Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks variance to raise pools at 1025 Rushmore; board asks for written justification under Chapter 186
Summary
At the May 13 meeting the applicant for 1025 Rushmore argued proposed fill and pool elevation changes would not raise base flood elevation; the board asked for written testimony addressing Chapter 186 criteria (A–L) and directed staff to draft a resolution for possible action at the next meeting.
The Village of American Planning Board heard a detailed presentation May 13 on a variance request for 1025 Rushmore that would raise two upper pools about 2 ft to meet FEMA base flood elevation and to improve ADA accessibility and drainage. The applicant’s team said the proposed fill and site improvements would not appreciably increase base flood elevation.
Andrew Spatz, representing the applicant, summarized Race Coastal Engineering memos (December and April) and told the board the team’s engineering analysis showed no significant flood elevation increase due to the proposed fill and improvements. “The base flood elevation (BFE) will not be increased at the site or adjacent dwellings due to the reflected waves on the proposed fill,” he said in describing the consultants’ conclusions.
Board members emphasized that a variance under Chapter 186 requires written justification demonstrating “good and sufficient cause” and that granting the variance will not increase flooding risk (the A–L factors). The board asked the applicant to provide written testimony explaining why the project requires a variance rather than a redesign that would avoid one.
Architect David Woods said the two upper pools would be raised from elevation 11 to elevation 13 (about 2 ft) so equipment rooms and ADA access can be placed above base flood elevation; he also cited FEMA guidance as a driver for the design decision. “That was because of our reading of the FEMA guidelines,” Woods said, explaining that raising the pools allows equipment to be located above the BFE and to address drainage and accessibility needs.
Board members and counsel (Kevin Stout) discussed procedural expectations for a variance finding and agreed the record should contain written justification and references to the engineering memos. Kevin agreed to draft a resolution; the applicant said the team would submit the requested testimony by the end of the week so the matter could be considered at the next meeting. After two meetings with no public speakers, the board closed the public hearing and recorded direction for a resolution.
What happens next: the applicant will submit written testimony addressing the Chapter 186 A–L criteria and the planning staff will circulate a draft resolution for the board to consider at its next meeting. The board will rely on the submitted engineering memos and the applicant’s written justification when making a variance determination.
