Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Elevation Elevation Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on 38 South Beach Drive continued after extensive flood-elevation, drainage and design review
Summary
Neighbors and engineers debated a proposal to elevate and alter a South Beach Drive house; the ZBA left the hearing open to allow applicants to answer technical questions and provide revised materials at the board's next meeting.
The Zoning Board held an extended joint hearing April 17 on a proposal to elevate and alter 38 South Beach Drive and continued the matter to the board's next meeting to allow the applicant to supply clarifying technical information.
The applicant (38 SBD LLC) seeks multiple variances tied to elevating a single-family dwelling in a flood hazard area: a front-yard setback (30 feet required; 3.6 feet existing and proposed), building-height relief (32 feet allowed; 34.15 feet proposed), total building height (40 feet allowed; 40.18 feet proposed), relocation and reconstruction of a detached garage (principal front setback 50 feet required; 7.9 feet proposed), parking in a front setback, and a spa location. The property spans both VE and AE flood zones, and the work includes elevating the building to meet FEMA and local freeboard requirements.
Project engineers and consultants presented technical analyses. The design team (Oliver Cope and Olivia Rowan) said the renovation will substantially elevate the dwelling to satisfy the base flood elevation plus local freeboard (FEMA effective base flood elevation 15 feet, plus Norwalk's additional freeboard requirement). Redniss & Mead civil engineer Craig Flaherty presented drainage work showing the proposed impervious coverage would be reduced and stormwater-management measures added; RACE Coastal Engineering (Haley Simpson) said coastal analyses found the proposed elevations and design would not increase flood impacts to adjacent properties and that wave-runup and wave-crest calculations support the proposal. The team also explained site constraints including a large rock ledge and an oak tree that influenced the placement of a proposed spa and garage.
Multiple residents and neighborhood representatives spoke. One nearby resident read a support letter from 30 South Beach Drive. Other speakers, including neighborhood members associated with the Rowayton Area Society (RAS), raised concerns about massing, the number of variances, the visual bulk from the street, and the relation between existing grade, average-grade calculations and the proposed height. The board asked the project team for clarifications about the grade elevations used to compute building height and whether the proposed garage layout and driveway plan met public-works and curb-cut limitations.
Given the technical questions and public concerns, the applicant asked for a continuance to provide additional documentation and respond to commissioner comments. The board agreed and left the hearing open to receive revised materials and to schedule rebuttal and final comment at the next meeting (the board indicated May 15 as the anticipated date). No final votes were taken on 38 South Beach Drive at the April 17 meeting.
The project team said building coverage would be reduced slightly (approximately 34 square feet net), that the new garage location increases the setback compared with the existing garage even though variance relief is still requested, and that mechanical equipment must be elevated above base flood elevations leading to layout choices that affect internal garage and parking arrangements.
