and streamlining approval processes to create a more efficient and transparent environment for all stakeholders—homeowners, developers, and city officials. Halberg offers advice to future homeowners, urging them to inquire about permitting timelines early in their planning, hire local builders familiar with specific municipal processes, and maintain patience while staying informed. He also extends an invitation to local officials to collaborate on improving the process, stressing the shared goal of building a robust and efficient system that supports the county's desirability as a place to live. The article concludes with a call to action for collective effort to ensure that the growth of Palm Beach County is supported by a permitting process as strong and reliable as the homes being built. Overall, the article serves as a critical examination of a bureaucratic challenge within a rapidly expanding construction market. It brings to light the practical implications of inefficient administrative procedures on development timelines, costs, and the overall satisfaction of both builders and homeowners. The piece advocates for proactive measures and collaborative solutions to address the permitting gridlock, ensuring sustainable and efficient growth in Palm Beach County. #PalmBeachCounty #ConstructionDelays #PermittingProcess #RealEstateDevelopment #HomeBuilding #FloridaGrowth #UrbanPlanning #Bureaucracy #LocalGovernment

Nearly seven years after the Grenfell fire, a significant number of buildings in the UK still require cladding remediation. A fire in January at Petworth Court in Wembley highlighted this ongoing issue, as the blaze spread up the external wall of a building where combustible materials were known to be present but had not been removed. This incident serves as a stark reminder that despite years of effort, the remediation process is moving at a glacial pace. Of 3,839 buildings above 11 meters being monitored by the government for cladding remediation, 2,286 have yet to even begin the necessary work. This figure likely underestimates the true scale of the problem, as it excludes buildings below 11 meters and those above this height that have not undergone full assessments against new guidance. For example, Barratt Developments identified 278 problem buildings, but only 128 are included in government figures due to assessment completion. Government estimates suggest the total number of affected buildings could increase by as much as 5,000. Buildings requiring remediation generally fall into three categories: those where one of the 55 developers who signed the government’s remediation contract is responsible (1,345 buildings), those owned by social landlords (1,952 buildings), and those privately owned where the original developer is unavailable or not part of the government program. Various government funds have covered some remediation costs, but responsibility largely rests with developers and social landlords. However, work has only commenced on 35% of developer-responsible blocks and 37% of social landlord-owned blocks. A primary reason for these delays is the internal disputes regarding the scope of work. Developers, bound by government contracts, are only required to remediate to a "life safety" risk assessment. This often leads to conflict with freeholders, who may seek a more comprehensive fix, potentially entitled under original contracts. The application of PAS 9980 guidance by different fire engineers further complicates matters, with developers' surveyors often proposing minimal work while freeholders demand more extensive repairs. These disagreements can result in prolonged standstills, as seen in cases like Charlotte Meehan's building, where a dispute between the freeholder and developer has halted remediation, leaving residents in an unsafe environment. The issue is compounded by soaring insurance premiums for buildings with dangerous cladding. A partial fix that meets only the developer’s limited specifications may not be sufficient to reduce these costs, leaving residents facing high bills even after some work is done. Leaseholders like Dom Ahern face similar dilemmas, where proposed remediation might still leave combustible materials and fail to satisfy insurance providers, resulting in persistent high premiums. In the social housing sector, delays are also driven by legal disputes, even though these buildings are often not covered by the 'developer pledge' as firms acted as contractors. L&Q;, a large London housing association, details a 19-step process for remediation, which includes establishing defects, determining liability, seeking redress, and negotiating. This lengthy process, especially the legal aspect, can take an extraordinary amount of time. Social landlords are often compelled by charity law and fiduciary duties to pursue legal action if a claim is viable, further extending timelines. Experts in the field, such as fire engineers, are in high demand and short supply, leading to further delays. Additionally, opening up external wall systems often reveals deeper, more complex structural issues, requiring comprehensive and time-consuming repairs. Residents express growing frustration, with surveys indicating poor communication and significant impacts on mental health. Campaign groups advocate for greater oversight and accountability for those responsible for remediation. The ongoing delays underscore the critical need for streamlined processes and effective resolution of disputes to ensure resident safety and prevent further incidents. #CladdingRemediation #BuildingSafety #GrenfellTower #HousingCrisis #FireSafety #DeveloperLiability #SocialHousing #ConstructionLaw #ResidentSafety