Planning Board reviews options for revising town floodplain ordinance after map changes

Planning staff presented a marked‑up draft of the town’s Chapter 116 floodplain ordinance and outlined options for how the town calculates “substantial improvement” and how it values structures for that test.

Staff noted the current local rule applies the life‑of‑structure approach for the improvement threshold: improvements or repairs that exceed 50 percent of the value of the existing structure trigger flood‑proofing requirements. Staff reviewed alternatives used by other jurisdictions — for example, five‑ or ten‑year look‑back periods — and said the town must choose a direction because valuation definitions and the chosen time period affect when homeowners are required to bring structures into compliance.

Staff recommended adding clearer definitions to the ordinance (for example, to distinguish replacement from maintenance and to define market value or replacement value) so applicants and staff can apply the standard consistently. The staff memo proposed using replacement value (the higher figure on the tax card) rather than a depreciated value, which would cause the substantial‑improvement threshold to be reached sooner; staff cautioned that different choices would either accelerate or delay when owners must elevate or flood‑proof structures.

Board members raised a range of concerns: some said a lifetime standard forces owners to make costly flood‑proofing sooner and can deter sales or renovations; others said earlier flood‑proofing reduces storm damage and long‑term town costs. Participants described practical problems under the current approach, including limited contractor capacity (raising many houses could exceed local contractors’ availability), challenges with how permits and separate flood permits are tracked, and examples where routine maintenance was being counted toward the value test. Staff suggested a menu of definitional changes that would treat items such as reshingle work, window replacements and certain deck repairs as maintenance rather than replacement when appropriate, though staff acknowledged FEMA acceptance of such changes is not guaranteed.

The board discussed the town’s July ordinance change that reset the improvement calculation to zero for all properties as of the ordinance change date; several board members noted that reset had short‑term equity effects. Members also discussed whether any change back to a multi‑year look‑back should retain or remove that reset and how that would affect current owners. The board asked staff to draft ordinance language reflecting options discussed, including (1) a defined list of maintenance items excluded from the improvement calculation, (2) replacement‑value versus depreciated‑value approaches, and (3) look‑back periods (5 or 10 years) as alternatives to the life‑of‑structure approach.

Staff and board members also discussed process issues: whether to allow initial building occupancy while lengthy DEP or FEMA approvals proceed, how to handle multiple flood permits and permit amendments for work performed under a single building permit, and how map changes can alter whether a property remains compliant over time. No formal ordinance change was adopted at the meeting; staff will prepare draft revisions for future board consideration.