The Board of Selectmen (BOS) is delaying any decision on a controversial flood plain ordinance change that has drawn consistent, fiery pushback from residents. The board is planning more legal reviews and at least one more public hearing before putting the issue to a vote likely toward the end of the summer.

The changes to Madison’s flood plain ordinance were initially revealed by members of the Coastal Resilience Committee (CRC) in the early spring, and since then a substantial group of residents have spoken out, vehemently protesting what they characterize as burdensome overstepping by the town that could depress the real estate market and put financial strain on coastal property owners.

“It’s been a dialogue,” said First Selectman Peggy Lyons. “It’s been evolving, and so I think the next thing is, people are wondering what’s next?

“We just want to assure the public that there is commitment to recognizing all the public feedback and also being open about when decisions are going to be made,” she added.

Lyons has recused herself from the discussions and said she will not take part in the final vote, as she owns property that would be affected by the changes.

Selectmen Scott Murphy and Erin Duques have taken over the process for the BOS. Murphy said the town is currently speaking to attorneys about basic legal requirements and compliance. Following that, Murphy and Duques will likely recommend more changes to the proposed ordinance and hold another public hearing, with the possibility of responding to that input with more tweaks.

“The public is engaged, and we want to make sure that we’re listening to the public and ensuring that they’re part of the process,” said Murphy.

Hundreds of people have attended virtual public hearings, and Lyons said the BOS has continued to receive emails opposing the new regulations.

The changes, which are largely in line with recommendations by the state but also exceed some mandatory minimum federal regulations, are intended to be a moderate step in addressing long-term issues with sea level rise, most notably encouraging residents to elevate homes through a longer “look-back” period on improvements they make and raising the height homes must be lifted in certain flood zones. Madison’s coastal resilience plan, adopted in 2016, recommended these precise changes among other things.

A “look-back” period refers to how the town calculates when “substantial improvements” have been made—in this case, 50 percent of the home’s value—which triggers the federal requirement that the building is lifted. If homeowners can spread out their projects or work over a long enough time period, they can avoid having to raise the house.

Under current local rules, that period is one year long, and under the new proposal it would be lengthened to five years beginning in 2023, substantially decreasing the amount of improvements residents could make without also having to bring their homes into FEMA compliance, likely at significant cost.

Notably, Madison’s neighbors Guilford and Branford have five year look-back periods.

The proposal would also bring language in Madison’s local rules to reflect mandatory changes made at the state level, eliminating confusion as the current ordinance actually provides false or misleading information, according to CRC members.

The CRC have already made modifications to their recommendations based on feedback, shifting the phase-in period back to give residents more time to finish ongoing projects, among other things

Lifting a house can be extremely expensive, and much of the pushback has focused on that cost. One property owner shared an estimate with The Source from a local construction company that estimated lifting her home could cost as much as $674,000. The Source was unable to independently confirm that estimate with the contractor.

Another local contractor, Travis Gulick, told the BOS even on the lower end, raising a house is likely to reach at least six figures, and costs often grow as work goes on.

Selectman Bruce Wilson suggested that rather than have the BOS take a final vote, it could send the issue to town meeting and have residents vote directly on it. Lyons said she was open to that suggestion generally, but added she didn’t want to set a precedent where other ordinances in the future would require a town meeting.