This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
07/07/2021 07:28 AMControversial flood plain ordinance changes initially recommended by the Coastal Resiliency Committee (CRC) earlier this year appear to be losing steam following consistent, forceful pushback from property owners and local contractors, with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) saying explicitly that it is leaning toward rejecting the changes.
With First Selectman Peggy Lyons recused from the discussions as she owns property that would be affected by the changes, the other four members of the BOS, after hearing from the town attorney at a recent meeting, said they felt the proposed changes were an overreach by government and could potentially place an unnecessary burden on certain property owners, echoing the sentiment of hundreds of residents who have spoken against the changes over the past few months.
“We are in compliance, so certainly there’s no reason to change it from that standpoint,” said Selectman Erin Duques.
The BOS will potentially still have another public hearing later in the summer, but Lyons said there was “no urgency” around that, considering the position the BOS was taking.
The proposed changes, which are largely in line with recommendations by the state but also exceed some mandatory minimum federal regulations, are intended to be a moderate step in addressing long-term issues with sea level rise, most notably encouraging residents to elevate homes through a longer “look-back” period on improvements they make and raising the height homes must be lifted in certain flood zones. Madison’s coastal resilience plan, adopted in 2016, recommended these precise changes among other things.
A “look-back” period refers to how the town calculates when “substantial improvements” have been made—in this case, 50 percent of the home’s value—which triggers the federal requirement that the building is lifted. If homeowners can spread out their projects or work over a long enough time period, they can avoid having to raise the house.
Under current local rules, that period is one year long, and under the new proposal it would be lengthened to five years beginning in 2023, substantially decreasing the amount of improvements residents could make without also having to bring their homes into FEMA compliance, likely at significant cost.
Guilford and Branford have five year look-back periods.
The proposal would also bring language in Madison’s local rules to reflect mandatory changes made at the state level, eliminating confusion as the current ordinance actually provides false or misleading information, according to CRC members.
The CRC has already made modifications to their recommendations based on feedback, shifting the phase-in period back to give residents more time to finish ongoing projects, among other things.
Since the BOS first heard the recommendations, hundreds of property owners along the coast have written emails and some have spoken passionately at public meetings, decrying the changes as an unnecessary burden that they claim will result in financial hardships and the degrading of property values and neighborhood character. The CRC contended that the changes are a necessary step to take in the face of sea level rise, which could be as much as 20 inches by 2050, according to the state.
Town Attorney Peter Gelderman told the BOS last week that there is nothing requiring Madison to make any changes, but from a practical standpoint, the changes could lower insurance rates for residents and protect properties in the long run.
“Any revision would be a policy decision more than anything else,” he said.
Selectman Al Goldberg said he felt any changes going above where Madison is now was encroaching on the personal choices of residents.
“I don’t see why town government needs to be beating [property owners] with a stick,” he said. “It’s their own property they need to protect and think about, and I think they can do that better than the town government.”
Selectman Bruce Wilson said he was troubled that “much more modest” houses would be affected by the changes, and would be unable to afford complying with regulation.
“I think until the federal government follows through, maybe with assistance and grants to homeowners, that we need to just stay the course,” he said.