File Photo
Amendments are being considered for Branford’s Floodplain Ordinance that would affect people who are elevating their homes or businesses in flood hazard zones.
The Rules and Ordinance Committee (R&O) voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend two amendments to the Floodplain Ordinance. The final decision is up to the Representative Town Meeting (RTM).
One amendment would add one foot to the current height required when homes or businesses are elevated in coastal or inland flood zones. The other proposal changes the timeframe in the definition of “substantial improvement” to five years instead of 10 years. This definition is important because it affects whether a home in a floodplain must be elevated.
Diana Stricker Photo
Town Engineer Janice Plaziak (pictured) said elevating homes and mitigating potential storm damage is important for people who are building or renovating on the shoreline and along rivers. “We want to make sure we’re building a resilient community,” she said.
In other business, the R&O agreed to a request from the Green Committee to rescind its previous request to become a commission.
One Foot Higher
Plaziak told the R&O committee that the state building code changed in February regarding elevation height, so she is recommending the change to the town code. “We want to be consistent,” she said.
When asked by the committee if elevation height may need to be raised again in the future, Plaziak said that’s an unknown factor. “It’s such an emerging issue,” she said, adding that it depends on FEMA regulations, sea-level rise and the weather. “I can’t say this is the last time” there will be a change in elevation height or other requirements, she said.
Plaziak said people can elevate above the basic requirements if they wish. “I can’t tell you what the right number would be,” she said.
She said the elevation changes may not be a problem for some property owners, but it “might be a bit of a hardship” for others.
The current Floodplain Management Ordinance (chapter 161 in the Town Code) requires all new construction or substantial improvement in special flood hazard zones A and AE to elevate to at least the “base flood elevation.” The proposed change adds “plus one foot” to that height.
“Every foot helps,” Plaziak said. “It works toward your advantage” if you’re in a flood zone.
The proposal affects both residential and commercial buildings. However, the code permits nonresidential structures in Zones A and AE to be flood-proofed to the base flood elevation, in lieu of elevating the building. The proposal would add one foot to that height.
The amendment also adds one foot of additional elevation above the “base flood elevation” for all new construction or substantial improvement in coastal high-hazard areas (Zones VE).
“Base flood elevation” is defined in the town ordinance as “The elevation of the crest of the base flood or one-hundred-year flood; the height in relation to mean sea level expected to be reached by the waters of the base flood at pertinent points in the floodplains of coastal and riverine areas.”
Defining “Substantial Improvements”
The motion passed unanimously, but Stony Creek resident Josh Brooks, who is a member of the RTM, expressed his concerns about a related section of the Floodplain Ordinance.
Brooks said that in 2012, the RTM approved an amendment to the ordinance that changed the “substantial improvements” definition to 10 years instead of one year and in so doing created unanticipated issues. He was also concerned about the retroactive aspect.
“Substantial improvement” is defined in the ordinance as “Any combination of repairs, reconstruction, alteration or improvements to a structure taking place during a ten-year period in which the cumulative cost equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed.”
This would affect a homeowner seeking a building permit in a flood hazard zone. If it’s determined the homeowner falls in the 10-year “substantial improvements” timeframe, the homeowner would be required to elevate the home.
Brooks gave his home as an example. He said he has made repairs and improvements to his 110-year old home in recent years, and he is concerned that if he does more work, he would be required to elevate the structure.
Brooks said it would cost him at least $100,000 to elevate his home. “I cannot afford to raise my house. I would have to move,” he told the committee. “This sort of thing could have a drastic effect.”
Brooks said people who live on the shoreline know the risks involved, and know about the potential for hurricanes. “It’s a risk you take,” he said.
Brooks said he objects to the retroactive 10-year time frame, especially since it would impact people whose homes were damaged by Tropical Storm Irene and Superstorm Sandy.
Plaziak said the ordinance provisions are important if people want to renovate in a flood zone. “I think they should be elevating if they’re in the high-risk area,” she said.
Plaziak said the RTM could reduce the time frame, but it would be problematic to change the retroactive aspect because of FEMA regulations.
“I’m not going to put this community on the (FEMA) naughty list…it has to comply with FEMA,” she said.
She said some property owners in high-risk areas were hit hard by storms Irene and Sandy. “They were devastated when the two storms hit…it was devastating emotionally and financially.”
Plaziak works with Branford Building Official Anthony Cinicola when homes are in a floodplain and residents come to Town Hall requesting permits for new construction or improvement projects.
“We do work with people. I don’t walk around saying ‘You have to elevate your home,’” Plaziak said. When property owners request a building permit in a floodplain, then the 10-year look back comes into effect to determine if a building has to be elevated.
Plaziak asked the committee not to decrease the timeframe to less than five years.
Diana Stricker Photo
Robin Sandler, who chairs R&O, said the five-year limit would shorten the window of retroactivity.
The motion was unanimously approved to recommend to the RTM that the time frame for substantial improvements be changed to 5 years.
Green Committee Remains
In other matters, Sandler said he received an e-mail from Ray Ferguson, the chairman of the town’s Green Committee, asking to rescind the previous request to change the committee to a commission.
This has been a hotly-debated issue. Click here to read about a public hearing in May.
Sandler said the committee changed its mind about becoming a commission after First Selectman James Cosgrove met with the various groups affiliated with the Town Green to discuss issues on an ongoing basis.
“This discussion is encouraging to the Green Committee,” Sandler said, adding that committee members feel people are listening to their concerns. Sandler is a former member of the Green Committee.
The R&O unanimously approved the motion to take no further action on the request to form a Green Commission and to remove the issue from the call. This means the RTM considers the issue officially dead.
###
