Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Damage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRB debates whether to use market value in flood-damage review for Lakes District property
Summary
At a Feb. 9 hearing, the Ludlow Development Review Board heard competing arguments over whether to use town-assessed value or fair-market value when determining FEMA substantial-damage thresholds for a Lakes District property damaged in the July 10, 2023 flood; the hearing was closed for the board to deliberate after testimony and staff analysis.
The Ludlow Development Review Board on Feb. 9 reopened a recessed Flood Hazard Review for a Lakes District property tied to the July 10, 2023 flood, and spent the bulk of the session debating which valuation method to use to determine whether post-flood repairs exceed FEMA’s 50% substantial-damage threshold.
Jeff Biasuzzi, who identified himself as a representative of the owner, said the review should focus only on the structure and “should be the market value prior to structural improvements.” He told the board that appraisals and FEMA guidance allow consideration of fair-market value and submitted a FEMA flow chart and portions of the Substantial Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk Reference to support his argument. “This is just about the building,” Biasuzzi said, adding that “the house was built in 1965 and is not the Taj Mahal.”
Town staff presented the numbers the DRB must weigh. Jarrod Jowdy pointed to receipts and estimate lines in the record; staff reported an appraised value including some repairs of $212,000 and an estimate of the building pre-repair at roughly $185,000. Staff said an estimated rehabilitation cost of $90,951 divided by the appraised value yields about 42.9 percent, and a separate line in the file showed $183,849 — a figure staff described as “right on the edge” of the 50 percent threshold. Ryan Silvestri, who described reappraisals performed in 2021 and the town’s 23% CLA (coefficient of local appraisal) adjustment to bring assessed values closer to current market, explained that the Flood Plain Manager favors using the town’s standardized method so all properties are treated the same.
Board members pressed both sides on methodology rather than asserting a legal ruling. John Boehrer asked for clarification about valuation rules that apply only to buildings; Phil Carter noted the town’s reliance on assessed values in FEMA calculations while Biasuzzi urged the board to consider market-value estimates. No formal determination on appeal rights was made at the hearing.
After hearing testimony and staff exposition, the board voted to close the hearing. Motion: George Tucker, Jr.; second: John Boehrer. Motion passed unanimously.
