proartist, I know this is your hobby-horse, but even if that generous reading of the law were true it hasn't been tested in the courts that I know of, and doesn't apply to a private home in any case.

proartist- I see your POV.

Yes, the council was fair in determining they would not allow rebuilding under the circumstances; a wise move on part of the council. What many do not realize is that developers and planners in the past did not realize the importance of natural shoreline/floodways/floodplains in the mitigation of floodwaters, and development there was acceptable and standard practice. We now know this to be incorrect and unwise, for both land-owners, ecosystems, and flood mitigation.

janesvillean:"Property rights aren't absolute."....unless the owner is a religious organization thus falling under a 2nd, separate and privileged status which no other person or entity enjoys (i.e., Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act).

Nobody seems to take into account the fact that WHEN the house floods again, numerous people will end up with their lives at risk to get the home owner out. IF the home owner were to be allowed to rebuild, it should be with the understanding that when the home floods again, they & they alone will bear the responsibility of getting themselves out of danger.

Property rights aren't absolute. We have zoning, building codes, and the criminal justice system also has jurisdiction over what you do on your property. I am happy to defer to the homeowner in cases where there is no community impact, but this is one where someone was grandfathered in someplace they would never be permitted to build today. You can hang on until the flood hits, but that requirement of raising the house is something that should be done *before* the house is over 50% destroyed by a flood.