Village of Southampton
FEMA Study
Preliminary Recommendations
Presentation to the Village Planning Commission
January 7, 2015
Introductory Remarks
“All coastal communities share a hardship of adaptation adaptation and balance of community character against the
health, safety & welfare standards of building and local codes
in flood zones which are enacted to reduce loss of life and
property.
The purpose of this Study is to provide guidance to the Village
to maintain balance of community character with the
increasing risks of building within flood zones.”
Background
• Flood Zones defined by 2009 FEMA
mapping (updated since 1983 standard)
• New construction must be designed to
meet or exceed coastal construction
standards
• Changed Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
– in some cases dramatically
• Need for solutions which preserve
character of the community
Project Approach
• Define Study Area Boundary (Map of Lots
within Flood Zones)
• Review Available Maps, Literature/Data,
Correspondence, Building Department Files,
FEMA Requirements
• Field Investigations
• Inventory & Analyze Existing Conditions
• Interviews
Project Approach (continued)
• Evaluation of Permit Application Submission Requirements
• Assessment of Application and Permit Procedures
• Review of Research State Building Code, National Reference Standards, & Zoning Codes of
Other Local Communities
• (Villages of East Hampton, Westhampton Beach, Westhampton Dunes & Sagaponack)
• (Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, & Brookhaven)
• Compile, Analyze, and Formulate Approach
• Identify Potential Solutions
Study Area
FEMA Flood Zones in the Village of Southampton
Input Received
Input from:
•
Mayor
•
Chief Building Inspector
•
Village Attorney
•
Representatives from:
Common Issues/Concerns:
•
•
Planning Commission
•
ARB
•
ZBA
•
Southampton
Association
Height of Buildings in Flood Zones (Actual
and Perceived)
•
Inadequate Screening
•
Excessive Impervious Surface
•
Flooding and Drainage Issues
•
Need to Refine/Streamline Application Process
•
2 ½ to 3½ story façades
•
Bulk & Massing of Homes (Actual &
Perceived - especially on small lots)
•
Difficulty with Style of Home versus
Perception of Height & Massing
•
“Loopholes” & “Gray Areas” in Code
•
On-site Parking Issues
Loss of Privacy from Upper Floors - View
Looming over Neighboring Homes & Yards
•
Differences between Ocean, Bay, & Pond lots
•
Protection of Property Development Rights
•
FEMA / Flood Zone Basics
• Purpose of FEMA/ FIRM Maps - NFIP
• Changes to FEMA/ FIRM Maps
•
•
•
Change in how sea level is calculated
Change in National Vertical 1988 Datum
Change of understanding characteristics of wave
action, wave run-up, accretion, and the effect of new
inlets on bay water wave (incoming and receding waves)
• Compliance with FEMA, ASCE 24-05 and
State Building Code
• Existing Village Policy (BFE +2) - as
required by above
FEMA Zones & Base Flood Elevations
(Example of historic versus current)
AE: El 8
AE: El 14
General Comparison
of Height Limits in
Other Municipalities
Municipality
Village of
Southampton
Maximum Height
Upland
In Flood Zones
35' with Sky Plane for R7.5
to R-20 Zones
35' from BFE +2
32' with Sky Plane
32' measured from
natural grade
Town of East
Hampton
32' with Sky Plane
32' measured from
natural grade
Village of
Sagaponack
32' with Sky Plane
max. 40' above sea level
Village of East
Hampton
Analysis
• No single solution - need a comprehensive
approach
• Interrelationship of Issues / providing a
“Whole Project” Design Solution
• FEMA Elevations Site Grading/Fill
• The solution is in the Management of Building
Features and Façade Articulation
• Building Massing
• Building Height
• Roof Types
Analysis
• No single solution - need a comprehensive
approach
• Interrelationship of Issues / providing a
“Whole Project” Design Solution
• FEMA Elevations Site Grading/Fill
• The solution is in the Management of Building
Features and Façade Articulation – with goal of
reduced perceived massing and height
• Building Massing
• Building Height
• Roof Types
Analysis
• No single solution - need a comprehensive
approach
• Interrelationship of Issues / providing a
“Whole Project” Design Solution
• FEMA Elevations Site Grading/Fill
• The solution is in the Management of
Building Features and Façade Articulation –
with goal of reduced perceived massing and
height
• Building Massing
• Building Height
• Roof Types
Analysis
• No single solution - need a comprehensive
approach
• Interrelationship of Issues / providing a “Whole
Project” Design Solution
• FEMA Elevations Site Grading/Fill
• The solution is in the Management of Building
Features and Façade Articulation – with goal of
reduced perceived massing and height
• Building Massing
• Building Height
• Roof Types
Analysis
• No single solution - need a comprehensive
approach
• Interrelationship of Issues / providing a
“Whole Project” Design Solution
• FEMA Elevations Site Grading/Fill
• The solution is in the Management of Building
Features and Façade Articulation – with goal of
reduced perceived massing and height
• Building Massing
• Building Height
• Roof Types
Potential Solutions
•
•
•
•
Establish Uniform Measurement of Building Height
Require Minimum Roof Pitch Requirements
Pyramid / Sky Plane Law (With Allowances for Architectural Features)
Develop Façade Articulation Requirements / Improve Definition of ‘Stories’
/ Vertical & Horizontal Dimensional Restrictions
• Form-based Option
Potential Solutions (continued)
•
•
•
•
Restrict Side Yard and Front Yard Grading for Flood Water (Recharge & Flow)
Restrictions on Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage
Limit Areas Where Grade May be Modified (i.e. slopes, berms, retaining walls)
Adoption of and Enforcement of Floodplain Management Construction
Methodology
Recommendations
Uniform Measurement of
Building Height
• 1 foot above the BFE Flood Zone
requirement
• Measurement of building height from
the Grade Plane (35 Ft)
• Equalizes how homes are measured
in/out of the Flood Zone
Regulating Mass
• New and modified definitions
• Min. roof pitch – steeper is better for sightlines
• Half stories – revised to reduce size of 3rd floor
• Façade articulation – reduces ‘single mass’ of
large walls & volumes
• Combination of all suggestions reduce overall
building height & allow highest points to be in
the center of the property rather than at edges.
Sky Plane (Pyramid Law)
• Reduces the height of portions of
buildings closest to the public and
neighbors, forcing stepped volumes
and more architectural interest.
• Different dimensional
methodology to address different
conditions
Sky Plane (Pyramid Law)
• Bayside fronting properties have
shallow lots, no dune system and
is the first to flood.
• Locating homes closer to the
street on shallow lots is
advantageous for community
floodplain management.
Sky Plane (Pyramid Law)
• Utilizing Sky Plane,
reduction of large
volumes closest to
the neighboring
properties and
community.
• Solves concerns
regarding privacy,
particularly for
narrow lots
Façade Articulation
(Example Without and With a Façade Break)
Two Examples of Side Façade Articulation
of Upper Floors
Drainage/Flooding
• Limit impervious surfaces (in front &
side yards)
• Limit use of non-structural fill (in front
& side yard areas)
• Maximum slope for non-structural fill
• Limit use of retaining walls & berms
Drainage/Flooding
Cumulative Analysis of Issues & Recommendations
Recommendations
Grade
Plane
Pyramid
Law
Building Height


--


Building Mass





Building Setbacks
--

--
--

Site Grading/Fill
--

--
--

Issues
Façade
Architectural
Articulation
Features
Side Yard
Grading
A “” indicates those issues that can be addressed by implementation of the recommendation
Additional Items to be Considered
On-site Parking
Floodplain Management Standards (i.e.: Drainage, Flooding, Fill)
Planting & Screening
Maximum Slope over Drainage and Septic Systems (5%)
‘Flood-proof ’ Sanitary Systems from Discharging onto Roads & Adjacent
Properties During Floods
• Retaining Wall / Berm Standards & Certification of Design to Resist Scour,
Floodplain Structure/ Structural standards
• Uniform and Predictable Standards of Applications and Documents
•
•
•
•
•
Next Steps
• Consider Input on Recommendations & Revise as Appropriate
• Address Application Submission and Procedural Requirements (uniform
predictability and consistency of review process solutions, forms, diagrams,
surveying standards, submission standards & checklists, & application procedures)
• Complete Project Tasks
• Prepare Draft Report
• Present Recommendations to Village Trustees
Q&A
Please direct written comments by the close of business January 30, 2015 to:
Stephen Funsch, Village Administrator
Village of Southampton
23 Main Street
Southampton, NY 11968
Email:
Fax:
[email protected]
631-283-4990