Town officials unsure on flood rules

The clock is ticking for adoption of new flood regulations, but Waterbury’s town leaders have yet to decide whether to approve a set of proposals that exceed the minimum federal requirements.

The Waterbury Select Board will meet jointly with the town planning commission on Monday at 7 p.m. to discuss again the proposals that would replace interim flood regulations adopted after Tropical Storm Irene decimated the village in late August 2011.

Those interim rules expire May 21, and Waterbury would revert to the previous, much looser regulations.

“I haven’t arrived at any decision yet. I’m open-minded,” select board member Jane Brown said at planning commission meeting on Monday. “My sense from the last meeting, as a new member, is we weren’t ready to make a decision.”

Select board member Mark Frier, also newly elected last month, expressed optimism.

“I think also it was more questions than decisions … and trying to understand the thought process and the implications of what it would do to property values, from residential to commercial,” he said.

Municipal planners want Waterbury to have flood regulations that protect the community without placing undue burden on property owners and businesses.

At the crux of the issue is the cost-benefit analysis of preparing for not only a 100-year flood — one so severe, there’s only a 1 percent chance it will occur in any given year — but also a 500-year flood, which has a probability of only 0.2 percent in any given year.

Floodwaters from Irene washed 2.5 feet above the 100-year flood level, and about 18 inches below the 500-year level.

Now, municipal flood regulations meet the minimum standard for flood insurance by requiring builders to raise the lowest-floor elevation to 1 foot above the 100-year flood level.

Some homeowners have the mistaken impression that the proposed flood rules would compel them to make home improvements.

Cost-benefit analysis

Planning commission chair Rebecca Washburn said her board meticulously analyzed the cost-benefit along a range of proposals, after receiving two independent studies on the subject.

“We were grossly unprepared to respond to Irene, and live, developing situations in the community presented problems for neighbors and an administrative nightmare,” she said.

The proposed regulations would mostly affect new buildings and those undergoing major improvements — that is, construction work that’s worth more than half the property’s market value. The proposals also set up a process through which waivers can be sought for Waterbury’s many historic buildings and homes.

Specifically, the regulations would require builders to raise the lowest-level floor of new structures to 1 and 2 feet above the 500-year floodplain, with a higher burden on commercial buildings. Owners of buildings 5,000 square feet or less would be exempt from another proposal to ban placement of fill on properties that would raise the base flood elevation level; the exemption is intended to encourage homeowners to fill basements to raise the lowest floor level.

Now, Waterbury allows builders to raise the base flood elevation level by as much as 3 inches.

“The (proposed) policy is to allow site fill, providing base flood elevation is either maintained or decreased at the site,” community planner Steve Lotspeich said April 13 at a public hearing.

Real-life effects

That requirement might have saved a lot of trouble for Waterbury residents Kathryn and Robert Grace, whose properties on South Main Street were flooded during Irene.

“As you know, we have been in a four-year legal battle regarding the placement of illegal fill in the floodplain behind our house by Keurig Green Mountain and Pilgrim Partnership,” Kathryn Grace told the commission in March. “The dirt was initially placed there in early September 2010 and not removed until April 2013, after we won a hard-fought legal battle via the Act 250 Commission.”

The Graces say the fill worsened the Irene-related flooding on their properties, causing $300,000 in damage and precipitating $100,000 in legal and consulting expenses. They carried no flood insurance because their property lies just outside the 100-year floodplain.

On Monday, Kathryn Grace praised the planning commission for diligent work in proposing the regulations, but worried they will be rejected by the select board.

Commission member Mary Koen said she thinks the proposals have a fair chance with the select board and village trustees, noting that just “a couple of strong voices” expressed skepticism at the last joint meeting between the two groups.

She also said that regulating to the 500-year flood level is most prudent, based on the cost-benefit analysis.

But the select board gets the last word, said commission vice chair Ken Belliveau.

“What’s the right decision in this case? I don’t know,” Belliveau said. “We spent a lot of time… to reach a consensus opinion, even though we were not of all one mind.”

Lotspeich’s summary: “The general consensus is we need time to develop more of a consensus.”