FAIRFIELD, Conn. — The Fairfield Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 2 granted a variance allowing Sea Lodge’s clubhouse at 1313 Pequot Avenue to be repaired without raising the building to the flood-elevation specified in Section 32.5 of the zoning regulations, but the board declined to overturn the zoning enforcement officer’s earlier determination that the work might meet the regulation’s "substantial improvement" threshold.

The decision preserves Sea Lodge’s current elevation while authorizing the owner to replace or reinforce pilings and repair the deck; the board recorded the waiver as approved by a 5-0 vote. A separate motion to reverse or modify the zoning enforcement officer’s determination failed by the board (vote recorded as 2-3), leaving the enforcement officer’s ruling in place but permitting the waiver.

The Sea Lodge applications — one asking the board to reverse the zoning administrator’s decision and the other asking for a variance waiving the elevation requirement — drew more than two dozen members and neighbors to the hearing. Attorney Kevin Gumper, representing Sea Lodge and the Sasquinaud Association for Southport Improvement Inc., said the building is listed on the state register of historic places and therefore exempt from the regulation’s elevation requirement in ordinary circumstances. "If you made these changes and it would still be on the list, then it is a substantial improvement. That's not what the regulation says," Gumper told the board, arguing the regulation’s plain language exempts historic structures from the elevation requirement.

Zoning Enforcement Officer Matt Decker said his office had concluded the proposed work exceeded the 50 percent threshold used to define a substantial improvement and that the department had relied on comments from state agencies in reaching that view. Decker told the board the town enforces the FEMA-derived regulations because the town participates in the National Flood Insurance Program; he said not following the regulations could have implications for the town’s flood-insurance rating. "Our requirements are to follow the guidelines that are bestowed upon us by FEMA," Decker said.

Sea Lodge attorneys supplied a letter from the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office asserting that the proposed pilings and deck repairs would not remove the building from the state list and would not, in that office’s view, eliminate the building’s historic status. Attorney Chris Russo, representing nearby property owners who testified in support of Sea Lodge’s request, noted that FEMA guidance allows historic structures to be treated differently. "FEMA allows for historic structures to be exempted. They don't need to be in a historic district," Russo said.

Architect Jack Franzen, who appeared for the applicant, described the 1951 clubhouse as an elevated, slatted structure intentionally designed to allow water to pass under it. Franzen and other speakers argued that raising the building to the regulatory elevation — which the applicant said would require raising the lowest horizontal structural member to roughly 15.1 feet — would require extensive ramping and pile work that would consume most of the club’s narrow beachfront and dramatically alter the building’s setting. Franzen said the building’s design deliberately reduces hydrostatic pressure and that the ramp required by full compliance would be long enough to consume much of the beachfront area.

Members of the public who spoke — many of them Sea Lodge members or nearby residents — emphasized the club’s long local history and the difficulty of constructing ramps and other access structures in the property’s constrained footprint. Several members described the clubhouse as a family resource for young children and older residents and said that elevating the structure would be costly and would erode the small beachfront that the club uses.

In its deliberations the board considered the specific variance criteria in Section 32.7 (the flood-variance standards) and the broader question of how the town should apply FEMA-derived, historic-structure exemptions in practice. Board members who voted to grant the waiver said they were persuaded that failure to permit repairs without elevation would impose exceptional hardship and that granting the variance would not increase flood heights or present additional threats to public safety. Members who opposed reversing the zoning officer said the officer had acted on competent interagency advice and that the board should not lightly overturn that administrative determination.

Clarifying details discussed at the hearing included the building’s assessed/appraised value (cited at about $37,000 for the structure) and the applicant’s estimate that the repairs and pilings work could cost in the order of $100,000. Multiple speakers and attorneys noted separate paths for federal disaster assistance and that historic properties sometimes receive distinct treatment under those programs. The applicant also said Sea Lodge has roughly 75–80 member lockers (families) and that membership is limited by available lockers rather than by residential exclusivity.

The board read into the record the findings required under the ordinance for the flood-variance (Section 32.7) — that good and sufficient cause exists, that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship owing to unique physical characteristics of the property, and that granting the variance would not increase flood heights or create new public hazards. The board recorded the waiver approval and closed the hearing.

The applicant was reminded of administrative steps that follow a waiver: if a waiver is granted, the applicant must submit the required recording fee to the zoning office and provide any required as-built documentation before a certificate of zoning compliance will be issued.

The Sea Lodge matter will remain on the zoning office’s calendar for any follow-up paperwork required to memorialize the waiver; the failed motion to reverse the enforcement officer’s decision does not itself prohibit the applicant from seeking additional administrative or legal remedies.