THE IMPACT OF SELECTED STATE AND FEDERAL
LAND USE REGULATIONS ON
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEACHES
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
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
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................ .. ii
ABSTRACT ................................................... v
I INTRODUCTION......................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................ .. 2
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
VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................... 55
Conclusions ........................................ 55
Limitations and Recommendations................... 59
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
Jerry Douglas Belloit
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
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
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.
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
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
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).
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
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.
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-
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
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.
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
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
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.
E (L) = ( v p di)
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
The amount of each individual cost or benefit is generally related
to the distance from the structure to the ocean in the following
The view benefits = f ( i c
Personal transportation costs = f (_is Ice
Privacy benefits = f (distance)
Storm damage costs = f 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
THE MARTIN COUNTY COASTAL ECOSYSTEM
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 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.
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-
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
7. Martin County should institute PUD zoning procedures.
8. A single special tax district should be established for
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
Mortgage Market Impact
The methodology in this section was designed to determine whether
the National Flood Insurance Program has influenced the lending policies
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
Regulations2 Local 1 0 1 2
Regulations3 Local 1 1 0 2
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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)
1. E(L) = Expected storm damage loss for structure s for
2. FFIPhsi = Actuarial premium for structure s for
individual i based upon relative flood
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
the properties, variances among the sale prices of residential
properties in the following four groups were calculated and
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
+ .0451 (sale price)(1977 year sold)
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
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.
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.
COST-BENEFIT SUMMARY OF THE CCCL AS IF ALWAYS IMPLEMENTED
Cost/Benefit Annualized Amounts
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.
in Constant Dollars
Storm Damage Benefits,
Property Value Impacts
Variance Procedure Costs
-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.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
MORTGAGE LENDER SURVEY AND COVER LETTER
Martin County Coastal Setback Line
Halbert C. Smith, Jr.
D. J. Snapp
June 2, 1978
Attention: Mortgage Lending Officer
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.
Jerry D. Belloit
College of Business Administration
Real Estate Research Center
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
1. Did you make loans on property fronting the Atlantic Ocean prior
to the institution of Federal Flood Insurance?
If not, what were the reasons for not lending
on those properties (i.e., risk, no demand,
2. Have you made loans on property fronting the Atlantic Ocean
since implementation of Federal Flood Insurance?
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
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?
If so, what are these additional considerations?
4. Do you have any loans outstanding on the Atlantic Coast of Martin
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION
SYSTEMS PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
SYSTEMS PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
Martin County Beachfront Development Model for
Population Sector (updated from 1970 census)
Cohort Number 1 (0-15 years old)
BR. K=COBR2. K+COBR3. K+COBR4. K
(Births = sum of births from mothers in other Cohorts)
(Net Immigration into Cohort)
(Death Rate for Cohort)
(Matriculation Rate into next Cohort)
(Infant Death Rate)
Cohort Number 2 (16-25)
Cohort Number 3 (26-45)
Cohort Number 4 (46-65)
* Cohort Number 5 (66 up)
* DEVELOPMENT SECTOR
* Development Seaward of Setback Line on Hutchinson Island
* 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.
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
8. Details of all proposed structures or activities which
will be seaward of the setback line.
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
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)
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.
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
B. "Person" means any person, firm, corporation, county,
municipality, township, special district or any public
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.
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
(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.
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
(3) Conduct the work or activity authorized under the
variance in such a way as to minimize the adverse impact upon the
(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.
Bailey, Martin J., "Note on the Economics of Residential Zoning and
Urban Renewal," Land Economics, Vol. XXXV, No. 3, 1959,
Center for Governmental Responsibility, Analysis of Laws Relating
to Florida Coastal Zone Management, University of Florida,
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,
Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, Insurance and Other
Programs For Financial Assistance to Flood Victims, Washington,
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,
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,
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,
Gapinski, James H. and Howard P. Tuckman, Travel Demand Functions for
Florida Bound Tourists, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
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,
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,
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,
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,
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,
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.
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
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.
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 /
Professor of Urban and Regional
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.
Dean, Graduate School