Clearwater board denies developer's request to dry flood‑proof lower garage areas

The Building and Flood Board of Adjustments and Appeals on March 4 denied a variance request from a developer to allow dry flood‑proofing of elevator lobbies, stairwells, trash rooms, storage areas and pool mechanical rooms at the ground level of a two‑tower condominium project in Clearwater.

The denial follows staff testimony that the project crosses the city’s LIMWA (limited moderate wave action) line, placing the connected building in a coastal A zone where the most restrictive flood‑hazard rules apply and where the city’s flood ordinance prohibits dry flood‑proofing. City staff also warned that a granted variance could affect Clearwater’s Community Rating System flood‑insurance discounts.

The applicant, represented in part by attorney Brian (McFarland Ferguson McMullen), presented engineering and architectural evidence, including a wave analysis by Humiston and Moore that concluded wave heights at the specific cores the developer seeks to waterproof would be 0.9 feet or less in a 100‑year event. Developer John Farina said the intent was life safety: “we want our elevators to be fully functional during and after a storm event,” and the team described three waterproofing measures—cementitious vertical wall coatings, sheet‑applied underground waterproofing and removable flood panels—intended to keep the elevator and stair cores operable during storms.

City building official Kevin Garriott acknowledged the applicant’s technical analysis but explained the city’s interpretation of the codes: “the most restrictive flood hazard area shall apply,” meaning that because any portion of the joined building footprint lies seaward of the LIMWA line, the entire structure must be treated under coastal‑A requirements. Floodplain administrator Jean Henry told the board that FEMA and the Coastal Construction Manual express concerns about making walls impermeable to moving water, saying you “can't make those walls impermeable to the moving water.”

City staff and the city attorney, Matt Minich, also stressed variance criteria. Minich said one required finding is that the variance must be the minimum needed to make reasonable use of the structure, and he told the board his review found alternatives that would allow construction without granting the variance: “I don't think that criteria is being met here.”

Board members debated the technical evidence and possible insurance impacts. Staff noted an alternative path: a Letter of Map Revision or Letter of Map Change to move the LIMWA line, which would require formal FEMA review and supporting engineering. Jean Henry said the applicant could pursue a map change but warned that the city’s participation in the Community Rating System means the city must be cautious about allowing deviations that might reduce CRS credits.

After closing remarks from both sides, the board voted to deny the variance request. The motion to deny found the applicant had not met the five statutory variance criteria the board must apply; the vote was recorded in the meeting as a majority for denial and the chair declared a final decision.

The decision leaves the applicant with options described during the hearing: redesign to meet Clearwater’s coastal‑A requirements (breakaway perimeter walls and other coastal‑A construction), pursue a formal FEMA map revision, or refile under a different regulatory approach. The board did not direct staff to take additional action beyond the denial and the normal recordation of the decision.