Mamaroneck Village Flood Plain Strictures Watered Down

The Board of Trustees amends local law; removes "cumulative damage" provision.


Over 30 people packed one half of the Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees' meeting room Monday evening, the vast majority of whom supported the board’s proposal to lower the threshold requiring flood-prone homeowners to raise their homes above the flood plain level.

Earlier in the summer, a similar crowd stormed a Commission (HCZM) meeting to petition the board to rule the proposed law consistent with the village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). The board declined to vote on the matter, which rendered the law consistent, by default.

The new law amends one passed in 2007 holding that any improvement of a structure that equals or exceeds half of the home’s market value at the time of the repair or rehabilitation when counted cumulatively for 10 years, whether related to flood damage or not, is required to raise their home. 

The cumulative provision has been dropped, meaning that if a flood occurs or a homeowner repairs his or her house and the damage to a home is over 50 percent of its value, it still has to be raised. The board also eliminated a flood-related component of the definition of “substantial damage” in determining if a home or business needs to be raised.

Most speakers at the public hearing that preceded the vote spoke passionately in favor of the resolution. A woman in the audience softly shouted “all right” and “that’s right” about a dozen times after hearing statements she supported. 

The provisions are tied to complex Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) rules regarding homes in flood zones. Trustee John Hofstetter and Mayor Norman Rosenblum immediately squared off over the issue, with each claiming the other person did not understand the underlying implications.

During the public hearing, trustees limited speakers’ time to two minutes, but the countdown clock with red numbers installed a few months ago didn’t work and the board used a timer instead.

Jeremy Ingpen, executive director of the , a nonprofit organization which is located in the flood prone Flats neighborhood, said that raising a home is a “simple engineering arrangement.” Not every house can be raised off its foundation and out of the flood plain, but, he said that 200 houses could benefit from the procedure.  Both he and village officials expressed an interest in seeking grants and other sources of funds to help homeowners.

Reverend James Taylor from the called the requirement that residents raise their homes “unconscionable,” since many people were still trying to recover from the 2007 Nor'easter that ravaged low-lying areas in Mamaroneck. In fact, said Rev.Taylor, he hypothetically asked his congregation if anyone had $200,000 lying around to help people raise their homes; no one raised their hands.

Resident Sue McCrory said that if the change goes through, homeowners would lose out on $30,000 in flood insurance money to help raise their houses. She said one home on 1st Street would cost $60,000 to prop up.

Rosenblum dismissed supporters of the present statute as elitist and Hofstetter, who cast the sole “no” vote, said that the issue had been railroaded.

"It’s too bad we didn’t look at things further,” said Hofstetter. “I don’t think we had a real conversation.”

Mary Too September 05, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Why doesn't Hofstetter just skip the remaining meetings of his term? He can just mail in his NO votes. Nobody agrees with what he says, including everyone seated at the dais.
SRT September 05, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Hi Mary Too, Didn't see you at the meeting last night, did you watch it? If you did, you saw that Mr. Ingpen, the executive director of the Washingtonville Housing Alliance, Andrew Spatz, whose family owns property in the industrial area and Sue McCrory ALL AGREED with Hofstetter that there were problems with the law before them and that potentially affected residents didn't fully understand how the change in the law would affect them.
Mary Too September 05, 2012 at 06:53 PM
I saw you, and I also saw you and your minion leave immediately after the vote. How many of the supporters live in Washingtonville or Harbor Heights? How many couldn't afford the cost of raising their homes? The Mayor was correct when he labeled them elitists. What hidden agendas do they have for wanting the statute to remain as it is? As I've said before, Darleen Green makes more sense than all of them, and she's not a wannabe lawyer. By the way Stuart, is that work completed on Pine Street?
MARY September 06, 2012 at 04:32 AM
A very important issue for the Village. I did see George, Dennis and Mike in attendance. Were were the other three? Maybe flooding is not important enough for them. SRT, Maybe when you have that reorganization meeting at your house on Saturday you can ask them why they didn't attend the meeting
Allison September 13, 2012 at 11:21 PM
I think what is more important than the who's who, who should be there and who shouldn't and who should skip meetings until the end of his term is how this impacts those owning property in Mamaroneck's flood zones. According to what I read in a FEMA document posted on a different article same topic, removing this language from village law by passing this law allows any resident in a flood zone to lose up to a $30,000 benefit in their pockets to come into compliance with FEMA rules. Next time it floods and buildings have even more damage I can thank those voting yes to take this $30,000 optional benefit away from the people who paid for it with their flood insurance premiums. As a flood ravaged homeowner may just walk away next time, then what.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something