Flood unity is elusive

Leaders in Waterbury failed to agree Monday on new flood regulations several years after Tropical Storm Irene swept through town — and that might not be a bad thing.

The planning commission met jointly with the select board and village trustees to discuss amending regulations for flood hazard areas. The officials were safely ensconced well above any flood level on the second story of the firehouse on South Main Street.

“We made progress tonight, but I don’t think we have arrived at a consensus of where we want to go — and where we want to go is going to dictate the timeline,” said Rebecca Washburn, the planning commission chair.

Waterbury’s flood regulations reverted last month to previous law — adopted in March 2011, shortly before Tropical Storm Irene’s passage in late August — after leaders failed to agree on amending the interim bylaws.

Among issues is a proposal to prohibit property owners from raising the base flood elevation level within the 100-year flood plain, where residents face a 1 percent per year chance of catastrophic flooding.

The previous no-net-rise policy reverted May 21 to a limit on base flood level elevation of 0.25 feet — 3 inches. Those rules likely won’t be changed by the four-year anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene in late August, Washburn said.

Resident Kathy Grace of South Main Street praised the commission and boards for furthering the discussion, but expressed frustration at the impasse.

“I feel strongly that to go back to the March 2011 flood plain regulations is doing the entire village a disservice because it doesn’t address the fill issue,” she said.

Grace and her husband, Robert, continue to fight a years-long legal battle with Keurig Green Mountain and construction firm Pilgrim Partnership for placing fill on an adjacent property. The Graces say the fill contributed to flooding that caused $300,000 damage to their home and two rental properties during Tropical Storm Irene. They had no flood insurance, as the properties were just outside the 100-year floodplain.

Grace also contended property developers have an outsized voice in town at the expense of residential owners.

“We should not have to, as taxpayers and the village, subsidize development that’s going to impact where we live,” she said. “I’ve paid my taxes here for 35 years and that should count for something.”

Grace also said leaders should place the onus on developers to pay for hydrology and engineering studies to prove their projects won’t hurt others. In pursuing their lawsuit, the Graces have spent more than $100,000 on hydrology studies and related legal costs.

The issue is complex. Often, the placement of fill can mitigate flood risks for property owners elevating their homes above the flood level, said community planner Steve Lotspeich.

Select board member Jane Brown summed up the discussion: “Is the fill a problem in the flood plain? Are you creating a problem?”

The placement of fill within the flood plain may indeed cause problems, according to select board member Chris Viens, who owns a concrete construction business.

“It’s like water in a bathtub,” he said.

What options?

The village trustees plan to ask several banks how they’d react to several flooding situations under differing regulatory laws.

One question is the extent to which property owners are required to elevate the lowest floors of new or substantially improved buildings. Variances could be granted for historic structures.

In buildings undergoing substantial improvements — worth more than half the building’s market value —the lowest floor would have to be raised to either 1 foot or 2 feet above the 500-year flood level for residential and commercial properties, respectively. Other regulations would require property owners to elevate or flood-proof utilities for new or substantially improved buildings.

However, buildings of 5,000 square feet or less would be exempted from regulations on placing fill, in an attempt to encourage property owners to fill basements to elevate the lowest floor level, according to analysis from consultant Rebecca Pfeiffer.

On that proposal, Washburn expressed some doubt.

“We spent a lot of time talking about the negative side effects of filling basements, (that) promoting filling basements seems kind of ridiculous,” she said.

Such regulations come with a significant cost — $150,000 on average — to Waterbury property owners, said village president Howard “Skip” Flanders.

“Even raising your heating and things may be impossible in some homes,” he said. “It’s a good idea, but it’s the practical application of it.”

Waterbury may be able to boost property values over time by requiring filled basements for new and substantially improved properties, as well as the elevation of utilities, Lotspeich said.

“The town and village would receive more points to get higher community ratings under the (Federal Emergency Management Agency) rating system ... to get discounts on flood insurance premiums,” Lotspeich said.

Some town leaders worry additional regulation could become a drag on the local economy, if done poorly.

Now, the search is on for a middle ground.

“I’ve had some discussion with Pfeiffer about a partial exemption (for historic buildings) we could explore as an alternative to the variance process, but perhaps some of the other requirements — such as raising utilities — might be required in case of substantial improvement,” Lotspeich said.

The town and village also have the option to do nothing, since current bylaws meet minimum federal standards for flood regulation.

But Lotspeich also noted the sense of urgency behind the push for amended flood regulations after Tropical Storm Irene, and drew some agreement from planning commission member Jeffrey Kampion.

“The prevailing wisdom is we’re not going to do anything with the flow of rivers or infrastructure from a more empirical view — no levees,” he said. “So what are we going to do?”

Kampion also said most of the proposed regulations are directed at commercial development, since most homeowners won’t soon be spending substantial amounts of money to improve their residences — even with grants.

“I think the biggest thing with flood regulation is new development,” he said. “We want to be aspirational, want to look to the future — and the future is new development.”

Select board member Don Schneider said he’d like to see more examples of how municipalities throughout the hurricane-prone South have adapted to the environmental threat.