• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Review of related literature
 The Martin County coastal...
 The impact of the national flood...
 The impact of the coastal construction...
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 Appendix A: Mortgage lender survey...
 Appendix B: Systems program for...
 Appendix C: Variance procedure...
 Bibliography
 Biographical sketch






Group Title: impact of selected state and federal land use regulations on Martin County, Florida beaches /
Title: The Impact of selected state and federal land use regulations on Martin County, Florida beaches /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099518/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Impact of selected state and federal land use regulations on Martin County, Florida beaches /
Physical Description: vi, 80 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Belloit, Jerry Douglas, 1951-
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1979
Copyright Date: 1979
 Subjects
Subject: Coastal zone management -- Law and legislation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Coastal zone management -- Florida -- Martin County   ( lcsh )
Real Estate and Urban Analysis thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Real Estate and Urban Analysis -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 76-79.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jerry Douglas Belloit.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099518
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000096868
oclc - 06475231
notis - AAL2302

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 3 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Abstract
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Review of related literature
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    The Martin County coastal ecosystem
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    The impact of the national flood insurance program
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    The impact of the coastal construction control line
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Appendix A: Mortgage lender survey and cover letter
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Appendix B: Systems program for property development
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
    Appendix C: Variance procedure sample checklist and regulations
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
    Bibliography
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
    Biographical sketch
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
Full Text














THE IMPACT OF SELECTED STATE AND FEDERAL
LAND USE REGULATIONS ON
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEACHES


By

JERRY DOUGLAS BELLOIT


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY











UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study represents the contribution of many individuals

without whom success would have been much more difficult if not

impossible. Foremost of these is Dr. Halbert C. Smith who

served as Dissertation Chairperson. His professional advice,

editing, support, and encouragement were invaluable to the

completion of this work. Special thanks go to Dr. Clayton Curtis

and Dr. Earl Starnes for graciously agreeing to serve on the

dissertation committee.

The State of Florida provided special funding through the

University of Florida Real Estate Research Center for much of the

data collection and analysis for this study. Mr. D. J. Snapp

assisted greatly during that period.

Finally a great deal of thanks and love go to my wife, Clara,

for the many days and nights she had to spend alone during the

data collection period. Her patience and understanding then and

during the preparation of this manuscript are greatly appreciated.

Special thanks also go to her for the countless times she has

typed this study.










ii















TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................ .. ii

ABSTRACT ................................................... v

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION......................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ........................ .. 2
Design ..............................................

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE......................... 7

Rationalefor Coastal Zone Land Use Regulation...... 7
Basic Constitutional Issues................. .... 11
The National Flood Insurance Program............... 17
Coastal Construction Control Line .................. 22

III THE MARTIN COUNTY COASTAL ECOSYSTEM.................. 24

The Shoreline............................... 24
The Beaches................................ ... .. 25
Erosion History.................................... 26
Corrective Action.................................. 29

IV THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM... 34

State and Local Regulation Impact.................. 34
Mortgage Market Impact............................. 35
Property Development Impact................. .... .. 38

V THE IMPACT OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE.. 41

Storm Damage Reduction Benefits.................... 42
Recreational Benefits.............................. 45
Administrative Costs............................... 46
Variance Costs to the Riparian Owners.............. 47
Property Value Impacts............................. 49
Tax Base Impact.................................... 52
Net Cost-Benefit................................... 53










CHAPTER PAGE

VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................... 55

Conclusions ........................................ 55
Limitations and Recommendations................... 59
APPENDIX

A MORTGAGE LENDER SURVEY AND COVER LETTER.............. 63

B SYSTEMS PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT............. 66

C VARIANCE PROCEDURE SAMPLE CHECKLIST AND REGULATIONS.. 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. 76

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................... 80









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE IMPACT OF SELECTED STATE AND FEDERAL
LAND USE REGULATIONS ON THE BEACHFRONT OF
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA


By

Jerry Douglas Belloit

December 1979


Chairman: Dr. Halbert C. Smith, Jr.
Major Department: Real Estate and Urban Analysis


The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of two

selected state and federal regulations on the Atlantic beachfront

of Martin County, Florida. The regulations selected were the

National Flood Insurance Program and the State of Florida Coastal

Construction Control Line. They were chosen because they represent

two types of land use regulation. The National Flood Insurance

Program represents regulations which provide inducements to achieve

the desired land use patterns. Florida's Coastal Construction

Control Line represents regulations which exert direct control over

land uses.

Each regulation was examined for the legislative objectives

precipitating the laws. The impact of each law was determined and

compared with the respective objectives of the legislation.
The National Flood Insurance Program was found not to have

induced the State of Florida or Martin County local governments to










enact additional flood plain legislation. The Program also was

found to increase the financing available for Martin County beach-

front property, Finally, the Program was not found to have

decreased development along the coastal flood plain, Each of

these findings was in direct conflict with the stated legislative

objectives.

Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line was found to have

a net cost to public and private sectors. The implementation of

the legislation was found not to have decreased the public expense

of beachfront development.













CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Beginning with the first major comprehensive zoning ordinance

enacted in New York City in 1916, our nation has witnessed increasing

land use regulation. While this regulation was at first primarily

confined to urban places, in the last two decades this type of

regulation has spread to the most remote areas, as evidenced by the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Initially, this regulation was

promulgated by local governing bodies in the form of zoning laws; but

now, land use is also strongly affected by the federal government. This

may be seen in the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act

of 1970, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Ammendments of 1972,

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and many others.

At the state and federal levels, land use regulation has been

accomplished by two major vehicles-- direct regulation and "carrot and

stick" regulation. Examples of direct regulation are the federal

government's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1978 and Florida's Beach and

Shore Preservation Act. A good example of "carrot and stick" regulation

is the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Federal Flood

Insurance Act of 1968 promises subsidized flood insurance (the "carrot")

for those communities which will enact acceptable flood plain land use

regulation. The "stick" in this act is the threat of federal inter-

vention in real property financing and the restriction of federal

disaster relief for those communities which do not partake of the

"carrot".









This study examines one aspect of the more recent areas of land use

regulation, that of coastal zone land use management. It addresses the

general question of land use regulation and its relation to coastal

zone land use management, along with a close examination of how two

specific regulations impact a specific county. The regulations chosen

for close examination are the State of Florida's Beach and Shore

Preservation Act1 and the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1968. These

regulations were studied for their impact on Martin County, Florida's,

Atlantic beaches, and how well these regulations achieve their

legislative intent.

Statement of the Problem

Governments at all levels have finally realized the public value of

sandy coastal beaches. This public value is derived from three primary

sources: 1) storm protection benefits to more landward areas, 2) public

recreation benefits, and 3) an increased tax base from the high prices

of beachfront properties. Unfortunately, as the tax base is enriched

through coastal development, there has been a directly related reduction

in public storm protection and recreational benefits in many areas. In

some areas, such as Bay County coastal beaches, development has even

imposed a substantial public cost, as witnessed immediately after

Hurricane Eloise (Shows, 1976). Examination of early local land use

regulations in areas such as Jacksonville Beach, Miami Beach, and

Daytona Beach indicates the apparent lack of concern for any consider-

ations beyond traditional zoning other than an increase in the tax base

through development of the coastal beaches.


1. Specifically the provisions regarding the Coastal Construction
Control Line formerly the Coastal Construction Setback Line.









As a reaction to the lack of sufficient private, or local

government control in areas such as these, the federal government and

several coastal states have enacted legislation exerting limited

direct or indirect regulation over the coastal areas through the

vehicles mentioned previously. Unfortunately, the promulgation of

state and federal land use regulations may be made by persons unfamiliar

with local problems. The prevailing legislative psychology seems to

assume that because there is irresponsible land use in some areas, laws

must be passed to restrain such irresponsible use in all areas. While

on the surface this legislative perspective is quite noble, the actual

legislation forthcoming restricts specific uses of land, rather than

restricting the damage such use might cause.

A common example of such a legislative perspective is found in many

flood plain land use regulations such as in Charlotte, North Carolina.

These regulations prohibit construction of any major structure within

the one-hundred year flood plain. The legislative objective of such a

regulation is to prevent construction of new structures which would

result in increased flood damage not just to the new structures, but

also to the other structures in the flood plain. The increase in damage

to the other structures in the flood plain would result whenever the new

structures impeded the flow of the flood waters thus causing an increase

in the height of the flood surge. Such regulations do prevent the

undesirable construction but they also prevent compatible development.

The legislative objectives could also be achieved through allowing any

development in the flood plain which would be only nominally damaged

in the event of a flood and which would not significantly impede the

flow of flood waters (FIA, 1977).






4

This legislative philosophy of restricting specific land uses may

be seen in the objectives of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1978

(USDHUD, 1974). These objectives are to "(1) encourage state and

local governments to make appropriate land use adjustments to constrict

the development of land which is exposed to flood damage and minimize

damage caused by flood losses, (2) guide the development of proposed

future construction, where practicable, away from locations which are

threatened by flood hazards, [and] (3) encourage lending and credit

institutions, as a matter of national policy, to assist in furthering

the objectives of the flood insurance program . ."

The intent of the State of Florida Beach and Shore Preservation

Act's Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) is to (1) discourage

development seaward of a building line determined by state engineers

and (2) rigidly regulate the structural design, siting, and materials

for construction seaward of the building line. The objective of the

CCCL is to reduce the expenses of maintaining the State's beaches

through control of coastal development, erosion, and storm damage.

The question addressed by this study is: Are the objectives of
2
the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the Coastal Construction

Control Line being achieved in Martin County? This research indicates
that the objectives of these programs have not been achieved in

Martin County. Also suggested by this study are some probable reasons

for failure and some possible alternative approaches to the problem.


2. Created in the National Flood Insurance Act of 1965.






5

Design

The design of this study consists of three steps. First, the

impact of the National Flood Insurance Program was determined. Second,

the costs and benefits of the Coastal Construction Control Line were

estimated. Third, these results were compared with the goals and

objectives stated in their respective legislative acts.

The impact of the National Flood Insurance Program was assessed

using a three part procedure. Each part of the procedure was designed

to measure the impact on Martin County for each objective of the National

Flood Insurance Program.

The first objective of the National Flood Insurance Program was to

encourage "appropriate" state and local land use regulation in flood

susceptible areas. The first part of the impact assessment procedure

was to examine state and local land use regulations for significant

changes in land use policy for Martin County. Specifically examined

were any laws enacted subsequent to implementation of the National Flood

Insurance Program which would "constrict the development" of beach-

front property.

The second objective of the National Flood Insurance Program was to

guide future development away from flood prone areas. The second part

of the impact assessment procedure was to determine the historic land

use pattern prior to implementation of the program. This historic

pattern was then projected and compared with the current land use

pattern for significant differences.

The third objective of the National Flood Insurance Program was

to encourage lending and credit institutions not to make loans in flood-

prone areas. The last part of the impact assessment procedure was to









survey area lenders to determine whether there had been a change in

lending policy for property on the coast after implementation of the

program.

The costs and benefits of the Coastal Construction Control Line

were assessed assuming that without the CCCL development patterns

would have consistently continued in accordance with historic trends.

The costs estimated were (1) administrative costs, (2) variance

procedure costs, and (3) changes in property values, and consequently,

changes in the tax base. The potential benefits estimated result from

(1) storm damage reduction, and (2) additional recreation through

increased open space. These costs and benefits were determined for

all privately held ocean front properties.

The costs and benefits accruing since implementation of the

Coastal Construction Control Line were estimated to determine the

current success of the legislation in reducing coastal zone management

expenses. Future costs and benefits were also predicted using 10, 20

and 50 year projections. These projections were examined to determine

the expected future success in reducing coastal zone management expenses.

Excluded from this analysis were all publically owned properties.

These were excluded primarily for two reasons. First, because of their

greater resources, the government was presumed to be more aware of the

total impact of development of such properties than the private sector.

Therefore public development is expected to proceed in such a manner as

to optimize the public welfare. Second, the regulations studied were

primarily designed to regulate the private sector.













CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The review of the literature pertaining to coastal zone land use

management is presented in two parts. First, the rationale for coastal

zone land use management is examined from its historic perspective, its

economic perspective, and its Constitutional basis. Second, the history

of state and federal regulation relating to the National Flood Insurance

Program and Florida's Coastal Construction Control Line is presented.

Rationalefor Coastal Zone Land Use Regulation

Much of the development along the coastline of the United States

prior to the late 1960's removed part or all of the sand dune systems

at the development sites. There was little evident concern with the

consequences of such development procedures. This absence of concern

can be largely attributed to the lack of understanding of the protective

role of the dune system (USACERC, 1964). Without the sand reserve of

the dune system to absorb the impact of a storm, even structures quite

a distance from mean high water would be exposed to severe storm threat.

With the sand reserve, however, even structures just landward of the

dunes are relatively safe.

The economic theory of coastal zone land use management is

centered largely around the existence of an optimal building line along

the beach-front (Shows, 1976). For both the public and private sectors

of our economy, construction upon the optimal building line will maximize

the total benefits net of all costs. The theory further states that

7








without land use regulation, the private sector will build at non-

optimal points. The reason suggested by the theory is that the

components and their respective weights of the optimizing function

differ.

For example, consider only the impact of an expected hurricane on

a new condominium. For both the public and private sectors the

expected loss on a specific structure from a hurricane may be represent-

ed by the following equation.
n
E (L) = ( v p di)
i =1

E (L) = expected loss

n = number of years

p = probability of hurricane during any one year

v = property loss during a hurricane

di = discount factor for year i

The equation assumes that the public's wealth is comprised of the sum

of all private wealth. This assumption is necessary to show that in the

event of hurricane damage, both the individual owning the condominium

and the public suffer the loss. (Actually the public sector also

incurs other losses such as debris removal, tax base loss, and income

tax revenue loss. These are discussed in Chapter 5.)

Of the three major participants in this scenario, the developer

has by far the lowest expected loss. The reason is twofold. First,

the expected holding period (n) for the developer is very short.

Second, the discount rate applicable to the developer is usually much

higher. The cost of public capital may be estimated at either the

interest rate payable for the general public's savings account or the









interest rate charged government for borrowing funds in the money

markets. The cost of the developer's capital may be estimated at either

his average rate of return on his other developments or his borrowing

rate from commercial lenders. Since most of the major components of a

discount rate are reflected by the cost of capital, the developer also

has a much higher discount rate than the public.

The amount of property loss during a hurricane has been shown to

be a direct function of the distance to the mean high water mark

(Shows, 1976). Assuming that some marginal benefit of construction

closer to the water exists, the developer will tend to choose a

construction point closer to the water than the construction point

which might be chosen by the public. This is expected because he has

a lower expected storm loss than the public for any given distance

from the mean high water mark.

It may be argued that the developer in the long run will not build

seaward of the society optimal building line, as his clients will

discount the price they would pay because of the higher expected loss.

This argument has two fallacies. First, the potential buyers will

probably reason that the developer would choose a "safe" building line.

Since they do not likely have the same technical assistance such as an

engineer or architect available to them as had the developer, the

buyers will tend to rely upon the developer's judgement. The second

fallacy is that the buyer's holding period is probably only a few

years longer than the developer's. Even if buyers accurately perceive

the higher loss rate, the discount that they would apply to the purchase

price would be relatively small in comparison to the expected loss to









the public, which would have a holding period approximately equal to

the useful economic life of the structure.

The costs and benefits considered when determining the optimal

building point for an individual structure include the aesthetic view

from the proposed structure, personal transportation costs to the water-

front, privacy offered for the public portion of the beach, and storm

damage costs.

The amount of each individual cost or benefit is generally related

to the distance from the structure to the ocean in the following

manners:

The view benefits = f ( i c
distance
Personal transportation costs = f (_is Ice

Privacy benefits = f (distance)

Storm damage costs = f 1 )
(Idistance,1
Unfortunately these functions are usually not continuous within

the relative range of optimality consideration. This is due to the

existence of the primary and secondary dune systems. Behind these

dune systems additional cost of increasing the heights of structures

must be incurred to obtain a favorable view over the dunes. Personal

transportation costs greatly increase once landward of the dune

systems. Again, additional costs of a walkway over the dunes must be

incurred to bring the transportation costs in line with the initial

transportation cost function. However, privacy benefits are greatly

increased landward of the dune system. Storm damage costs are even

more greatly reduced landward of the dune system.








Since prices fluctuate differently throughout our economy, the

optimal building line must also fluctuate. Since natural systems also

fluctuate, the optimal building line must fluctuate even more. For

example, if the erosion occurs, reducing the distance between the

structure and the water, the expected structural damage from a

hurricane increases. All other conditions held constant, the optimal

building line would then recede landwards. If, on the other hand,

building costs fall and other conditions hold constant, the optimal

building line would then move further seaward. Due to the great

complexity of these problems and relatively restricted resources of

the private sector, the government has decided that it can more

efficiently determine the optimal building line.

Basic Constitutional Issues

The United States Constitution places certain restrictions on the

public regulation of private lands. These restrictions include

limitations on the taking of private lands by the public, the rights of

private citizens to the due process of law, the right of private

citizens to be treated equally under the law, and the right of private

citizens to travel and live in any public community within the United

States of America.

The basic Constitutional issues regarding public regulation of

private lands center around the Constitutional interpretation of

these restrictions by the courts. The principal importance of these

Constitutional issues is the distinction between the exercise of the

police power for land use regulation and the exercise of the power of

eminent domain. If, after examining the circumstances surrounding a

specific case, the courts decide a particular regulation is the








exercise of the power of eminent domain, equitable compensation must

be paid to the land owner if the government wishes to continue the

same restriction on the property in question. If, however, the court

decides that the particular regulation is the exercise of the police

power, no compensation is paid to the land owner regardless of the

severity of the financial damage he may have sustained. In effect,

the judicial decision of whether or not a specific land use regulation

violates a Constitutional restriction results in an "either/or dilemma"

for the judiciary. This dilemma forces the judiciary to rule without

any regard to equity for either party to the dispute (Costonis, 1977).

Under the exercise of the police power, the government may

promulgate regulations which promote the public health, safety, morals,

and welfare. The major Constitutional issues involved with the

exercise of the police involve interpretations of whether there is a

violation of the rights of due process, equal protection, and free

travel, as well as the more fundamental issue of when the exercise of

the police power actually is constructive condemnation and therefore

actually the exercise of eminent domain.

The question of whether regulations violate the due process clause

of the Constitution centers around two issues. First, the regulations

must not deny an individual any procedural rights found elsewhere in

the law such as regulations which constructively condemn an individual's

property and deny him the normal procedural rights to compensation

after condemnation. The second issue regarding due process involves

the question of whether due process was followed in the making of the

regulation. Here, the courts are concerned because the regulation

must have a reasonable relationship between the goal sought by








regulation and the regulation itself. In the opinion by Justice

Sutherland, citing Radice v. New York (264U.S.292,294), he applied

a standard of a "fairly debatable" relationship between the

regulation and improving the public's welfare and interest (Villaqe

of Euclid v. Amber Reality Co., 272U.W.365,47 Sup.Ct. 114,71L ed.303

(1926)).

A great many land use regulations are defeated in court because

they violate the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution. These

cases may be broadly classified in three categories. The first

involves those cases whereby a specific land use regulation

arbitrarily treats some land owners differently from others in the

community. This is seen in what has been frequently called "spot

zoning." Another example may be found in the Pounds v. Darling

decision (77 So.666,668). In this case, a city ordinance forbidding

bathing in a lake, which was the city's water supply, was stricken

because it usurped the riparian rights of lake-front property owners.

The second category of land use regulations which were found to

deny equal protection are those which involve exclusionary zoning.

In its decision on the zoning ordinance of Mount Laurel, New Jersey,

which only allowed single-family residential development, the court

struck down theordinace saying ". . Mount Laurel must, by its land

regulations make realistically possible the opportunity for an

appropraite variety and choice of housing for all categories of people

who may desire to live there . ." (Southern Burlington County

N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67N.J. 151,336 A 2d 713 (1975)).

Ironically in 1974, the court upheld a similar zoning ordinance









(Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416U.S.1,6ERC 1417) on the grounds

that the ordinance was consistent with its legislative objective of

". .A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, . "

The third category of land use regulations which were found to

deny equal protection are those which involve the restriction of free

travel. The right to travel is allegedly infringed when the legislation

attempts to suppress growth in a community, thereby suppressing the

ability of people to move into the community. Examples of communities

in which such regulations have been enacted are Boca Raton, Florida;

Ramapo, New York; and Petaluma, California. When such regulations are

clearly tied to the physical and economic capacity of an area to

maintain the population in a healthful and safe manner, the right to

travel may be suppressed in favor of these other objectives.

Unfortunately it is not clear what will happen when the restricted

growth regulation is not clearly tied to the physical and economic

capacity of an area. In the Petaluma, California case, the growth

restrictions were not tied to the holding capacity of the area. The

Federal District Court struck down the regulations in 1974 on the basis

that the regulation interfered with the public right to free travel

(Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of

Petaluma, 375 F.Supp. 574,6ERC 1453). Unfortunately, the decision is

not reliable as a landmark case on the right to travel. In 1975, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's

decision on the basis that the Construction Industry Association of

Sonoma County did not have the standing to sue with the grounds of

obstruction of the right to travel, since the members already lived in

the county and were obviously not prevented from entering. The court









went on to rule that the association was really trying to represent

some potential citizens of the community (F 2d 897,8ERC 1001).

In February 1976, the Supreme Court apparently agreed with the Court

of Appeals when it refused to hear the case (96 S. Ct 1148).

The Constitutional issue of when the exercise of the police

power is really constructive condemnation is a very complex one.

The courts have generally relied on four basic theories to make the

distinction between exercise of the police power and a taking of the

property through constructive condemnation (NRDC, 1977).

The first theory used to distinguish between a taking and

exercise of the police power states that regulations which attempt

to prevent land uses which have unacceptable external costs will be

considered an exercise of the police power. This theory has as its

origin early English Common Law a person may not use his property

to injure another. Since its judicial introduction in the 1800's,

the courts have relied upon this theory many times to uphold various

land use regulations. Modern examples of such regulation include

many of the wetlands protection laws and the sand dune preservation

laws.

The second theory states that regulations which attempt to achieve

a public benefit rather than prevent a public harm are really a taking

of property rather than an exercise of the police power. Many

coastal land use regulations promulgated in recent years have had as a

goal suppression of beach-front development so that open spaces along

the coast might be preserved. Some of these regulations have been

overturned, since the public could not show how development contrary









to the regulation would damage the public interest. In Zable v.

Pinellas County Water and Naval Construction Authority (171 So2d. 376),

the court held that to deny a permit to bulkhead and fill submerged

land would be taking the land without paying just compensation. The

court noted that there had been no convincing evidence to show that

the filling of the land would cause a public harm. For similar

reasons, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Palm Beach County v.

Vaughn et al. (295 So.2d. 383) upheld a lower court decision which

struck down for the property in question a county ordinance requiring

a 25 foot setback behind the dune crest line along the Atlantic

beaches.

The third theory states that when the value of the property is so

severely diminished by implementation of a regulation, a taking has

occurred. A study performed in 1963 indicated that when the value

of a property decreases by two-thirds due to imposition of a land use

control, the courts will tend to rule that a taking has occurred

(Krasnowiecki, 1963). The evidence, unfortunately, is not clear on

this point. In a 1915 decision on Hadacheck v. Sebastian (239 U.S. 394),

the United States Supreme Court upheld a regulation where the value

of the property was reduced 92.5 percent. In Forde v. City of Miami

Beach, the Florida Supreme Court stated that a regulation was

constructive condemnation when it". ..has the effect of completely

depriving them (the property owners) of the beneficial use of their

property . ." In City of Clearwater v. College Properties Supra

(239 SO. 21515), the court ruled that zoning of a property must be

changed because there was no current demand for the use of the

property as it was zoned at the time of the case.









The fourth theory which the courts use to distinguish between a

taking and exercise of the police power involves weighting the

damage to the public by adverse land use of a property against the

damage to the owner if such land use is prohibited. In striking

down an ordinance which prohibited construction near existing

structures during the tourist season, the Florida Supreme Court in

Town of Bay Harbor Island v. Schlapik (57 SO. 2d. 855) ruled that

the harm to the owner exceeded the "benefits redounding to the

public" and sustained a lower court's ruling in the case against the

ordinance.

The National Flood Insurance Program

Prior to the Flood Control Act of 1936, federal involvement in

flood control was primarily restricted to relatively small Mississippi

River projects by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The

Flood Control Act of 1936, however, created the Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA) which was charged with structural large scale flood

control measures, such as dam and reservoir construction.

For the next twenty years, government spending for structural

flood control steadily grew. Alarmingly, however, during the same

period, flood losses grew exponentially. Ironically, the primary

reason for this growth in flood losses was the structural flood

control measures. When there had been a structural flood control

measure at a particular point along a waterway, people perceiving

less risk from flooding began large-scale flood plain development.

Then when a flood occurred which exceeded the design capacity of the

structural flood control measure, huge damage resulted. Consequently,
public disaster assistance and subsidiaries also grew exponentially.









In an effort to curb the huge public costs of disaster relief,

the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 was passed. Funding for

the Act was not granted at the time of the law's passage, and many

subsequent attempts at funding also failed. As a result of the

inability to fund the program, the South Eastern Hurricane Disaster

Act of 1965 included a requirement for a flood insurance feasibility

study.

The next year Congress was presented House Document 465 In

this document, the vicious cycle of flooding, damage, flood control

projects, increased flood plain development, more flooding, more

damage, and more projects, was recognized. In transmitting this

document to the Congress, the President stated, "The key to the

problem lies, above all else, in the intelligent planning for the

State and local regulation of lands exposed to flood hazard."

(Kleppe, 1976). At the same time, the President issued Executive

Order 11296 which mandated that federal agencies evaluate flood

hazards prior to funding the construction of any public building or

the purchase of any public lands. This was the first major non-

structural attempt at flood loss control.

Two years later, Congress repealed the Federal Flood Insurance

Act of 1956 and passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

This act provided for the purchase of subsidized flood insurance

by owners of property in flood plains. Flood insurance was available



3. Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, A Unified National
Program for Managing Flood Losses, House Document # 465,
89th Congress, Second Session, 1966.









subject to the local community's beginning appropriate flood plain

land use management. Very few of the estimated 22,000 eligible

communities accepted the subsidized flood insurance "carrot" during

the first five years of the program. Consequently, Congress enacted

the Federal Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This legislation

amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and gave it a

"stick" with which to encourage participation. This "stick" was

very large indeed; it allowed the government to withhold disaster

assistance loans and grants to a community hit by a flood disaster if

the community did not participate in the federal flood insurance

program. The "stick" also had a large nail at its end. It allowed

the government to forbid any federally assisted lending institution

(effectively almost all lenders) from making any loans in a flood

plain of a nonparticipating community.

Since the enactment of the amendments, community participation

has grown. Consequently, the impact of the Flood Insurance Program

has become more visable. In a study of three Rhode Island coastal

communities (Miller, 1975), the Flood Insurance Program was shown

to have some serious adverse impacts.

First and most dramatic, the study indicated that the program

increased demand for ocean-front property. This result was in direct

conflict with the stated objective of reducing flood plain

construction. The study attributed the increase in demand for

coastal property to the dramatic increase of loan funds for those

properties.









Prior to the implementation of the National Flood Insurance

Program, funds for the purchase of beach-front homes were obtained

from primarily two sources: 1) owner equity funds and 2) new

mortgages on properties other than the beach property, such as

refinancing of the owner's primary residence. Very few mortgages

were placed directly on the beach properties due to the risk of storm

damage. With implementation of the Flood Insurance Program, however,

banks could lend in the coastal plain as long as the owner obtained

and maintained flood insurance on at least the outstanding balance

of the loan.

Because of this increased availability of financing for ocean-

front property and the resultant increase in demand for the property,

prices of the properties have risen higher than otherwise possible.

As the prices increase, government must be more cautious with the

enforcement of any regulations which cause a decrease in property

values since the regulations may be found to be constructive

condemnation. The National Flood Insurance Program may also inhibit

the ability of government to purchase land through condemnation when

prices are elevated. The program may additionally stabilize prices

at much higher levels after severe storm damage and may further

inhibit the government from purchasing land. This result would be

ironic in the light of a study committee formed bythe Federal Insurance

Administration to examine the possibility of asking Congress for

funds to purchase beach-front properties which have just been

devastated by a storm (Lynch, 1973).









Another potentially adverse impact of the National Flood

Insurance Program was found to be a change in the quality of

construction in the coastal flood plain. Prior to the program,

most construction was inexpensive woodframe, tarpaperr shacks."

After implementation of the Flood Insurance Program, new

construction in the coastal flood plain shifted toward more

costly, higher quality concrete structures. Not only did this

shift increase the dollar base for potential storm damage, but it

also increased the probable proportional damage level for the new

structures. While concrete may on the surface appear to resist

storm attack better than wood, the opposite is really true. Concrete

is a very rigid material and will not yield before cracking under

stress, while wood is quite flexible and can withstand more stress.

In order to make concrete construction suitable for coastal areas,

lateral and vertical reinforcement is recommended (Collier et al.,

1977). In the study of the three Rhode Island communities, such

reinforcement was apparently not the customary practice.

Another possible problem with the Flood Insurance Program is the

unknown extent of government subsidy for the purchase of flood

insurance in coastal areas. Because of the scarcity of actuarial

experiences in coastal storm damage, insurance premiums are mainly

based upon riverine flood experiences. The Federal Insurance

Administration (FIA) does make an adjustment to the premium for

coastal and other high hazard areas. This adjustment, however, is

purely arbitrary. To further compound the problem,the FIA bases its

rates on the one-hundred year flood plain. This may be more reasonable








for riverine flooding situations, but in coastal areas the actual

height that the water reaches may be many feet above the flood plain

elevation, due to wave run up. The wave action further complicates

the expected damage computations as the foundations undergo a more

severe attack than in riverine flooding. An estimate of the

government subsidy by the Flood Insurance Program in coastal areas has

been estimated to be between 50-85 percent (Shows, 1976).

A final adverse impact demonstrated in case after case is the

rebuilding of a storm damaged home in the same high risk location.

An example of such an impact is the case of John Knapp (Lynch, 1978).

He was expected to rebuild his beach-front home for the second time,

again using federal money after his home was destroyed in 1978. He

had already rebuilt the home using proceeds from federal flood

insurance after another devastating storm in 1972.

Coastal Construction Control Line

In response to the growing erosion costs from development

practices which aggravated beach erosion problems, the 1971 Florida

Legislature passed the Beach and Shore Preservation Act. As

with any public law, its basis was the expectation that the benefits

of the implementation of the law would exceed the costs.

The law requires a study of the local conditions of each

coastal county before establishing a preliminary Coastal Construction

Control Line (CCCL). In the process of determining the preliminary

line, the following local beach-front characteristics are examined:

1. Ground elevation in relation to historical storm and
hurricane tides.

2. Predicted maximum wave uprush.









3. Beach and offshore ground contours.

4. The vegetation line.

5. Erosion trends.

6. The dune buff line.

7. Existing upland development. (Collier, et al., 1977)

After the preliminary CCCL is determined, the Department of

Natural Resources (DNR), which is charged with administration of

the law, must hold public hearings in each county. The input

from all interested parties must then be considered prior to

establishment of the permanent CCCL.

Once the CCCL is established, any construction seaward of the

line is prohibited without requesting a special variance from the

Department of Natural Resources. The variance provision gives the

DNR power to rigidly regulate the design, siting, and materials

used in construction seaward of the line, thereby insuring

construction compatible with the natural beach system and reducing

potential storm damage. The law includes the variance procedure so

as not to cause undue hardships upon the landowners by not allowing

any seaward construction. This varience provision may also protect

the law against Constitutional challenge on excessive hardship -

limited public benefit grounds. It is interesting to note that one

special ground for which a landowner may be granted a variance is that

his immediate neighbors have already built seaward of the line. This

special provision may prevent many challenges to the law on the basis

that it violates the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution.














CHAPTER III

THE MARTIN COUNTY COASTAL ECOSYSTEM

The Shoreline

Martin County has approximately 22 miles of ocean shoreline

which, like much of Florida's Atlantic Coast, consists of barrier

islands separated from the mainland by a chain of canals, tidal

ponds, lakes, and bays. In particular, the Martin County shoreline

consists of portions of two barrier islands separated by the

St. Lucie Inlet: the portion of Hutchinson Island south of St. Lucie

County, which is about seven miles of shoreline; and the portion of

Jupiter Island north of Palm Beach County, which is about fourteen

miles of shoreline.

The northern island, Hutchinson Island, is narrow and low in

elevation, ranging in width from approximately two hundred feet to

nearly four thousand feet. It ranges in elevation from sea level to

approximately fifteen feet. The Atlantic coastal sand dune ridgeline

along Hutchinson Island varies in elevation from a low of about five

feet to a high of about fifteen feet above mean sea level.

The northern portion of Jupiter Island is much like Hutchinson

Island, low and flat. However, the southern portion of the island has

a sand dune ridgeline along the Atlantic coastline with an average

elevation of almost twenty feet, which in some instances reaches

elevations greater than twenty-four feet. The island varies in width

from a few hundred feet to nearly a mile, with a range in elevation for









the sand dune ridge from about five feet in the north to about

twenty-four feet in the southern part of the island.

The Beaches

The beaches in Martin County are composed of fine sand and shell

fragments and, in some places, exposed coquina rock. The coquina

rock, along with the shifting sand bars offshore, tend to retard

erosion and to reduce the intensity of wave action on the shore. This

effect is particularly evident in the central and southern portions of

Jupiter Island where erosion has occurred at a slower rate than in

other sections of the island.

Hutchinson Island has approximately one mile of public beach

(4,150 feet or about 12 percent of the island's total beach area).

There are only small areas on Jupiter Island for public use of the

beaches. However, this situation should soon be remedied, since the

state has purchased the northern 2.7 miles of the island for a state

park and public beach. At present, public access to this area is

difficult; therefore, it is used very little. A causeway from the

mainland to the beach areas has been proposed which would greatly

expand access to the area. The combined public beach on both Jupiter

and Hutchinson Island provide some 480 linear feet of beach for every

1,000 residents of the county. Not included in this figure, however,

is the beach front seaward of private property which is bound by the

mean high water mark. Due to the difficulty in reaching the beach,

this beach-front is excluded even though it is public property.









Erosion History

There are two primary sources of erosion of the beaches and

coastline, 1) storm damage and 2) wave action and littoral transport.1

Storm erosion, however, is generally of greater significance and is

caused by two types of storms. These two types of storms are the

tropical storms, generally referred to as hurricanes and tropical

depressions, and the extra-tropical storms, known as northeastern

coastal storms. The northeastern storms occur almost annually and for

the most part cause the most severe and lasting erosion of the shore-

line.

Between 1830 and 1979,sixteen hurricanes passed within a 50 mile

radius of the county, averaging one every nine years. One reason for

the limited severity of the hurricanes' erosion damage is the short

duration of hurricane force winds and waves in the area. However,

the large intense Atlantic storms, generally caused by a stationary

high pressure area north of a low pressure area, cause great damage

to the beaches and ocean-front property, not only in Martin County

but also along most of the east coast of Florida.

The northeastern coastal storms attack the ocean-front during the

fall and winter months. They reportedly cause more severe erosion to

the beaches in two or three months than by winds and swells from other

storm forces during the remainder of the year. Should a northeastern

storm occur when the moon is in perigee, it is accompanied by



1. Littoral transport is a lateral continuous process of withdrawal
and redepositing of beach material by tidal forces. Erosion occurs
when withdrawals are greater than redeposits of sand and beach
material.









abnormally high tides. When this combination of large waves from the

northeast and high tides lastsfor several days, it usually causes

more sand movement than the average hurricane.

The second source of erosion is littoral forces. The barrier

islands of Martin County are situated so that the beach areas are

normally subject to low steepness waves (long periodic swells), which

over time tend to transport back to the beach material which was

eroded from the beach and carried off by previous high steepness waves

(storm type waves). Although this process is noticeable on both

islands, it is particularly evident on the southern portions of

Jupiter Island.

The original inlet or channel between Hutchinson and Jupiter

Islands, known as "Gilbert's Bar," was a very shallow, narrow pass.

This pass was subject to constant change, as sand from littoral drift

altered the depth, width, and general character of the pass. Then,

in 1849, Gilbert's Bar was closed by sand accumulated from littoral

drift. The original cut of St. Lucie inlet was made in 1892 by local

residents. It was dug by hand with picks and shovels and was

approximately 30 feet wide and some five feet deep. By 1898 strong

currents through the cut widened the inlet to nearly 1,700 feet and

scoured it to an average depth of seven feet. This natural widening

continued until 1922, when the inlet was reported to be some 2,600 feet

wide. This was the widest the inlet ever reached, as the width has

since decreased to approximately 1,800 feet by soil accumulation from

local dredging operations.









Between 1926 and 1929, the St. Lucie District and Port Authority

constructed a stone jetty along the southern end of Hutchinson Island

at Sailfish Point which measured 3,325 feet long. A popular theory

with the residents of Jupiter Island is that much of the erosion along

the northern portion of the island has been caused by the construction

of the jetty. Prior to the construction of the jetty,the inlet acted

as a barrier, trapping the drift material in a middle ground shoal

and in a bar across the mouth of the inlet. As a result of this

trapping action, both the shores north and south of the inlet became

unstable.

However, after construction, the jetty stabilized the north shore

and caused accretion to begin. Subsequently, the effectiveness of the

inlet as a littoral basin became enhanced, causing the shore to the

south (northern Jupiter Island) to continue to recede. Consequently,

the jetty aggravates the erosion to Jupiter Island, although it is not

the cause of the erosion. This aggravation is the result of the jetty's

trapping the particles moving south along the beach, thus starving the

shoreline immediately south of the jetty. Since the dominant littoral

drift in the area is from north to south, there is a tendency for build-

up north of the jetty and starvation south of the jetty.

Although the threat of erosion exists throughout the county, the

shoreline of Hutchinson Island is relatively stable, with accretion

occurring primarily in the southern portions of the island just north

of St. Lucie Inlet and the jetty (Sailfish Point). Northern Jupiter

Island, however, has a long history of erosion problems. The

relatively continuous erosion of the island is greatly magnified









during periods of tropical hurricanes and extratropical storms.

During such storms, damage to the beach is accelerated and is often

accompanied by damage to seawalls and ocean-front property. After

several northeast storms, the beach level is lowered, structures

are damaged or destroyed, and valuable ocean front property is

eroded or lost. The natural buildup from littoral drift which

occurs during the summer months usually reduces the erosion of the

previous fall and winter, but the buildup is usually not great

enough to offset the storm generated erosion.

Between 1882 and 1964,the 16 miles of shoreline south of St. Lucie

inlet annually receded an average of six feet. During the same period,

the two miles north of the inlet annually accreted at an average of

2.6 feet. However, the northern portion of Jupiter Island, in

particular the subdivision Bon Air Beach and the area northward,

eroded at a rate as great as ten feet per year since the late 1920's.

Corrective Action

The residents of the Town of Jupiter Island attempted to prevent

erosion damage by building revetments and groins, and by artificially

renourishing the beaches. The residents had vertical seawalls built

along most of the established bulkhead line on Jupiter Island, as

recommended by the 1947 Beach Erosion Control Board Report.

Construction, completed in stages, has been accomplished along most of

the developed portions of Jupiter Island. The artificial renourishment

of the beaches began in 1956 by the Town of Jupiter Island, and in

1963,a private engineering firm developed the following four-phase

erosion prevention plan for Jupiter Island:









Phase I Artificial nourishment in the amount of
500,000 cubic yards over a three year period.

Phase II Protection and strengthening of existing
seawalls where needed.

Phase III Annual period nourishment as needed after
completion of Phase I.

Phase IV Construction of groins about 100 feet long at
200 foot intervals after beach nourishment.

This plan has been partly adopted by the Town of Jupiter Island, with

Phases I and II essentially accomplished.

As requested by local officials and residents of Martin County,
2
a study prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and

completed in March 1974, examined the impact of widening the St. Lucie

Inlet. The Inlet Stabilization Plan initiated the stabilization of

the shoreline and channel conditions in the St. Lucie Inlet. In the

Final Environmental Statement on Navigation and Beach Erosion Control,

the United States Army Corps of Engineers made the following

recommendations:

1. extension of the north jetty by some 500 feet

2. sand excavation

3. construction of a south jetty

4. widening of the cut of the St. Lucie Inlet

5. beach renourishment south of the inlet with the
sand excavated

As development pressures increased in the 1970's from dwindling

developable coastal areas and a rapidly increasing state population,

the Martin County Commissioners authorized Peat, Marwick, Mitchell



2. Final Environmental Statement, St. Lucie Inlet, Florida, Navigation
and Beach Erosion Control, Office of Chief of Engineers, Department
of the Army, Washington, D.C.,1974.









and Company, to prepare a comprehensive development plan for

Hutchinson Island. The Hutchinson Island Plan was prepared to

determine how best to plan for and manage future growth on

Hutchinson Island. The plan as presented included the following

recommendations:

1. A new four-lane bridge should be constructed from the
mainland to Hutchinson Island.

2. An additional 1,824 dwelling units should be permitted
on the Martin County portion of the island prior to
construction of the new bridge.

3. At full development, a maximum of 4,475 residential units
should be permitted on the Martin County portion of the
island.

4. Public services should be designed to provide for
approximately 10,000 residents.

5. Development south of the beach access strip and north of
the House of Refuge should be limited to an overall density
of 1.5 dwelling units per acre.

6. Remainder of the island (the Martin County portion) should
be limited to an overall density of six dwelling units per
acre.

7. Martin County should institute PUD zoning procedures.

8. A single special tax district should be established for
Hutchinson Island.

These recommendations were later revised to allow 2,394 additional

units prior to bridge construction (increased from 1,824) and total

development of 5,236 units (increased from 4,475). Portions of the

initial plan were adopted by the Martin County Commission on August 14,

1973, in resolution # 73-8.2. The revisions were adopted under

resolution # 73-12.6.

Additionally, Hutchinson Island has been evaluated by the Division

of State Planning, Bureau of Land Planning, as an Area of Critical State









Concern. A report on that evaluation, issued in 1974 under the

provisions of Chapter 380 of the State of Florida Statutes (Florida

Environmental Land and Water Management Act), indicates that the

study was done at the request of local public officials and concerned

local citizens. The study identified and analyzed the natural and

environmental forces of the island, public investments on the island,

existing land uses, and development pressures. The public concerns

expressed and evaluated included:

1. need to protect the natural and environmental resources and
functions of the area from adverse impacts of development

2. need to allow reasonable development and residential
density on Hutchinson Island in order to deal realistically
with population pressures on market values

3. need to protect existing and required future public
investments in facilities and services, especially in
transportation, water and sewer systems, and public
safety from the effects of rapid or uncoordinated
development of excessively intensive land use

4. need to protect the island's residents and resources from
the threat of hurricane flooding, since nearly all the
developable land on Hutchinson Island is in a hurricane
flood zone

5. need to coordinate existing local efforts to meet the
foregoing problems in a manner which reflects the island's
physical structure and needs, as well as its political
boundaries.

The Bureau of State Planning, in its evaluation of Hutchinson

Island, noted that both St. Lucie and Martin Counties developed

comprehensive development plans for Hutchinson Island. The only

concern expressed by the State was that these two governing bodies

(Martin County and St. Lucie County) had each developed their

respective plans independently and were implementing them independently.

The State recommended that a council of governments be established,






33

as currently proposed by the two counties, to facilitate coordination

between plans and governments. The State further recommended that

Hutchinson Island not be named an area of critical state concern,

citing the strength of local controls and planning as a major reason.














CHAPTER IV

THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

The assessment of the impact of the National Flood Insurance

Program is presented in three sections within this chapter. Each

section examines the impact of the program with respect to a

specific program objective. Each section contains separate

experimental hypotheses and designs.

State and Local Regulation Impact

The methodology in this section was designed to determine

whether any land use regulations implemented after 1968 were

inspired by the National Flood Insurance Program. The experimental

hypothesis tested in this section is:

The National Flood Insurance Program has not increased
state and local land use regulation which discourages the
development of the flood prone coastal areas of Martin
County.

The methodology used to test this hypothesis is very simple. All

state and local land use regulations implemented after 1968 were

examined for their potential to restrict or modify development in

flood plain areas. If the regulations could restrict or modify

development on the flood plain, it was also assumed to discourage

flood plain development by making development more difficult. Next,

the legislative history of the regulation was examined. If

legislative precedent for the regulation was established after 1968,

the regulation was assumed to be potentially precipitated by the









National Flood Insurance Program. Finally the regulation was

examined for specific provisions for flood plain areas. If the

regulation was found to contain no specific provisions for flood

plain areas, the regulation was assumed to be too universal to have

been precipitated by the National Flood Insurance Program.

Using the above impact criteria, each regulation established

after 1968 was scored as "1" under the Development Restriction

category, if the regulation could restrict or modify flood plain

development and a "0" if it could not. The regulation was scored

a "1" under the Legislative Precedent category if the legislative

initiative for the regulation occurred after 1968 was found and "0"

if the initiative was prior to 1968. Last, the regulation was

scored a "1" under the Restrictive Application category if the

regulation had provisions which applied specifically to flood plain

areas and a "0" if the regulation was more universally applicable.

The scores for each category were summed. The regulation was

assumed to be precipitated by the National Flood Insurance Program

if the sum of the category scores was three. Table 4.1 contains

the scores of the regulations examined. Since the sum of the scores

for any regulation was less than three, the National Flood Insurance

Program was found to have not precipitated any state or local land

use regulations.

Mortgage Market Impact

The methodology in this section was designed to determine whether

the National Flood Insurance Program has influenced the lending policies















TABLE 4.1

STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY INITIATIVE


Development Legislative Restrictive
Regulation Level Restricting Precedent Application Sum


Chapter 20 State 0 0 0 0
Chapter 23 State 0 0 0 0
Chapter 160 State 0 0 0 0
Chapter 161 State 1 0 1 2
Chapter 163 State 0 1 0 1
Chapter 253 State 1 0 0 1
Chapter 258 State 1 0 0 1
Chapter 259 State 1 1 0 2
Chapter 370 State 1 0 1 2
Chapter 372 State 0 0 0 0
Chapter 373 State 1 0 1 2
Chapter 375 State 1 0 1 2
Chapter 376 State 0 1 0 1
Chapter 380 State 1 1 0 2
Chapter 403 State 0 1 1 2
Zoning Regulations1 Local 1 0 1 2
Subdivision
Regulations2 Local 1 0 1 2
Landscape
Regulations3 Local 1 1 0 2
Beach Preservation
Control4 Local 1 0 1 2





1. Zoning regulations, 1975 Martin County Code, Sections 23-15,
3 Art 26 A.

2. Subdivision Controls, 1975 Martin County Code, Sections 30--8,
9, 22, 23. Town of Jupiter Island, 1975 ordinances, #19, 65.

3. Landscaping ordinances, Martin County Code 1975, Section 23-49.

4. Tree and wildlife protection ordinances, 1964 Jupiter Island
ordinances, #75, 117, 118.









by savings and loan associations. The specific hypothesis tested in

this section is:

The National Flood Insurance Program has changed the
lending policies of the savings and loan associations
which serve the Martin County beach-front resulting in
increased financing opportunities for beach-front
developers.

The general population considered by this section consists of the

main offices of all savings and loan associations in Martin, Palm

Beach, and St. Lucie counties. Only savings and loan associations

were surveyed since they are the traditional source of funds for

permanent loans on single-family homes.

All seventeen of the savings and loan associations comprising

the population were surveyed by mail. Because of the desire for

anonymity and because of a high response rate expected, follow up

surveys were not included in the methodology design. Consequently,

the results of the survey were constrained by an 83 percent response

rate. This response rate was deemed acceptable,since the nature of

the information desired consisted of any change in the lending policies

of the associations, rather than the determination of the magnitude of

the change.

Since there has been limited research on institutional lending

policy on beach-front property, no standard or representative

instruments were available; therefore, a survey instrument was

developed. (Appendix A contains a copy of the instrument and the

cover letter that was attached). The instrument consisted of three

open-end questions about outstanding loans on the Martin County Atlantic

Oceanfront.









All the institutions responding to the survey now require flood

insurance to lend on ocean-front property. (This result is simply

consistent with the law,since the institutions may not now make loans

in flood plains without the mortgagorsobtaining flood insurance).

Since the availability of flood insurance,20 percent of the respondents

indicated a new willingness to lend on ocean-front property. Only one

respondent (7 percent) stated that the institution will not currently

lend on ocean-front property. Finally, about 40 percent of the

respondents indicated that they have outstanding loans on Martin County

Ocean-front property. Based on the above results, the National Flood

Insurance Program was found to have increased lending volume

on Martin County Beach-front properties.

Property Development Impact

This section describes the methodology which was designed to

determine the impact of the National Flood Insurance Program on

coastal development. The hypothesis in this section is:

The National Flood Insurance Program has not been
successful in discouraging development on the Martin
County Beach-front.

The general population considered within this section consists of all

properties which touch the Martin County ocean-front. Every privately

owned property within the population was selected to comprise the

sample. Publically-owned properties were excluded for three reasons.

First, there were so few improvements on publically owned properties,

no reliable development patterns could be deduced. Second, the National

Flood Insurance Program was not designed to influence public sector

development. Finally, the government should theoretically always build









at society's optimal building distance from the ocean because

governments holding period, capital costs, and benefits should be

equivalent to society's.

Data for this portion of the study were collected on 138 parcels

on Hutchinson Island and 215 parcels on Jupiter Island. Connecting

properties under the same ownership were combined into single parcels.

For each parcel, the following data were gathered:

1. Square footage of property

2. Linear footage of beach-front

3. Linear footage of highway

4. Zoning classification

5. Current land use

6. Square footage of improvements

7. Linear feet from improvements to mean high water mark

8. Highest ground elevation between structure and ocean

9. Age of improvements

The data sources used to gather the information on each parcel were

the Martin County public records and aerial photographs of the

beach-front.

Using the data collected and census data from 1930-1970, a

systems model of development patterns was designed to project forward

the historic development patterns before the implementation of the

Flood Insurance program. The projection of the historic patterns

could then be compared with the patterns that have actually occurred

since implementation of the program.









The model was programmed using a systems modeling program from

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, named DYNAMO. The calculation

of the appropriate model coefficents used data on development prior

to implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. Projecting

the model from 1930-1970, the model was found to have an r2 of .833,

when actual development was compared with the development predicted.

The model was then projected through 1976. The development

projected was then compared with the development which had occurred

to determine whether development had been discouraged since the

implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. Appendix B

contains a copy of the modeling program used.

The development rate since the implementation of the National

Flood Insurance Program was found not to have fallen (p.< .05).

Therefore, the National Flood Insurance Program is assumed not to

have discouraged development on Martin County beachfront.














CHAPTER V

THE IMPACT OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE

The assessment of the impact of the Coastal Construction

Control Line (CCCL) is presented in seven sections. The first six

sections examine the specific methodologies used to examine the

costs and benefits of the implementation of this legislation to

the public and/or private sectors. The final section of this

chapter examines the net cost-benefit of the legislation.

Experimental error throughout each methodology was controlled

in favor of overestimating the benefits and underestimating the

costs of implementation of the CCCL. For example, storm protection

benefits were estimated by using a storm projection method that

assumed future storms could have wave surges about one foot higher

than any previously experienced storm in the area. Governments were

assumed to have provided maximum financial aid in the event of a

disaster. The methodology therefore assumes that all property

owners will carry federal flood insurance so that the bulk of the

losses will be borne by the public. Without such government

assistance, property owners would have to bear more of the losses.

Each methodology provided an estimate for a specific cost or

benefit of implementation of the CCCL. Together, these estimates

provided the basis for determining the cost-benefit relationship of

the legislation. This relationship is used to test the following

specific hypothesis:






42

The implementation of the Coastal Construction
Control Line has resulted in current and near future
net costs to both the public and private land owners
of beachfront properties.

The general population considered within this chapter consists of all

properties which touch the Martin County Atlantic Ocean. All

privately-owned property within the population was selected to

be the experimental sample. Publically-owned properties were

excluded for the same reasons mentioned in Chapter IV.

The following information was gathered for each parcel in

addition to the information collected for the sample mentioned

in Chapter IV.

1. Legal description

2. Current owner

3. Sales history since 1966

4. Assessed valuation

5. Linear feet between improvement and Coastal Construction
Control Line

Storm Damage Reduction Benefits

The expected annual storm damage from tidal floods was

calculated for those structures seaward of the CCCL. Estimation of

storm damage for those structures landward of the CCCL was unnecessary,

since they are not regulated by the building line. It should be

noted that while storm wave surge is the greatest cause of storm

damage along the coast, wind damage also occurs. Construction behind

the CCCL would provide some wind protection benefits, as the CCCL is

usually behind the dune system. Wind damage, however, is relatively

minor, and estimation of wind protection benefits would be extremely








tenuous. Therefore, they were omitted from the study, but are

believed to be more than accounted for by liberal estimation of

other benefits.

Expected storm damage was estimated using the actuarial rates

published in the Flood Insurance Manual of the National Flood Insurance

Program. These actuarial rates were incorporated into formula which

calculated the expected storm loss for any given year. There has been

some criticism that the published rates are seriously underestimated in

coastal areas. This criticism is based upon the belief that the

actuarial rates do not include wave surge resulting from ocean flooding.

(There is some merit to this belief. Actuarial rates are based

primarily, but not exclusively, upon riverine flooding). The following

formula adjusts for this problem by adding wave surge to the expected

flood elevation. This adjustment is termed Standard Project Tidal

Flood and is accounted for in the "h" term of the equation for expected

loss E(L). The "h" term also incorporates an additional adjustment

which relates the slope of the beach seaward of the structure to the

height of the wave runup.


E(L) = 1.5 (FFIPhsi + .5 FFIPhci) (Vsi)

Where:

1. E(L) = Expected storm damage loss for structure s for
individual i.

2. FFIPhsi = Actuarial premium for structure s for
individual i based upon relative flood
elevation h.

3. FFIPhci = Actuarial premium for contents c for individual
i based upon relative flood elevation h.

4. Vsi = Value of structure s for individual i.









5. h = Highest elevation seaward of structure (Standard
Project Tidal Flood + (60 highest elevation sea-
ward of structure/distance from highest elevation
to mean high water mark))

6. 1.5 = An adjustment for a high hazard area as
specified by the flood insurance manual.

7. .5 = An adjustment commonly used in the insurance
industry to estimate the value of the contents.
For example, contents are normally estimated
at one-half of the value of the structure.

Applying the proceeding formulae, to those structures seaward of

the CCCL, the expected storm damage estimates for all properties total

$23,379 per year. Property owners are assumed to carry federal flood

insurance for which they would pay a total of $4,166 per year. If

development patterns of the past were to continue, the payments could

be expected to grow $241.99 per year. Thus, the expected losses to the

property owners seaward of the CCCL are assumed to be $4,166 per year.

The expected benefit to the property owners from construction land-

ward of the CCCL is assumed to be the same $4,166. (This expected

benefit to the property owners is deliberately overstated. Flood

insurance premiums for properties behind the coastal construction

control line are not zero).

Analysis of the storm damage reduction benefits would not be

complete without analysis of the federal costs of disaster assistance.

Federal disaster assistance costs that can be reduced by forcing

development landward of the CCCL, are of three type

1. Federal Disaster Assistance Administration gi~.its for
debris removal, demolition, and emergency beach protection.

2. Small Business Administration subsidized loans for
reconstruction.









3. Federal Flood Insurance benefits.

These expected benefits were estimated using data from the subsidies

received during Hurricane Eloise. (The subsidy per structure in Bay

County seaward of the CCCL at the time of Eloise was calculated). To

reflect inflation since that time, this subsidy was then adjusted

upward. These subsidies should be viewed as maximum possible

subsidies, as the development pattern in Bay County is very different

from Martin County. Bay County had 44.44 percent of the development

on the beaches seaward of the CCCL, as compared to only 9.92 percent

in Martin County.

Using the procedure described above, the expected annual federal

susdidies for those properties seaward of the CCCL were calculated

as follows:

1. Federal Disaster Assistance Administration $ 360.50

2. Small Business Administration $ 889.64

3. Federal Flood Insurance Benefits $ 19,213.26

If the development patterns of the past were to continue, these

subsidies could be expected to grow at $957.75 per year.

Recreational Benefits

In a previous study of Bay County (Shows, 1976),a high

recreational value was attributed to the increase in available


1. There is also a federal income tax subsidy which is being
ignored. The income tax subsidy could be used if the flood
insurance benefits were not paid. Since the flood insurance
subsidy under the emergency program is about 82 percent of the
expected loss, and the income tax subsidy could at most be
70 percent (and most likely only around 30 percent) of the
expected loss, the flood insurance subsidy would be preferable
in most cases. Furthermore, it would more than cover any
income tax subsidy costs that are omitted.









beach when development was forced further landward. In this study,

however, recreational benefits from potential increases in beachfront

are estimated to be insignificant. This conclusion is considered

appropriate for three reasons.

First, existing and current development patterns use very little

of the land seaward of the CCCL. Most of the small amount of the

seaward development is still behind the dunes and usually no more

visible than that of structures immediately landward of the CCCL.

Second, there is currently sufficient public beach and vast

amounts of private undeveloped beachfront. Due to the slow rate of

development along the beach, these vast undeveloped areas are

unlikely to disappear soon.

Third, the additional beach exposed by forcing some development

landward would still be the property of the riparian owner. The only

possible recreational value this land could have would be attributable

to a minor increase in visual open space. The public would be

trespassing if they actually used the beach above the mean high water

line. Therefore, there could be little value attributed for public

use of the property.

Administrative Costs

In calculating the administrative costs for the CCCL, only those

costs directly attributable to the Bureau of Beaches and Shores were

considered. Excluded are those state costs for overhead and

administration incurred outside the agency. Also excluded are costs

incurred by local governments when a state permit is required. There-

fore, the administrative costs must be considered as conservative.









In calculating the costs for establishing and updating the

CCCL, the following reasonable amortization period and capital cost

were selected. (1) The initial establishment of the CCCL was

amortized over 40 years to reflect the approximate economic life of

the structures which the line is designed to protect. (2) An

interest rate of 5 percent was used to reflect the cost of money

for the general public, as measured by interest paid upon public

savings. In the previous Bay County study (Shows, 1976), the cost

of establishing the CCCL was estimated at $2,500 per mile. The

cost of each five year review was estimated at $5,000 per mile.

Using these figures, the annual costs for Martin County's 22 miles

of beachfront are estimated at $3,427.60 for establishment of the

line and $25,759.41 for periodic reviews.

Variance Costs to the Riparian Owners

The variance costs to the riparian owner accrue from two major

sources variance preparation costs and holding costs. (Appendix C

contains a checklist used by the Department for processing variances

and contains the rules and procedures for obtaining a variance.)

Variance preparation costs are estimated to average $1,330. These

costs include $60 (six hours at $10 per hour) for correspondence and

$20 (two hours at $10 per hour) for conferences with agency personnel.

The primary cost component of variance preparation is for topo-

graphic surveys. Three types of topographic surveys are required.

First, the mean high water line must be established. Second, the CCCL


2. The number of hours required for consultations with agency
personnel was estimated by the Bureau of Beaches and Shores.









must be surveyed. Finally, a one-foot contour topographic survey

is conducted for the parcel, identifying location of proposed

construction. Based on the average size of developed lot of

158 feet x 300 feet, this cost is estimated to be $1,250.3

Holding costs occur from two sources. First, there is a cost

of having underdeveloped land tied up in an unproductive use during

the variance proceedings. This cost is estimated at $1,8064 for

vacant land and $0 for land already in productive use. Since 48

percent of the variance applications have been for vacant land, the

average cost per variance is $867. The more significant holding

cost is the inflation of the price of building materials, currently

averaging over 12 percent per year. Every day saved becomes a

significant cost savings. This cost is estimated at $3,180 per

variance for single-family dwellings (193/365 5 days x $66,8186

x .09).

Holding costs for boulder revetments and beach sand are estimated

at $188. This cost is computed as the mean variance processing time

for this type of variance average daily price increase of the


3. This figure was determined through interviews with local
land surveyors and engineers.

4. This figure represents the mean land value ($37,950) x
(mean processing time of 193 days )x (prime rate of .09).


5. Mean variance processing time for single-family dwellings in
Martin County, 1972-1977.

6. Mean estimated construction cost from building permits along
beach in Martin County, 1969-1977, with no adjustment for
inflation.






49

materials mean value of the improvements. Using this same

procedure, the holding cost for a variance requesting a pedestrian

access across the dune is estimated at $21. Weighting each type of

variance holding cost according to the frequency of occurrence in

Martin County, the mean holding cost per variance is $2,659.

Combining all variance costs, the mean cost per variance is

$3,989. Based on projections of past variance requests per year,

the expected annual cost to the riparian owners is $27,923.7

Property Value Impacts

The most direct approach to estimate the impact of the CCCL on

property values would be to examine comparable sales before and after

the implementation of the law. There were two conditions that

precluded the use of that approach: (1) There were insufficient

numbers of comparable sales before and after implementation, and (2)

simultaneous to implementation of the CCCL, other impacts were felt,

such as the availability of federal flood insurance and a recession

in the general economy. Thus, the impact of the CCCL would be

impossible to separate from other influences upon property prices.

A different approach to the estimate impact of the CCCL on

property values was developed. Any change in property values due to

implementation of the line must be caused by market perceptions of an

impact upon the expected utility of that property. To determine

whether there was a market perception of a change in net utility of



7. It should be noted that of the 12 variances granted for
single-family homes between 1972 and 1977, only two have
been built.









the properties, variances among the sale prices of residential

properties in the following four groups were calculated and

statistically compared.

1. Developments built prior to implementation of the CCCL
and seaward of the line.

2. Developments built prior to the implementation of the CCCL
and landward of the line.

3. Developments built after the CCCL implementation and
needing a variance.

4. Developments built after the CCCL implementation in
compliance with the line.

These groups were chosen to detect any property value difference

due to the nearness of the structures to the sea, or any cost inequity

imposed on new construction seaward of the CCCL by the variance

procedure of the CCCL law. Properties having structures nearer the

ocean could be expected to be valued higher than those further from

the ocean due to a superior view and reduced transport cost to the

beach. These benefits may be offset, however, by higher expected

storm damage costs and possible nuisance costs imposed by the general

public's sharing of the beach seaward of the mean high water mark.

Property with structures which required variances to be built could

be expected to be valued less than properties in compliance. The

need for state permits for any structural alterations would increase

the cost of any such modifications. At the same time, properties with

structures requiring variances may enjoy the competitive advantage of

a superior view, so that the net effect is intuitively unclear.

As might be expected from the wide fluctuations in lot and

improvement sizes, the variances of sale prices within and between









groups were very large. In order to compensate for these variances,

an adjusted price per square foot of land was computed by

subtracting standardized values for improvements. The general

regression equation used for standardization was as follows:

Sale price = BO + BI (sq. ft. of property)

+ B2 (No. of beachfront ft.)

+ B3 (No. of highway front ft.)

+ 84 (sq. ft. of improvements)
+ B5 (age of improvements)

+ B6 (sale date)

Using this general model as a theoretical starting point,

alternative models were developed by using transformations of

significant variables and deleting nonsignificant ones. The

resulting equation used for standardization, including the

significant regression coefficients, was:

Sale price = 415.00 + .89 (square feet of property)
+ 111.50 (beachfront feet)
+ 32.89 (square feet of improvements)
.40 (age of structure in 1977)(square feet of
improvements)
+ .0451 (sale price)(1977 year sold)

Where:

415.00 = intercept term
.89 = marginal contribution of the lot size to expected value
111.50 = marginal contribution of the front footage on the beach
to expected value
32.89 = cost per square foot of undepreciated structures
.40(age) = marginal cost of depreciation
.0451 = marginal contribution of market inflation to expected
value

The mean adjusted price per square foot of property was then computed

for each of the four groups. These means were then tested for








significant differences. No significant differences among the means

were found at alpha = .05. The property value impacts were thus

concluded to be zero.

Tax Base Impact

Two factors comprise any potential impact on the tax base of

Martin County. First, any net impact on beachfront property values

would directly impact the tax base. Second, any change in the

development patterns of beachfront properties would correspondingly

impact the growth pattern of the tax base. Since no impact on

property values was found, there is assumed to be no impact on the

tax base resulting from a change in property values.

An examination of the overall development patterns between 1900

and 1977 indicates a distinct curtailment of development since the

early 1960s. Also, an analysis of the variance request history and

building permit activity shows that only 16.6 percent of the requests

for single-family home variances have ended in the construction of

the buildings, while over 50 percent of the building permits granted

on the continental side of the barrier islands have been built.

This comparison suggests that development activity may have been

slowed by imposition of the CCCL but many other factors may also

have influenced development patterns. Thus, no cost was assigned for

a slowing in the growth rate of the tax base resulting from the CCCL.8



8 The Martin County Property Appraiser makes no adjustment,
positive or negative, for properties located seaward of the
CCCL, further substantiating the empiric evidence that values
of such properties are neither penalized nor enhanced.









Net Cost-Benefit

Table 5.1 is a summation of the costs and benefits of the CCCL

estimated as if the CCCL could have been implemented prior to any

development. This table gives an indication of the maximum

theoretical value of the CCCL. Costs are listed in negative

numbers. This table indicates a lack of economic justification for

implementing the CCCL because neither the public nor private land-

owners receive any net benefit.

TABLE 5.1
COST-BENEFIT SUMMARY OF THE CCCL AS IF ALWAYS IMPLEMENTED


Cost/Benefit Annualized Amounts
Public Private

Storm Damage Benefits $ 20,463 $ 4,166
Recreational Benefits 0 0
Property Value Impact 0 0
Administrative Costs $ 56,380 NA
Variance Costs -- $ 27,923

Net Cost-Benefit $ 35,917 $ 23,757


Table 5.2 contains the estimated costs and benefits of the CCCL

since its implementation in 1977, 1987, 1997, 2027 This table shows

the current and projected future cost-benefit relationships for the

CCCL. The future relationships (for the years 1987, 1997, and 2027)

are projected from historic and current experience with the CCCL.

Examination of Table 5.2 reveals that even through the year 2027 there

will be a net total cost of the CCCL. Subtracting variance procedure

costs as costs borne by the private sector, only in the projection

for the year 2027 will expected annual benefits exceed the expected









annual costs for the public sector. It should be noted, however,

that if cumulative costs were examined, the public never receives

an expected net benefit. The implementation of the Coastal

Construction Control Line was therefore found to have resulted in

current and net costs to both the public and beachfront owners.

TABLE 5.2
COST-BENEFIT PROJECTIONS


Annualized Amounts
1977 1987


in Constant Dollars
1997 2027


Public
Storm Damage Benefits,
Recreational Benefits1
Property Value Impacts
Administrative Costs
Subtotal

Private
Variance Procedure Costs

Net Cost-Benefit


6,790
0
0
-56,3802
-49,590


-27,923

-77,513


20,370
0
0
-56,380
-36,010


33,950
0
0
-56,380
-22,430


74,690
0
0
-56,380
+18,310


-27,923 -27,923 -27,923

-63,933 -50,353 -9,613


1. Recreational Benefits remain unchanged,since even after 50 years
there would be only 28 structures seaward of the CCCL.

2. Includes expected costs of the completion of the five-year
reassessment of the CCCL.


Cost/Benefit














CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Over the last two decades, the state and federal governments

have become increasingly involved with land use regulations. This

regulation may be classified in two categories. The first category

is that of indirect regulation which may be called "carrot and

stick" regulation. This regulation provides an incentive (the
"carrot") to encourage cooperation with the regulation and special

sanctions (the "stick") if cooperation is not achieved. The second

category is that of direct regulation. This type of regulation

exerts direct control over land use through the exercise of the

police power.

State and federal land use regulations have frequently been

precipitated by the failure of some local governments adequately to

regulate development within their communities. This failure may

have been caused by a lack of sufficient local information on the

consequences of the development patterns or by the undue local

influence of special interest minorities. Unfortunately, when the

state and federal governmentsmust make land use regulations,the

resulting regulations must have sufficiently broad application to

influence development in many different geographic areas. Local

conditions may vary widely from one regulated area to another;

consequently, the impact of the legislation will also vary.

55









The rational for coastal zone regulation must be understood

from its historic, economic, and legal perspectives. Much of the

development along the coastal areas prior to the late 1960's,

removed all or part of the sand dune systems which protected and

replenished the beaches. At that time, few people realized the

role of the dune system in storm protection or beach nourishment.

The economic justification for public regulation of beachfront

development is based upon the theory of the existence of an optimal

building line along the coast for society. Because of the relatively

short holding period for the developer and his relatively high cost

of capital, the developer will have economic incentives to build

seaward of society's optimal building line.

Coastal zone land use regulation is constrained by the United

States Constitution which places certain restrictions upon the

legislation. These restrictions include limitations on the taking

of private lands by the government and limitations on infringement

of the rights of citizens to the due process of the law, to be

treated equally under the law, and to travel freely and live in any

public community within the United States of America.

In an effort to curb exponentially growing public expenditures

for disaster relief, the federal government created the National

Flood Insurance Program. This program expected to curb disaster

expenditures in two ways. First, some of the disaster expenditures

would be transferred back to the people choosing to develop flood

areas. This was accomplished by encouraging the people to accept a

certain loss annually in the form of flood insurance premiums in









order to protect themselves against a much larger uncertain loss

from a flood disaster. Second, the program intended to discourage

flood plain development in the future,thereby reducing the growth

of disaster payments.

Faced with increasing destruction of its beachfront natural

resources, the State of Florida enacted the Beach and Shore

Preservation Act. One provision of the act provided the mechanism

for the establishment of the Coastal Construction Control Line along

the beaches of Florida. The legislation provided for strict state

control of construction seaward of that line. The state could then

be assured of some control over the destruction of the beach sand

dune system.

Martin County has 22 miles of ocean shoreline which, like much

of Florida's Atlantic Coast, consists of barrier islands. On the

northern island, Hutchinson Island, development has been relatively

sparce (except for a boom of multi-familydevelopments)since 1968.

On the southern island of Jupiter, primarily single-family development

has occurred. The homes on Jupiter Island are luxurious,

averaging over 4,000 square feet, with beachfront lots of over one

acre. Perhaps due to the wealth of the residents, local involvement

in land use regulation extends back as early as 1947. Since then,

the community has taken an active role in the control of undesirable

development and beach erosion curtailment.

The National Flood Insurance Program was found not to have

encouraged new state and local flood plain regulations applicable

in Martin County. The Program was also found to have increased the







58

financial opportunities for beachfront construction. Finally, the

Program was found not to have discouraged development in the coastal

flood plain. All of these findings directly contradict stated

legislative objectives.

The implementation of the Coastal Construction Control Line

was found to impose a net cost on the public. That is, the benefits

resulting from the program do not offset the costs incurred through

implementation and administration of the program. There was no

measureable impact on single-family residential property values

resulting from implementation of the program. The land utilization

pattern on Jupiter Island has been essentially unchanged, while the

only change in land utilization on Hutchinson Island has been

increased multi-family residential development, for which there is

no identifiable link to the CCCL program. With respect to multi-

family development, there has been general compliance with the letter

of the law, but unwillingness to comply with the intent of the law.

That is, multi-family developments have been constructed as close to

the CCCL as possible.

This study suggests that the law is cost unfeasible primarily

because historic development patterns have been prudent and reasonable.

Thus, there is little reduction in the expected storm damage after

implementation of the CCCL. Since the development of multi-family

projects occurred primarily after implementation of the CCCL, there

is no apparent evidence of any positive change in the patterns

resulting from implementation of the law. In fact, the heights of

the multi-family projects impose a significant loss of visual open









space. Additionally, multi-family developments contribute to the

erosion problem, even though they may be in compliance with the

law by creating expanded traffic on the dunes. Increased traffic

reduces vegetation levels and leads to greater erosion. This

additional erosion further increases the expected storm damage.

Additionally, there is usually a greater purge of vegetation in

the construction of multi-family units, since secondary dune

lines are usually leveled. Finally, the heights of multi-family

units reduce the wind action which would normally help to build up

the height of the dunes as a natural form of storm protection.

As indicated previously, the local government bodies in Martin

County have generally anticipated beachfront growth problems and

have implemented appropriate ordinances to combat those problems.

This factor has greatly contributed to orderly growth in the area.

However, growth,until the recent past,was limited to single-family

residential development, and there are indications that the local

ordinances and policies are not as effective in controlling the

problems resulting from multi-family development.

Limitations and Recommendations

There are several limitations with respect to this study.

Foremost is that any conclusions and recommendations can be applied

only to Martin County. This is of particular importance, since

the stated regulations were evaluated only with respect to their

impact upon Martin County. As such, findings are localized and

cannot be applied "carte blanche" to other coastal areas of the

state. This localization is crucial, since each area of the state









has its own characteristics, and evaluation of any law must be made

with respect to those specifically localized characteristics.

Further research in other areas may find many similarities to the

results found in Martin County and may therefore suggest changes

in state and local land use regulation.

Studies made on the impact of the National Flood Insurance

Program and the Coastal Construction Control Line have all been in

relatively low population areas. Further studies should be under-

taken to determine the impact of selected regulations on a high

population area such as Miami Beach. For example, the impact of

the historical Flood Insurance Program financing may be be found

to be insignificant because existing development pressure on the

beaches creates enough incentive to attract non-traditional financing

sources.

Another recommendation of this study is that at least in the

case of Martin County, the selected regulations should be repealed

for single-family development. The National Flood Insurance Program

seems only to provide a public subsidy for the single-family

residents. The Coastal Construction Control Line seems to be

unnecessary in light of the strength of existing local land use

controls.

With respect to multi-family development, restrictions should

be strengthened to include provisions for additional setback

requirements as functions of building height and occupational

density. Restrictions on flood insurance for multi-family developments

should be increased so that the lender must consider flood damage

risk while deciding his lending strategy.





61



Finally this study suggests that state and federal land use

regulations should be reviewed periodically to determine whether

the goals and objectives of such legislation are being achieved.

Perhaps local governments could also be given the power to

periodically review the impact of the state and federal regulations

and recommend repealing the regulations in their communities if the

regulation is found not to achieve its goals.





























APPENDIX A

MORTGAGE LENDER SURVEY AND COVER LETTER









Martin County Coastal Setback Line

Impact Study

Director:
Halbert C. Smith, Jr.

Research Assoc:
Jerry Belloit
D. J. Snapp

June 2, 1978



Attention: Mortgage Lending Officer

Dear Sir:

I am engaged in research of coastal zone land use management
policies at the state and federal levels. Of particular interest
are the impacts of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the
State of Florida Coastal Construction Setback Line with respect to
Martin County, Florida.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide us with
a general idea, concerning your bank's lending policies with
respect to beach-front property, by answering the short questionnaire
provided. Enclosed please find an addressed postage paid return
envelope for your convenience.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,



Jerry D. Belloit
Research Associate


Enclosures


College of Business Administration
Real Estate Research Center
904-392-0157


University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611









QUESTIONNAIRE


1. Did you make loans on property fronting the Atlantic Ocean prior
to the institution of Federal Flood Insurance?


YES NO-


If not, what were the reasons for not lending
on those properties (i.e., risk, no demand,
etc.)


2. Have you made loans on property fronting the Atlantic Ocean
since implementation of Federal Flood Insurance?


YES_ NO


If not, what are the reasons for not lending
on these properties?


IF YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION #2 WAS "NO" THERE IS NO NEED TO
CONTINUE; SIMPLY RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE
PROVIDED.

3. Are there any additional considerations required in the Mortgage
Package for property fronting on the Atlantic Ocean above the
considerations in a normal mortgage package?


YES___ NO


If so, what are these additional considerations?


4. Do you have any loans outstanding on the Atlantic Coast of Martin
County, Florida?

YES___ NO


THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION






























APPENDIX B

SYSTEMS PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT














SYSTEMS PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

Martin County Beachfront Development Model for
Single-Family Development
Population Sector (updated from 1970 census)

Cohort Number 1 (0-15 years old)

P1. K=P.J+DT*(BR.JK+NTMGI.JK-DR.JK-MATR1.JK.INFDR.JK)
Pl=6670
(Cohort Population)
BR. K=COBR2. K+COBR3. K+COBR4. K
(Births = sum of births from mothers in other Cohorts)
NTMG1.KL=P1.K*.08138083
(Net Immigration into Cohort)
DR.KL+P1.K*.0098
(Death Rate for Cohort)
MAIR1.KL+P1.K/15
(Matriculation Rate into next Cohort)
INFDR.KL+BR.K*.0144
(Infant Death Rate)

Cohort Number 2 (16-25)

P2.K+P2.J+DT *(MATR1.JK+NTMG2.JK-DR2.JK-MATR2.JK)
P2=3625
NTMG2.KL=P2.K*.08424092
DR2.KL=P2.K*. 00130336
COBR2.KL-P2.K*.0428546
MATR2.KL=P2.K/10

Cohort Number 3 (26-45)

P3.K=P3.J+DT*(MATR2.JK+NTMG3.JK-DR3.JK-MATR3.JK)
P3=5180
NTMG3.KL=P3.K*.07754074
DR3.KL=P3.K*.00305707
COBR3.KL=P3.K*.02430285
MATR3.KL=P3.K/20

Cohort Number 4 (46-65)

P4.K=P4.J+DT*(MATR3.JK+NTMG3.JK-DR4.JK-MATR4.JK)
P4=6576
NTMG4.KL=P4.K*.08236098
DR4.KL=P4.K*.00973776











R COBR4.KL=P4.K*.00003285
R MATR4.KL=P4.K/20
*
* Cohort Number 5 (66 up)
*
L P5.K=P5.J+DT*(MATR4.JK+NTMG5.JK-DR5.JK)
N P5=5984
R NTMG5.KL=P5.K*.13466686
R DR5.KL=P5.K*.03463511
*
A TPOP.K=P1.K+P2.K+P3.K+P4.K+P5.K
*
* DEVELOPMENT SECTOR
*
A E1.K=LN(ABS(16933-TPOP.K)
A TDEV.K=3.8+.2695*(LN(TPOP.K)-11)*E1.K*(E1.K-9)
A DHUT.K=TDEV.K*.1864407
A DJUP.K=TDEV.K*.8135593
A DHSL.K=DHUT.K*.25
* Development Seaward of Setback Line on Hutchinson Island
A DJSL.K=DJUP.K*09375
* Development Seaward of Setback Line on Jupiter Island
*
*
* The function LN is the same as Version III LOGN
*
* The function ABS is an absolute value function which may
* need to be achieved through an auxiliary MARCO.






























APPENDIX C

VARIANCE PROCEDURE SAMPLE CHECKLIST AND REGULATIONS








DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Harmon W. Shields Crown Building/202 Blount Street
Executive Director Room 420/Tallahassee 32304/904-488-3180


The following information will be necessary before this office can
complete its processing of your application for a variance to the
established setback line:

1. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant or
his duly authorized agent.
2. The applicant shall provide the Department with evidence
of his ownership and a legal description of the property
for which the variance is requested. If the applicant is
not the property owner, the applicant shall provide the
Department with a duly executed statement from the owner
of record, together with proof of ownership, consenting
to the work, activity, or construction for which the
variance has been requested.
3. A statement that the proposed work or activity does not
violate any local setback and zoning ordinances.
4. Statements describing the proposed work or activity and
specific reasons why the applicant feels that the
variance should be granted.
5. The application shall be accompanied by a recent
topographic survey of the property in question, certified
by a land surveyor or engineer registered in the State of
Florida and showing the following information:
a. The approximate location and the elevation of the
mean high water line on the subject property;
b. The location of the setback line for the full width
of the subject property;
c. Plot plan of any existing structures and the proposed
construction or activity showing the significant
distance from the proposed construction or activity
to the setback line;
d. If the variance is requested under the provisions of
Section 161.052(2)(b), Florida Statutes, or Section
161.053(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the survey shall
show the existing structures that are considered to
have established the construction line;
e. Variances requested under the provisions of Section
161.053, Florida Statutes, shall specify the distance
and direction from the property in question to the
nearest setback line permanent referenced monument
and the number of that monument.
6. Cross section of all sub-grade construction or excavation
with elevations references to 1929 sea level datum.
7. Elevations of the lowest floor and the first dwelling
floor.
8. Details of all proposed structures or activities which
will be seaward of the setback line.





70


9. Details and justification for any proposed waste water
discharge onto, over, under or across the beach and/or
dunes, including but not limited to storm water runoff,
swimming pool drainage or air conditioner cooling water
discharge.
10. Additional information:








STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF MARINE RESOURCES

Secretary of State Codification No. 16B-25


RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR COASTAL CONSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION

(Variances to Setback Line)


16B-25.01 Scope.

The scope of this rule is to implement Section 161.052 and 161.053,
Florida Statutes, in setting forth the requirements and procedures
relating to coastal construction and other activities seaward of a
setback line, procedures for processing requests for variances and
the conditions placed on such variances pursuant to the general
authority contained in Section 370.021 (1), Florida Statutes.

16B-25.02 Definitions.

When used in this Rule, the following words shall have the
indicated meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

A. "Department" means the State of Florida Department of
Natural Resources.
B. "Person" means any person, firm, corporation, county,
municipality, township, special district or any public
agency.
C. "Applicant" means any person who has applied or is in
the process of applying, for a variance under the
provisions of Sections 161.052 and 161.053, Florida Statutes.
D. "Setback Line" (SBL) means the line seaward of which
construction or excavation is prohibited under the provisions
of either Section 161.052, Florida Statutes, or Section
161.053, Florida Statutes.
E. "Variance" means the authorization by the Department to
perform certain specified work or activity in a specified
location seaward of the setback line.
F. "Variance condition" means a statement or stipulation
issued with a variance with which compliance is necessary
for continued validity of the variance.

16B-25.03 General Prohibitions.

A. No person shall make any excavation or place any structure
seaward of the setback line except as provided in Section 161.052(2)
or 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.








B. In addition to 16B-25.03(A) above, in those counties in
which a setback line has been established, under the provisions of
Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, no person shall remove any
beach material, or otherwise alter existing ground elevations,
drive any vehicle on, over, or across any sand dune; or damage or
cause to be damaged such sand dune or the vegetation growing thereon
except as provided in Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.

16B-25.04 Exemptions.

A. The following types of construction work or activity are not
deemed to constitute "material alternations", as specified in Section
161.053(5), Florida Statutes, and therefore no permit, waiver, or
variance from the Department is required under Section 161.052(2) or
161.053(2), Florida Statutes:

(1) Addition, modification, maintenance or repair to any
existing structure within the limits of the existing foundation which
does not require, involve or include any addition to, repair, or
modification of the existing foundation of that structure. Specifically
excluded from this exemption are seawalls and any additions or
enclosures added, constructed, or installed below the first dwelling
floor or lowest deck of the existing structure.

(2) Minor, temporary, excavation, such as for the installation
of utilities, provided that the gound surface is returned to its
approximate pre-excavation elevation and that the area of excavation
disturbance is revegetated with a suitable type of vegetation.
Specifically, excluded from this exemption are excavation for, or
installation of, any outfall lines discharging fluids onto, over,
under or across the beach and/or dunes.

16B-25.05 Procedure to obtain variance; application.

A. Any person desiring to obtain a variance from the Department
shall submit an application to the Bureau of Beaches and Shores,
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida,
32304, which shall contain the following information:

(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant
or his duly authorized agent.

(2) The applicant shall provide the Department with evidence
of his ownership and legal description of the property for which the
variance is requested. If the applicant is not the property owner,
the applicant shall provide the Department with a duly executed
statement from the owner of record consenting to the work, activity,
or construction for which the variance has been requested.
(3) A statement that the proposed work or activity does not
violate any local ordinances.









(4) Statements describing the proposed work or activity
and specific reasons why the applicant feels that the variance
should be granted.

(5) The application shall be accompanied by a recent
topographic survey of the property in question, certified by a land
surveyor or engineer registered in the State of Florida and showing
the following information:

(a) The approximate location and the elevation of the
mean high water line on the subject property.

(b) The location of the setback line for the full width
of the subject property.

(c) Plot plan of existing structures and the proposed
construction or activity showing the significant distances from the
proposed construction or activity to the setback line.

(d) If the variance is requested under the provisions of
Section 161.052(2)(b), Florida Statutes, or Section 161.053(2)(b),
Florida Statutes, the survey shall show the existing structures that
are considered to have established the construction line.

(e) Variances requested under the provisions of Section
161.053, Florida Statutes, shall specify the distance and direction
from the property in question to the nearest setback line permanent
reference monument and the number of that monument.

B. Variance requested which involve proposed construction shall
be accompanied by construction plans which provide at least, but are
not limited to the following information:

(1) Cross sections of all sub-grade construction or
excavation with elevations referenced to 1929 sea level datum, (NGVD).

(2) Elevations of the lowest floor and the first dwelling
floor.

(3) Details of all proposed structures or activities which
will be seaward of the setback line.

(4) Details and justification for any proposed waste water
discharge onto, over, under or across the beach and/or dunes,
including but not limited to storm water runoff, swimming pool
drainage or air conditioner cooling water discharge.

C. For those counties in which a setback line has been established,
under the provisions of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, there is on
file with the Department storm tide data and some data on shoreline
stability. For most projects, these data will be sufficient to









satisfy the requirements of Section 161.053(2)(a), Florida Statutes,
for such data and such data need not be filed by the applicant.
Should the applicant have additional data which he wishes to file,
it will be evaluated. On the more complex projects for which
variances are requested, additional storm tide and shoreline
stability data may be required.

D. The Department may require such additional information as is
necessary for proper evaluation of an application.

E. The Department may waive any of the above requirements if
in the opinion of the Department such information is not necessary
for a proper evaluation of the proposed work or activity.

16B-25.06 Consultation.

The applicant, or his engineer may consult with the Department
Staff concerning any construction, expansion, modification, or
activity seaward of the SBL, however, any representation by the
Department Staff shall not relieve any person of any requirement
of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act or Department Rules.

16B-25.07 Processing Procedure.

A. Application will be checked for completeness. If the
required information has not been submitted, the Department shall
notify the applicant that sufficient information for processing
is lacking and shall allow a reasonable time for submission of
the necessary information.

B. An office review of the proposed work or activity will be
made, and if indicated by the nature of the project, a field
investigation will be conducted.

C. If the proposed project is acceptable to the Bureau, the
applicant will be notified by mail of the recommendation which will
be made to the Executive Board of the Department (Governor and
Cabinet) and the date, time and place when the recommendation will
be heard. The applicant and any interested persons may appear
and/or be represented at that time and make their position known to
the Executive Board of the Department.

D. If the proposed project is not acceptable to the Bureau, the
applicant will be so notified and given an opportunity to modify his
plans to make them acceptable.

E. If, for some reason, the applicant cannot, or does not elect
to modify his plans, to such an extent that they are acceptable, the
Bureau then, upon request of the applicant, will proceed to carry out
the procedures as described in C above.








16B-25.08 Variance Conditions.

A. The formal variance will be issued by the Department Staff,
upon its approval by the Executive Board of the Department
(Governor and Cabinet).

B. By accepting the variance, the applicant agrees to:

(1) Carry out the work or activity for which the variance
was granted; in accordance with the plans and specifications filed
with the Bureau as a part of his application and approved by the
Executive Board of the Department.

(2) Comply with any conditions imposed upon the variance by
the Department.

(3) Conduct the work or activity authorized under the
variance in such a way as to minimize the adverse impact upon the
beach-dune system.

(4) Hold and save the State of Florida, the Department, its
officers and employees harmless from any damage to persons or property
which might results from the work, activity or structures authorized
under the variance.

(5) Furnish to the Department, upon completion of the
authorized work, activity or construction, certification by a
professional engineer, registered in the State of Florida, that the
construction has been completed and that it is acceptable and
satisfactory in accordance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Department.

16B-25.09 Time Limits on Authorized Variances.

A. The Department may place a reasonable time limit on variances
after taking into consideration the complexity of the proposed work or
the nature of the activity authorized. Unless otherwise specified,
the time limit on variances shall be six (6) months for initiation
of construction with completion within eighteen (18) months.

B. The Department will give due consideration to reasonable
requests in writing for an extension of the time limit.














BIBLIOGRAPHY


Bailey, Martin J., "Note on the Economics of Residential Zoning and
Urban Renewal," Land Economics, Vol. XXXV, No. 3, 1959,
pp. 288-292.

Center for Governmental Responsibility, Analysis of Laws Relating
to Florida Coastal Zone Management, University of Florida,
Gainesville, 1976.

Clawson, Marion and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation,
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966.

Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory, "Recommended
Coastal Setback Line for Martin County Florida," University
of Florida, Gainesville, 1973.

Collier, Courtland A., Bulkhead and Revetment Effectiveness, Cost and
Construction, 2nd Edition, Department of Natural Resources and
Sea Grant Program, Gainesville, 1976.

Collier, C., K. Eshanghi, G. Cooper, and R. Wolfe, Guidelines for Beach
Construction, With Special Reference to the Coastal Construction
Setback Line, Sea Grant Program, University of Florida,
Gainesville, 1977.

Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, Insurance and Other
Programs For Financial Assistance to Flood Victims, Washington,
September 1966.

Conner, J. R., K. C. Gibbs, and J. E. Reynolds, "The Effects of Water
Frontage on Recreational Property Values," Journal of Leisure
Research, Vol. V, Spring 1973, pp. 26-38.

Costonis, John J., Regulation V. Compensation in Land Use Control,
Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California
at Berkeley, Berkeley, 1977.

Davis, John H., Jr. Stablization of Beaches and Dunes by Vegetation
in Florida, Department of Natural Resources and Sea Grant Program,
Gainesville, 1975.

David, Elizabeth L., "Lakeshore Property Values: A Guide to Public
Investment in Recreation," Water Resources Research, Vol. V,
No. 4, August 1968, pp. 679-707.








Drier, James E. and U. Davis Montgomery, "Resources Allocation
Information Cost and the Form of Government Intervention,"
Natural Resource Journal, Vol. XIII, January 1973, pp. 89-105.

Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Authorities and
Regulations for the Federal Disaster Assistance Program,
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1976.

Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Digest of Federal Disaster
Assistance Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
1975.

Federal Insurance Administration, Elevated Residential Structures,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1977.

Federal Insurance Administration, Statutory Land Use Control Enablin
Authority in the Fifty States, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, 1976.

Gapinski, James H. and Howard P. Tuckman, Travel Demand Functions for
Florida Bound Tourists, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
February 1975.

Goldin, Kenneth D., "Recreational Parks and Beaches: Peak Demand,
Quality and Managment," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol III,
Spring 1971, pp. 81-107.

Governor's Property Rights Study Commission, "Takings, Due Process,
and the Police Powers," Urban and Regional Development Center,
University of Florida, Gainesville, 1975 (Working Paper No. 8).

Haefeze, Edwin T. ed, The Governance of Common Property Resources,
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1974.

Harr, Charles M., Land Use Planning, Little, Brown and Company,
Boston, 1971.

Helock, Richard D., "Recreation Behavior Patterns as Related to Site
Characteristics of Beaches, Journal of Leisure Research,
Vol. II, Fall 1970, pp. 237-249.

Holden, Samuel F., "Appraising Land With a Water Boundary," The
Appraisal Journal, Vol. XXXIX, April 1973, pp. 175-179.

Ketchum, Bostwich, H., ed., The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of
the Coastal Zone, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1972.

Kleppe, Thomas S., Chm., A Unified National Program for Flood Plain
Management, United States Water Resources Council, Washington,
1976.









Krasnowiecki, J. and M. Strong, "Compensable Regulations for Open
Space: A Means of Controlling Urban Growth," American Institute
of Planners Journal, Vol XXIX, 1963, p. 87.

Kusler, Jon A., A Perspective on Flood Plain Regulations For
Flood Plain Management, Department of the Army, Washington, 1976.

Lynch, Mitchell C., "The Cruel Sea," Wall Street Journal, May 16,
1978, p. 1.

Mandelker, Daniel R. and Thea A. Sherry, "The National Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972," Urban Land Annual, Vol. VII., 1974,
pp. 119-137.

Miller, H. Crane, "Coastal Flood Plain Management and the National
Flood Insurance Program: A Case Study of Three Rhode Island
Communities," Environmental Comment, November 1975, pp. 2-14.

Mishan, E. J., Cost-Benefit Analysis, New and Expanded Edition,
Praeger, New York, 1976.

Mitchell, James K., Community Response to Coastal Erosion: Individual
and Collective Adjustments to Hazard on the Atlantic Shore,
Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1974.

National Flood Insurers Association, National Flood Insurance Program
-- Flood Insurance Manual, National Flood Insurers Association,
Arlington, VA., 2nd Ed., 1975.

National Resources Defence Council, Land Use Controls in the United
States, The Dial Press/James Wade, New York, 1977.

Natural Resources Defence Council, Who's Minding the Shore?, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, 1976.

Panel on Coastal Surges, Methodology for Estimating the Characteristics
of Coastal Surges From Hurricanes, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, 1975.

Purpura, James A. and William M. Sensabaugh, "Coastal Construction
Setback Line," Florida Cooperative Extension Service Marine
Advisory Program, Gainesville, 1974.

Schoenbaun, T., R. Merritt, M. Hogue, and S. Johnson, Ocean and Coastal
Law Teaching Materials, University of North Carolina Sea Grant,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1977.

Seckler, David W., "On the Uses and Abuses of Economic Science in
Evaluating Public Outdoor Recreation," Land Economics,
Vol. XLII', November 1966, pp. 485-94.

Shows, E. Warren, The Economic Impact of Florida's Coastal Setback Line
-- A Study of Bay County, University of South Florida, Tampa, 1976.








Smith, Robert J., "The Evaluation of Recreational Benefits: The
Clawson Method in Practice," Urban Studies, Vol. VIII, June 1971,
pp. 89-102.

State of Florida, The Florida Coastal Management Program, Department
of Environmental Regulation, 1978.

State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida, Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, 1971.

U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Coastal Processes
and Beach Erosion, Washington, January 1967.

U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Land Against the Sea,
Washington, May 1964.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Feasibility Report for Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Protection, Washington, 1976.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Feasibility Report for Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Protection, Washington, 1965.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Flood Plain Information Coastal Areas
Martin County, Florida, Washington, June 1973.

U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Cost Sharing for
Shoreline Protection, Arlington, VA., August 1974.

U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resrouces, Estimating the Value
and Incidence of Recreation Benefits From a Beach Erosion Control
Project, Arlington, VA., October 1974.

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Flood
Insurance Program, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
January 1974, p. 21.

U.S. Secretary of the Army, National Shoreline Study, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, Vol. I, June 29, 1973.

U.S. Secretary of the Army, National Shoreline Study, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, Vol. III, June 29, 1973.

Vanggen, Douglas A. and Jon A. Dusler, "Natural Resource Protection
Through Shoreline Regulation: Wisconsin," Land Economics,
Vol. XVIV, 1968, pp. 73-86.

Vickerman, R. W.., "The Evaluation of Benefits From Recreation Projects,"
Urban Studies, Vol XI, 1974, pp. 277-288.

Wilkinson, Paul F., "The Use of Models in Predicting the Consumption
of Outdoor Recreation," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol X,
Summer 1973, pp. 34-48.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jerry Douglas Belloit was born on May 11, 1951, in Washington,

D.C. At an early age his family moved to Jacksonville, Florida,

where he attended public school. He graduated from Robert E. Lee

High School in 1969.

Mr. Belloit began his college career at Oxford College of

Emory University in 1969. In 1971 he transferred to the University

of Florida. With a major in psychology, he earned a Bachelor of

Science degree in 1974. Following a year of work in industry, he

entered the University of Florida College of Business Administration

to study real estate. In 1976, he earned a Master of Business

Administration degree.

Enjoying his work in the master's program, Mr. Belloit decided

to continue his real estate education by working toward his

doctorate. During his doctoral program, he engaged in several

contract research projects. In 1977 he directed the Lake City

Downtown Revitalization Study. In 1978 he was appointed graduate

research associate and continued his work for the Real Estate Research

Center at the University of Florida.

In September of 1978, Mr. Belloit left the University of Florida

to accept a position of assistant professor at Appalachian State

University. In his first year he was responsible for the creation of

a degree program in real estate and also for the creation of the Real

Estate Research Center of the John A. Walker College of Business.
80










I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Professor of Real Estate


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation anp
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dis prtatio for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


Clayton Curt s
Associate Pro essor of Real Estate


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion
it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and
is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a diss rotation for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy /


Earl Starnes
Professor of Urban and Regional
Planning


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate in the College
of Business Administration and to the Graduate Council, and was
accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

December 1979


Dean, Graduate School




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs