Hurricane Hazard Mitigation and Post-Hurricane Reconstruction Plan-1984

coastal
resources co l la bo ra
David J. Brower
DAM COPY DCM COPY
'
lease do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management
HURRICANE HAZARD MITIGATION
AW POST -HURRICANE
RECONSTRUCTION FLAN
NAGS HEAD, NORTH
OAROLINA
MAY 1984
612 Shady Lawn Road Chapel Hill, North
Carolina 27514 919_94 2-8937

I
The preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds
provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
1
1

ITable of Contents
Chapters/Sections Page
I. The Nature of the Hurricane Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
e and Storm Hazards i n Nags Head . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. Hurricane g
111. Stages in Storm Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IV. Pre -Storm Mitigation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
V. Post -Storm Reconstruction Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix: Approaches to the Reduction of Coastal
Storm Hazards
I

I
1
I. The Nature of the Hurricane Event
A tropical hurricane is a cyclonic meteorological event which is
formed and fueled through the release of latent heat from ocean water
condensation (see Simpson and Riehl, 1981). Its major features are high
circular winds (counter clock wise)caand a substantial drop in atmospheric
pressure. Atlantic hurricanes (formed in the Atlantic Basin) typically
develop between the months of June and November. Between 1899 and 1980
there have been 138 hurricanes which have crossed the United States coast-
linefor an approximate annual average of 1.7 per year. While the State of
Texas has received more hurricanes than any other state, followed by the
states of Florida and Louisiana, North Carolina is the fourth state in
terms of hurricane strikes. Between 1890 and the present, North Carolina
has experienced 21 hurricanes, or an average of approximately one hurricane
every four years (Newman et al., 1978). Of these,8 were considered major
hurricanes (categories 3 to 5 under the Saffir/Simpson scale, see Table 2)

2.
17,
1
1
I
1
Table 1
Number of Hurricanes (Direct Hits) Affecting U.S. and
Individual States, 1899-1980, According to Safir/Simpson Hurricane Scale
Category Number Major
Area
1
2
3
4
5
All
Hurricanes
(> 3)
U.S.(Texas to Maine)
49
33
41
13
2
138
56
Texas(TX)
9
9
8
6
0
32
14
(North)
4
3
2
4
0
13
6
(Central)
2
2
1
1
0
6
2
(South)
3
4
5
1
0
13
6
Louisiana (LA)
5
5
7
3
1
21
11
Mississippi (MS)
1
1
4
0
1
7
5
Alabama (AL)
4
1
4
0
0
9
4
Florida (FL)
16
14
15
5
1
51
21
(Northwest)
9
6
5
0
0
20
5
(Northeast)
1
7
0
0
0
8
0
(Southwest)
5
3
5
2
1
16
8
(Southeast)
4
10
7
3
0
24
10
Georgia (GA)
1
4
0
0
0
5
0
South Carolina (SC)
6
4
2
1*
0
13
3
North Carolina NC
10
3
7
1*
0
21
Virginia (VA)
1
1
1*
0
0
3
1
Maryland (MD)
0
1*
0
0
0
1
0
New Jersey (NJ)
1*
0
0
0
0
1
0
New York (NY)
3
0
4*
0
0
7
4
Connecticut (CT)
2
1*
3*
0
0
6
3
Rhode Island (RI)
0
1*
3*
0
0
4
3
Massachusetts (MA)
2
1*
2*
0
0
5
2
New Hampshire (NH)
1*
0
0
0
0
1
0
Maine (ME)
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
Notes: Asterisk (*) indicates that all hurricanes in this category were
moving in excess of 30 miles per hour. (Data derived from
Hebert and Taylor (42)).
Source: Neumann et al., 1978.

3.
1
1
1
1
I
rl
I
1
Table 2
Scale No. 1 -- Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour. Damage primarily to
shrubbery, trees, foliage, and unanchored mobile homes. No real damage
to other structures. Some damage to poorly constructed signs. And/or:
storm surge 4 to 5 feet above normal. Low-lying coastal roads inundated,
minor pier damage, some small craft in exposed anchorage torn from moorings.
Scale No. 2 -- Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour. Considerable damage
to shrubbery and tree foliage; some trees blown down. Major damage to
exposed mobile homes. Extensive damage to poorly constructed signs.
Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage.
No major damage to buildings. And/or: storm surge 6 to 8 feet above
normal. Coastal roads and low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising
water 2 to 4 hours before arrival of hurricane center. Considerable
damage to piers. Marinas flooded. Small craft in unprotected anchorages
torn from moorings. Evacuation of some shoreline residences and low-
lying island areas required.
Scale No. 3 -- Winds of 111 to 130 miles per hour. Foliage torn from
trees; large trees blown down. Practically all poorly constructed signs
brown down. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window
and door damage. Some structural damage to small buildings. Mobile
homes destroyed. And/or: storm surge 9 to 12 feet above normal. Serious
flooding at coast and many smaller structures near coast destroyed; larger
structures near coast damaged by battering waves and floating debris.
Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before
hurricane center arrives. Flat terrain 5 feet or less above sea level
flooded inland 8 miles or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences within
several blocks of shoreline possibly required.
Scale No. 4 -- Winds of 131 to 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees
blown down; all signs down. Extensive damage to roofing materials, windows
and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many small residences. Complete
destruction of mobile homes. And/or: storm surge 13 to 18 feet above
normal. Flat terrain 10 feet or less above sea level flooded inland
as far as 6 miles. Major damage to lower floors of structures near shore
due to flooding and battering by waves and floating debris. Low-lying
escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane
center arrives. Major erosion of beaches. Massive evacuation of all
residences within 500 yards of shore possibly required, and of single -
story residences on low ground within 2 miles of shore.
Scale No. 5 -- Winds greater than 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees
bxlown down; considerable damage to roofs of buildings; all signs down.
Very severe and extensive damage to windows and doors. Complete failure
of roofs on many residences and industrial buildings. Extensive shattering
of glass in windows and doors. Some complete building failures. Small
buildings overturned or blown away. Complete.destruction of mobile homes.
And/or: storm surge greater than 18 feet above normal. Major damage
to lower floors of all structures less than 15 feet above sea level within
500 yardd of shore. Low -lying -escape routes inland cut by rising water
3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Massive evacuation of
residential areas on low ground within 5 to 10 miles of shore possibly
required.
Source: Neumann et al., 1978.

4.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
Il
The State of North Carolina has not experienced a hurricane event
in some 13 years (the last hurricane being Ginger in 1971), and has not
experienced a major hurricane in over twenty years (Donna in 1960). Con-
sequently, the North Carolina coast would appear to be overdue for a
hurricane event. Unfortunately, the more distant the last hurricane
is from people's memories the less concern there typically is to prepare
for such hazards. It must be recognized that the current lull in hurri-
cane activity on the North Carolina coast will not last, and that it
must prepare for inevitability of future hurricanes.
In addition to hurricanes, the North Carolina coast is also subject
to damage inflicted by tropical storms, northeasters and lesser coastal
storms. While the hazards created by these storms will typically be
less severe than those of hurricanes, they can create enormous property
losses and pose serious threats to human life. The following forces
are common to all these events.
il. Hurricane and Storm Hazards in Nags Head
1. Winds. Hurricanes create tremendous sustained wind force,
ranging from 75 to 200 mph. Gusts can increase these speeds by 50%.
Hurricane force winds for an average hurricane can extend approximately
100 miles in diameter (Dunn and Miller, 1960). Wind forces create both
lateral and unplifting aeordynamic pressures, which can destroy roof
and wall systems, and place tremendous loads on the structural elements
of buildings (see Dames and Moore, 1981). Hurricane winds can pick up
and project as flying missiles loose objects and storm debris, in turn
increasing the impact of these winds. High winds topple trees, electrical
and telephone poles which in turn often cause structural damage to buildings.

5-
I
F��
I
I
1
n
1
Hurricane wind damages, say to roofs, can also provide structural openings
through which rain and wind driven salt water can enter, producing substantial
damages to interior belongings.
2. Stillwater flooding. The storm surge created by a hurricane
can induce major flooding in coastal areas,typically inundating entire
communities. It is the flooding which is responsible for most losses
of life in hurricane events. Flood waters place substantial pressures
(lateral and uplifting) on structural elements and cause erosion of founda-
tions. Stillwater flooding typically inflicts substantial "wetting"
damages to buildings and their contents, sewer and water systems, as
well as softening road base material (Collier et al., 1977). Early
stillwater flooding creates additional hazards to evacuating residents
by inundating roads and bridges in low lying areas.
3. Wave action. In addition to the stillwater surge, hurricanes
and severe coastal storms have the potential of generating powerful wave
action. Structures closest to the ocean, and least protected by ..
features of the natural and built environments (e.g. sand dunes and seawalls)
experience the greatest wave effects. Waves can create enormous physical
impacts on buildings, often severely damaging walls, floor systems and
other structural elements. Houses and structural members can be picked
up and transported, and in turn used as battering-rams to damage other
buildings, often further inland. Wave action can cause tremendous erosion,
undermining the foundations of buildings near the ocean. Roads and bridges
can be undermined or destroyed by similar forces.

6.
�J
1
I
i
C�
Hazard Areas in Nags Head
Given the general discussion of hurricane and storm forces above,
where generally can we expect these forces to appear in the Town of Nags
Head? This question is answered through a delineation and discussion
of critical natural hazard zones in the community, based on several dif-
ferent sources of information.
Flood Hazards
Under the National Flood Insurance program, the Town of Nags Head
has been mapped according to its flooding potential. The Town has been
divided into four flood hazard zones, which vary in their extent and
type of flood hazard. These zones are used for applying actuarial insur-
ance rates and for implementing required building and land use provisions.
These are described below and their location in the Town identified.
G V-Zone/Coastal High Hazard Zone. This zone indicates areas
:of the Town which will be subject to substantial wave action
during the 100 year storm (technically, areas of the coast
which could support a minimum three-foot wave). The V-zone
constitutes one continuous stretch of oceanfront from the southern
to the northern borders of the Town. It extends inland furthest
in the southern oceanfront of the Town (South of the causeway).
Here most land east of the beach road is in the V-zone. Lesser
amounts of beachfront are in the V-zone north of the causeway,
with the V-zone extending approximately 200 to 300 feet inland
on average. No V-zones have been designated on the sound side.
A-Zone/100 year flood. This zone represents those areas in
the community which have an annual probability of being flooded
of 1% (i.e. areas which will be inundated by the 100-year flood).

7.
In Nags Head, these zones are located over much of the jurisdic-
tion. Specifically, these areas are located over much of the
Town south of Jockey's Ridge (south of Soundside Road), including
Cedar and Pond island. In addition, in the northern sector
of the Town, much of the land between the bypass and the Beach
Road is in the A -zone, as well as the largely undeveloped Nags
Head Woods.
• B-zone/100 to 500 year flood. These are areas where the chances
of inundation are substantially less in any given year. In
Nags Head this zone constitutes a continual line located along
the dune ridge on the oceanfront side.
• C-zone/areas of minimal flooding. These are areas where flooding
is unlikely. These are areas of relatively high elevation
and extend in Nags Head from Jockey Ridge North, and east of
the bypass, to the Town's northern boundary (excluding the
estuarian area to the west.)
Ocean Erodable Zone. Under North Carolina's Coastal Area Management
Act, development along the coast must be setback landward from the first
line of stable vegetation. The distance of this setback for most buildings
is determined by multiplying the longterm average annual rate of erosion
for a particular stretch of coast by 30. For instance, if the average
annual rate of erosion is 5 feet, development in this area must be setback
150 feet from the first line of stable vegetation. For the Town of Nags
Head, several different average rates of erosion have been determined
for different stretches of the coast.
The required building setback is generally determined on a case -
by -case basis. It will, of course, vary with the identification of the

H
I
1
1
1
1
J
8.
stable line of vegetation, and the appropriate average annual rate of
erosion.
Whalebone Junction/Incipient Inlet. In any major storm or hurricane, the
formation of new inlets is a possibility. While the prediction of inlet
formation, and their precise locations, is highly uncertain, particular
physical features can be used to identify likely sites. Lynch (1983)
in a recent analysis of potential inlets on the North Carolina coast iden-
tified one location in Nags Head where such an .inlet might form
in the event of a major storm. This incipient inlet was identified based
on several factors: maximum elevation, island width, canal dimensions,
and rate of erosion. Width and elevation of a barrier island appear
to be the most important factors.
The potential Nags Head inlet identified by Lynch is a canal which
enters the island near Whalebone Junction (USGS Quad - "Roanoke Island"
Lot. N 35 54.4', Long. W 75 35.8'). Lynch calls this site "extremely
hazardous," based on a composite of several crucial primary and secondary
factors:
Primary Factors
Island Width 2000' Extremely Hazardous
Maximum Elevation 17.5' Dangerous
Secondary Factors
Lagoon Width 10.1 miles Hazardous
Canal Approach 1600' Dangerous
Canal Width 100' Hazardous
Erosion Rate 0.3'/year Dangerous
Source: Lynch, 1983.

1
Drawing a straight line across the island from this canal, and placing a
buffer strip of 500 feet on each side of this line,yields an incipient
inlet hazard zone.
rNags Head Cove/Incipient Inlet. An additional potential inlet has been
identified in the Nags Head Cove area. Here a canal has been excavated
from the sound side approximately 1000 feet long, at a right angle to
the shoreline. This means that storm waters from the sound side would
have a clear funnel traversing the island halfway to its ocean side.
This represents a serious inlet threat, and unfortunately is located
in the center of a large housing development. Extending this canal path
' to the Atlantic ocean, and placing a 500 foot buffer on each side of
this line,yields an identifiable hazard zone. This is a crude delineation
and meant only to provide decision makers with a general idea of the
geographical area of concern.
1
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r

10.
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
III. Stage of Hurricane Response
Traditionally, human response to natural hazards and disasters is con-
ceptualized to occur in four stages: 1) pre -storm mitigation, 2) warning,
3) emergency response, and 4) recovery and reconstruction. The actual
disaster occurs between the second and third stages. This report seeks
to address actions that the Town of Nags Head can take in stages 1 and
4; that is, in pre -storm mitigation and post -storm recovery and reconstruc-
tion. While the warning and emergency response stages are critical,
the management and crisis response issues which they raise are largely
outside the purposes of this planning document.
Diagram 1
Recovery I Mitigation
Response I Preparedness,
Disaster Event
Source: McElyea, Brower and Godschalk, 1982.
The Four Phases of
Disaster -related Activity

1
This document (plan) has been divided in i-ts discussion of local policies
and actions according to this mitigation/reconstruction distinction. After
the nature of the hazard is described, and community goals and objectives
delineated, a policy section is provided for each of these stages of response.
Clearly, a sharp separation at either a practical or conceptual level is un-
warranted, and the reader should keep this in mind. Pre -storm mitigation
1 activities can influence in important ways the nature of reconstruction
activities and decisionmaking. Moreover, reconstruction policies can serve
to reduce future damages from hurricanes and in this sense serves an important
' mitigative function. The fact that these response stages run together
is depicted in the circularity of the above diagram.
IV. Pre -Storm Mitigation Plan
Preface
Before the Town of Nags Head can consider productively specific
9 P Y P
programs and policies for mitigating the effects of hurricanes and coastal
storms, it must have a clear idea of the goals and objectives to be pur-
sued. What follows is a set of goals for discussion and consideration.
' Those adopted should provide the foundation for subsequent consideration
of more specific actions and decisions. General mitigative og als are
defined first and then more specific objectives to be used in achieving
these goals are defined. The more specific objectives are presented
' in a separate listing, rather than as subheadings under individual goals
because these goals are likely to be considered as a package, with each
objective likely to advance (albeit in varying degrees) each of these
Ibroader goals. For instance, reducing the amount of development in storm

1 12.
hazard areas of the community is likely to increase public safety and
to reduce the amount of property at risk.
As noted above, this plan addresses the pre -storm mitigation and
' post -storm reconstruction stages. Consequently, the more specific objec-
C
tives which follow the goals are organized according to these two stages.
The goals and objectives listed below are "ideal" statements. Some
factors and decisions may be, at least in the short run, beyond the control
of Nags Head, such as the building code. Yet while certain goals and
objectives may not be achievable by Nags Head unilaterally, they may
be achievable through collaboration and coordinated action with other
actors and levels of government. These goals and objectives are targets
for the Town of Nags Head to accomplish through its programs, policies
and actions, and by working with and through others.
Following this listing of goals and objectives, the plan presents
more specific "mitigation opportunities" for the Town.of Nags Head, as
well as describing alternative implementation options which could
be adopted to bring them about. In large part, what is occuring in this
plan is a movement from the general to the more specific, and from the
ideal to the currently practical.
Mitigative Goals. The Town of Nags Head shall advance the following
hurricane/storm hazard mitigation goals. They are presented here in
order of priority.
I. To reduce damage to existing private property in the event
Extensive private property damage typically accompanies a hurri-
cane. Surge and wave forces exert tremendous pressures on homes and
other structures in high hazard areas. Hurricane winds create substantial

13.
lateral and uplifting pressures on structural members. It is a goal of the
Town of Nags Head to reduce, to the degree possible, the extent and severity
of these damages to private property already in place. More specifically,
1 programs and policies of the Town will seek to reduce damages to existing
homes, businesses, and industrial structures, and to accompanying privately -
owned facilities (e.g. roads, septic and water systems).
11. To reduce damage to future private property in the event of
a hurricane or severe coastal storm.
As with existing private property, the Town of Nags Head will
reduce, to the degree possible, the extent and severity of damages to
future private property locating in the Town. Future development of
' the Town is inevitable, and it will be the policy of the town to reduce
the extent of this new private property which is vulnerable to hurricane
' and storm damages. The Town will undertake, to the extent feasible,
' programs and policies which reduce this vulnerability, and mitigate damage
risks, prior to the location and construction of this development. The
Town will take advantage of the opportunities to prevent the future place-
ment of the private property at risk.
IIII. To reduce damage to public facilities and structures in the
event of a hurricane or severe coastal storm.
Hurricanes and severe storms, as with private property, can
cause tremendous damage to public investments. These public investments
are of several types: roads, water service, and the structures which
accompany fire, medical and police services. The Town of Nags Head will
in the future, to the extent practical, make decisions concerning these
public investments so as to reduce the possibility that they will be
damaged or destroyed by hurricane or storm forces. All future capital
1

1 14.
investments in the Town of Nags Head will be made with the hurricane/storm
' threat in mind.
IV. To protect the health and safety of the general public in the
event of a hurricane or severe coastal storm.
The wind, wave and surge effects of a hurricane create serious
threats to the personal safety of individuals remaining in coastal areas.
' Residents and visitors of the Town of Nags Head are highly vulnerable
to these personal risks, and it is a primary goal of the Town to reduce,
' to the extent feasible, their magnitude and severity.
The general public should have sufficient opportunities either to
vacate the storm area, or to find adequate shelters through which to
' weather the storm forces.
V. To reduce the public expense for local emergency and recovery
service required by a hurricane or severe coastal storm.
' Before, during and after a hurricane the public expends substan-
tial resources in providing emergency services (e.g. evacuations, search
and rescue), and clean-up and recovery assistance (e.g. debris clearance,
public health). The Town of Nags Head will, to extent feasible, seek
' to reduce these direct public (non -capital) expenses by reducing the
need for them.
VI. To achieve a more equitable relationship between the costs
' and benefits of coastal development.
Historically, coastal communities, as well as other levels
of government, have subsidized the location of homes and other activities
in high hurricane hazard areas. The Town of Nags Head will in the future
seek to reduce this subsidy, and to more equitably assess beneficiaries
' of high risk locations for the full costs of this development.
1

15.
�J
1
I
Overall Community Goals
As with most plans and policy documents, numerous public goals are
typically involved. It is important for the Town of Nags Head to coordi-
nate and integrate the pursuit of storm hazard mitigation goals with
other community goals. For instance, the following appear to be impor-
tant goals in the Town of Nags Head which should be considered when re-
viewing the more specific objectives and mitigation opportunities identified
later.
The protection and enhancement of the natural environment and
ecosystem;
The enhancement and improvement of the local economy and.the
adequate provision of employment and income for residents.
° The availability of sufficient and affordable housing stock for
existing and future residents;
The protection of aesthetic and scenic characteristics of the
coastal environment.
° The preservation of the high quality -of -life and small town at-
mosphere of the community;
• The achievement of efficiency in the provision of public services
and facili.ties.
A. Pre -Storm Mitigation Obiectives
1. The Town of Nags Head will formulate a capital facilities program
which encourages the extension of future growth away from high
storm hazard areas and into low storm hazard areas. This should
discourage the location of new development in high risk locations.
2. The Town of Nags Head will unilaterally, or in collaboration with
public and private agencies, find ways to purchase land, or appro-
priate interests in land, in high hazard areas. These lands could

16.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
then be used for open space, recreational and other non -intensive
uses. This would then prevent or reduce the amount of property
placed at high risk in the future.
3. The Town of Nags Head will seek to encourage the maintenance of
hazardous parcels in an undeveloped state, through the use of
taxation and other incentives. These programs may include
the use of preferential property tax assessment to reduce the
holding costs of undeveloped hazardous lands, site value and
other techniques which will increase the holding costs of non-
hazardous or less -hazardous parcels, and programs which permit
the transfer of development potential from hazardous to non-
hazardous sites.
4. The Town of Nags Head will avoid the location of public structures
and other public investments in high storm hazard areas. This
will reduce the amount of public property at -risk, and will
discourage the future placement of..pr'rvate property at risk.
5. In circumstances where new development in high hazard areas
is permitted, the Town of Nags Head will attempt to assess
this development for any and all public costs (direct or indirect)
which result from this location.
6. Nags Head will, wherever possible, preserve and enhance the
natural features of the coastal ecosystem. This will entail
protection of the dunes and beaches which serve to buffer wave
and surge effects, and wetlands, natural drainage features,
and other attributes of the natural environment which reduce
or lessen the impacts of hurricane forces.

17.
1
7. When new development is permitted in storm hazard areas, it should
be at a sufficient (maximal) distance from those areas subject
to the most severe storm forces. This will include setbacks
from shore and beach, areas of severe erosion, and potentially -
active inlets.
8. The Town of Nags Head will, to the extent possible, seek to
coordinate its pre -storm mitigation programs and policies with
those of other relevant communities and jurisdictions in the
region.
9. New construction in hazard areas, when permitted, should be
constructed to better withstand the structural forces placed
on it by hurricanes and severe coastal storms. This may be,
achieved through improvements to building and construction
standards, which will require certain state actions and through
voluntary improvements in development standards in the develop-
ment industry.
10. The Town of Nags Head will through subdivision and site review
procedures encourage or require project designs that reduce
vulnerability to hurricane and storm damage. For instance,
through clustering it may be possible to orient development
away from the most hazardous portions of a site, and may facilitate
the undertaking
of other mitigative
design practices (e.g.
flood proofing
through landscaping and
small structural works
'
that would not
be feasible.in a more
decentralized development).
11. The Town of Nags
Head will make every
effort to ensure that
wouldbe buyers
of land and buildings
in hazard areas are fully
'
apprised of the
hurricane and storm
risk. This may consist,

18.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
for example, of a requirement that real estate agents and others
selling homes or land inform potential buyers of the susceptibility
of this property to storm damage. It might also entail the
required designation of hazard zones on subdivision plats,
and the production and distribution of information packets
describing the hazards for prospective homeowners.
12. The Town of Nags Head should make every effort to consider
other relevant non -hazard community objectives and attempt
to integrate hazard reduction programs and policies with them.
For instance, when decidi.ng which of several competing parcels
of hurricane -prone land to purchase the deciding factor may
be which of these will be most responsive to the Town's future
recreational needs. There will be many instances in which
hazard mitigation and non -hazard mitigation objectives can
be advanced through the same or similar policies and programs.
The Town of Nags Head will constantly be aware of these inter-
connections and package its programs accordingly.
'
13. The Town of Nags Head will identify and track all non -local
(federal, state, regional) policies, programs, and decisions
which will influence the local hurricane hazard, and attempt
to affect these in ways which reduce the hazard locally. Actions
here from federally
may range expressing opposition to a -funded
'
project which is likely to impede local evacuation,to lobbying
the state legislature for funds to improve evacuation.
'
14. The Town of Nags Head will seek to facilitate and enhance, to the
extent feasible, the ability of the public to evacuate should a
'
hurricane or severe storm threaten. At the least, the Town will

I
19.
I
1
not take actions which impede efforts by the county or other
governmental bodies to enhance local evacuation capability.
15. The Town of Nags Head will recognize that a significant number
of residents will be unable to evacuate and will seek to provide
sufficient shelters to house them during the storm. Where
appropriate, for example, the Town will require new developments
to construct such shelters, or contribute to this construction
commensurate with the extent to which it increases need.
B. Pre -Storm Mitigation Opportunities
What follows are more specific 14nitigation opportunities" that can
be pursued to advance the more general mitigation goals and objectives
listed above. For each mitigation opportunity, alternative "implementation
options" by which to fulfill these opportunities are listed. These mitiga-
tion opportunities and options are meant to guide the morespecific decisions
and actions of the Town.
1. Changes to existing Zoning:
Reduction in allowable density in high hazard areas. Under
this option the Town would seek to modify its development regu-
lations in order to reduce the quantity of property at risk
in beachfront areas. Commensurate with this reduction would
be an increase in allowable density in areas further inland
and less susceptible to storm forces.
Existing
Zoning Provisions
The Town of Nags Head currently has in place a zoning ordinance
which regulates the type, intensity, and configuration of
land uses. The following represents a brief synopsis of the
primary land use classifications, the regulatory provisions
I

20.
attached to these classifications and their geographical location
in the Town.
RI (residential): This is a low density residential district
which permits detached single family dwelling units on lots
which must be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in size, or 20,000
square feet when served by individual wells or septic tanks.
Under Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions for maximum.
density in this zone cannot exceed 3.5 DUs per acre. This
district encompasses part
of the oceanfront
between Jockey
Ridge and Diamond Street
(east of the beach
road), as well
as the major portions of
Pond and Cedar Islands.
R2 (residential): This is
a medium density
residential zone
which permits duplexes in
addition to single
family detached
units. The minimum lot size required for a duplex is 22,500
square feet, and 20,000 square feet per dwelling unit for develop-
ment using individual wells and septic tanks. [Under PUD pro-
visions maximum density in this district cannot exceed 6 DUs
' per acre.] Much of the Town of Nags Head is designated R2 --
including most land South of Whalebone Junction; and, land
north of Forest Street, south of Jockey's Ridge and west of
' the bypass.
R3 (residential):. This is considered a high density residential
district and permits, in addition to single family detached
units and duplexes, multifamily units. The same lot dimension,
for the above uses apply, with an additional 3500 square feet
of lot size required for each additional dwelling unit. Where
individual wells and septic tanks are used, lots must include

1
21.
I
1
ni
iJ
20,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. R-3 is found primarily
between the beach road and the bypass, north of Forest Street
and South of Enterprise Street. A substantial R-3 district
is also located farther north in the French Avenue area.
C-R (Commercial/residential): This district permits both single-
family and multifamily residential (see above) and motel, hotel
and restaurant commercial uses. The total floor area of all
structures on the lot cannot exceed two times the land area
of the lot. The CR district encompasses almost the entire
oceanfront (east of:the Beach Road) from North Street (just
south of Whalebone Junction) to the Town's northern borders.
C-1 (Commercial): This district is considered neighborhood,
commercial and permits such small scale activities as food
markets, banks and drugstores. These areas must be at least
2 acres in size, but not more than 4 acres. No C•1 districts
currently exist in Nags Head.
C-2 (Commercial): This is a general commercial district permitting
postoffice, retail and service activities. These districts
must be at least five acres in size. In addition, single family,
duplex and multifamily residential uses are permitted by right
(subject to R-3 dimensional requirements). C2 is found along the approach
to the island and along the bypass north:.to Jockey Ridge. Substantial areas
of C2 are also found north of Jocky Ridge, between the bypass and Beach Road.
C-3 (Commercial): This is a commercial services district,
permitting such uses as warehousing and processing, and equip-
ment storage and servicing. Only one C3 zoning district has
currently been designated in the Town. It is located on the

22.
1
northern border, between 8th Street and Carolinean Circle.
SPD-20: This is a special Planned Development District. In
addition to single family detached dwellings, it permits single
family dwellings in townhouse or cluster configurations with
no more than 6 units permitted per cluster. Lot sizes
for cluster development must not be less than 20,000 square
feet for the first unit, and 10,000 square feet for the 2nd
through 6th residential unit. Clustering provisions permit
this development to circumvent normal dimensional requirements --
more than one unit is permitted on a lot, with units in relatively
close proximity. Special provisions and conditions are delineated
here to protect certain unstable sand dune areas. The SPD20
district is located in the areas directly north and south of
Jockey Ridge State Park.
SPD-40: Also a special planned development district. Here,
single family detached units are permitted as well as residential
units arranged in clusters. A minimum lot size of 40,000 square
feet is required for a single family detached unit (not in
a cluster), while the minimum lot area required for cluster
residential is as follows: 40,000 square feet for the first
unit, 20,000 for each of the second, third and fourth units,
15,000 square feet for the fifth and sixth units, and 10,000
square feet for each additional unit. Special dune protection
provisions also exist. The SPD40 district includes most of
the Nags Head Woods area of the Town.
SPD-C: This is a special planned development -community district,
"intended to provide for the complete and orderly development of a

A
23.
II
1
1
district containing not less than one hundred and fifty (150)
acres under central ownership or control to produce a balance
and coordinated range of residential densities and housing
type along with commercial areas to serve the development district
itself and the entire community."(Section 8.04). Under the
zoning provisions a development must submit an application
for an SPDC zone, and this is considered as a zoning amendment.
Development with such a designated zone is subject to the follow-
ing conditions and standards (Section 8104-H):
(1) Not less than twenty (20) percent of the total acreage
of an SPD-C district shall be designated as common open
space. Common open space shall not include any land covered
by streets or parking areas or: -residential or commercial
buildings but may include unimproved lands, required buffers
or setbacks and common facilities such as swimming pools,
tennis courts or golf courses.
(2) Not less than forty (40) percent of the dwelling units
within the.SPD-C district shall be detached single family
dwellings.
(3) Not more than thirty-five (35) percent of the dwelling
units within the SPD-C district may be townhouses.
(4) Not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the dwelling
units within the SPD-C district may be multifamily dwellings.
(5) The over-all dwelling unit density for any SPD-C district
shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre.
(6) Permitted and conditional uses in the C-2 general commercial
district may be approved as part of the total development
plan provided that:
a. No more than twelve (12) percent of the total SPD-C
district acreage is devoted to commercial use.
b. No commercial use shall be located within 500 feet
of any residential district not a part of the SPD-C
district.
c. All commercial uses shall comply with Article VI general
requirements of the ordinance.

1
24.
d. No part of the area shown on the development plan
as commercial acreage shall be included in the computa-
1
tion of residential density for the total SPD-C district.
e. Primary vehicular access shall be from a public thorough-
fare and shall be designed to minimize conflict with
the flow of traffic, to reduce congestion and avoid
potential hazards for vehicles and pedestrians.
e. Implementation options.
1) Modify pre-existing zoning framework - A longer
term mitigation solution could be to review existing
zoning designations and to modify them so that
they are more appropriate to storm hazard reduction
objectives. For instance, it may be appropriate
to construct a new zoning designation which will
permit hotel./motel uses of small size and which
could then be applied to beach areas. Such a
zone would then allow such smaller scale uses,
but would prevent the location of large hotel/motel
complexes.
2) Zoning changes within existing framework - A
feasible mitigation option within the existing
regulatory framework would be to rezone beachfront
areas currently under a CR designation, to an
R1 or R2 designation. This would prevent the
future location of hotel/motel uses and high
density residential uses in the highest hazard
areas. This would result in a substantial reduction
in
the quantity of ruture property exposed to
'
high hurricane risks. Because this option appears,

3)
i
t
1
r
25.
in contrast to the above, to be highly feasible
in the short-term period, we recommend that such
zoning changes be undertaken.
Reduction of permissable densities for selected
districts - One approach is to leave existing
zoning designations largely intact but to selectively
decrease the densities permissible in particular
key districts. In many cases this may simply
constitute raising (perhaps doubling) the minimum
lot size required for certain uses in high hazard
zones. For instance, under current zoning
provisions the permissable lot size for a
single family dwelling in most parts of Nags
Head is 15,000 square feet, or 20,000 square
feet where..an individual well or septic tank
is used. Increasing this requirement to 40,000
square feet (roughly an acre) may reduce the number
of dwellings exposed to high storm risks.

26.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Minimum Lot Sizes/Permissable Density
Existing Zoning Designations
Zoning
Types of
Minimum Lot/
District
Use
Permissable Density
R1
Single Family
One unit per 15,000 square feet,
Detached
20,000 square feet when individual
wells and septic tanks used
R2
Single Family
Same as Rl
Detached
Duplex
22,500 square feet, and 20,000 square
feet per unit when individual wells and
septic tanks are used.
R3
Single Family
Same as Rl
Detached
Duplex
Same as R2
Multi -Family
Same as duplex, 3500 square feet for
each additional unit; 20,000 square
feet per unit where individual wells
and septic tanks are used.
CR
Single Family
Same as R1
Multi -Family
Same as R3
Commercial (hotel/
Total floor area cannot exceed 2 times
motel/restaurant)
land area of lot.
Cl Neighborhood Minimum 2 acres, no more than 4 acres.
Commercial
C2 General Commercial Minimum of 5 acres in size.
Single Family, Duplex Same as R3
and Multi -Family
C3 Commercial Services

27.
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Zoning Types of
District Use
SPD-20 Single Family
Detached
Townhouse or
Cluster
SPD-40 Single Family
Detached
Townhouse or
Cluster
Minimum Lot/
Permissable Density
Same as R1
20,000 square feet for first unit,
10,000 Square feet for 2nd through
6th units; maximum size units.
40,000 square feet.
40,000 square feet for first unit,
20,000 square feet for 2nd, 3rd and
rth units, 15,000 square feet for the
5th and 6th units, and 10,000 square
feet for each additional unit.
Given the proximity of these zoning districts to high storm hazard areas,
density changes in the R2 and the CR zone would appear most promising.
A density decrease between 10 and 50% should be considered.
In addition, density of construction along the sound coastline may
also be reduced in this manner. This might be accomplished by specifying
in the relevant zoning districts that homes and structures wishing to
locate within 500 feet of the water must be situated on lots which are
a certain percentage larger than for similar proposed uses beyond this
boundary.

28.
To maintain the overall level of development permissible in the Town,
it may be desirable to accompany these density reductions with density
increases in other existing zoning districts in safer locales.
The Town of Nags Head should review its entire zoning ordinance
to highlight other changes which can reduce storm hazards. The above
represent the most obvious and immediately needed modifications.
2. Mitigation opportunity:
The Epstein Track. This piece of land consists of approximately
400 acres, encompassing both beach front areas and island areas (land
between the bypass and the beach road). The undeveloped nature of this
large tract of land presents the Town of Nags Head with a unique opportu-
nity to mitigate future damage from hurricanes and coastal storms. Again,
the attempt should be to move future developments away from beachfront
' areas.
a) Implementation Options:
1) Negotiated development agreement. Under this implemen-
tation option, the Town would agree to permit increased development in
inland portions of the tract (between the bypass and the Beach Road),
or offer to enhance the development ability here in exchange for an agree-
ment on the part of the owner/developer to reduce the extent of develop-
ment seaward of the Beach Road.
This reduction could take several forms: 1) complete reduction,
' i.e. leaving this area of the tract as open space (in either public or
private lands), 2) reduction to R1 or R2, i.e. restricting its development
to lower density residential or 3) leave for private recreational uses.
' 2) Voluntary transfer of development potential. This

29.
option would present the developers of the Epstein Tract with the option
of transferring density from the high hazard beach area to inland areas.
' This could be arranged as well so that an incentive for this transfer
existed in the form of increased development units inland (i.e. raising
overall density).
' 3) Changing zoning designations. One option is simply to
lower allowable development density seaward of the Beach Road, while
increasing density in the area between the bypass and the Beach Road.
II
J
L
3. Mitigation opportunity:
Mandatory coastal setback. Under the Coastal Area Management
Act, new development is required to be setback from the ocean based on
the average annual rate of erosion for that particular stretch of coast.
While this setback requirement goes far in reducing property at -risk, it
could be increased to offer more extensive protection to new development.
We recommend that the CAMA-required setback be supplemented by an additional
increment in certain locations, providing a uniform development setback in
the Town.
The Town should closely monitor erosion rates and adjust this uniform
setback periodically.
In addition, it is recommended that a setback also be required for
the coast of the Town. These policies are consistent with previously
established Town development policies (See Nags Head, 1980)..
L

ii
30.
r
C�
4. Mitigation opportunity:
Mandatory or optional clustering. This approach would seek
to induce the site planning and placement of development such that either
1) its proximity to high hazard zones is reduced, or 2) such developments
require lesser amounts of public and private property at -risk, or 3) the
quality and type of development which results is less vulnerable to storm
hazards. This approach could be either voluntary or mandatory. If the
latter, clustering might be a requirement stipulated in return for develop-
ment permission. If optional, clustering might permit the developer
to circumvent certain zoning provisions, or might be permitted to develop
at a higher density. In either case, such negotiations would occur during
the Town's normal site plan review process. Because large scale types
of development in Nags Head are not likely to occur in the future (except
in the case of the Epstein Tract, see above) clustering provisions cannot
be expected to be very effective at reducing storm risks. This, however,
may be one important implementation option available in connection with
the Epstein Tract, and the Town should consider the mechanism for this
purpose.
5. Mitigation opportunity:
Subdivision ordinances. The Town of Nags Head presently has
a subdivision ordinance which regulates the size and configuration of
building lots. One approach to reducing the amount of new development
at high storm risk is to increase the minimum lot size required in the
community. Currently, a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet As required.
Because the majority of buildable lots in close proximity to high hazard
areas have already been subdivided, changes in this area would not substan-
tially reduce future storm damage, at least on the ocean side.

31.
However, it is recommended that the Town consider raising the minimum
required lot size, primarily in order to reduce the amount of development
' occurring in close proximity to the sound coast. Raising the minimum
lot size from 15,000 to between 30,000 and 45,000 would appear -a reasonable
policy change. These changes would need to be coordinated with the density
limitations specified in the Nags Head zoning ordinance. Such requirements
would also serve to enhance the environmental quality of the sound ecosystem,
a stated objective of the Town of Nags Head (Nags Head, 1980).
In addition to changes in the minimum size of permissable lots,
the Town should consider changes to dimensional requirements as well.
Specifically, lots in close proximity to the ocean (i.e. east of the
Beach Road) or sound shorelines should be required to provide for a signi-
ficantly greater depth than is currently the case. This additional lot
depth is necessary for several reasons. It will protect the option of
' periodically moving structures away from the shoreline, commensurate with storm
and erosion forces, while maintaining the structure on the same lot. in essence,
' such a lot preserves a "back -door" escape for homes and structures that
may not be possible under different platted dimensions. Moreover, such
a lot will permit the placement of a septic tank and field at a maximum
distance from erosional force, in turn preserving the integrity of this
system and better protecting local groundwater resources.
6.
Mitigation
opportunity:
Fee
simple acquisition of undeveloped land in high storm
thazard
areas:
maintenance of undeveloped state. The Town of Nags Head
should
engage
in a program to purchase undeveloped land located in high
'
hazard
areas;
parcels in the following areas of the community. -

32.
L
1st priority: parcels in the V Zone.
2nd priority: parcels located seaward of the Beach Road.
3rd priority: parcels in the incipient inlet zones.
4th priority: parcels in the A Zone.
5th priority: parcels in the B Zone.
More specifically, emphasis should be placed on securing parcels adjacent
to or seaward of the Beach Road. The identification of specific parcels
to be acquired should occur as a second stage, and should generally not
take place until the town is prepared to purchase these parcels. In
addition, the Town should make every effort to coordinate its land purchases
with those of other private groups.
The focus of this acquisition program should be on reducing the
quantity and density at close priximity to the ocean's edge, and particularly
in the V Zone. A substantial number of vacant parcels currently exist
in these areas. A recent tabulation of platted lots east of the Beach Road
(the major focus of acquisition) yielded the following count, listed
by plat map sheets.
I Plat
Table
Undeveloped Platted Parcels East of Beach Road
Number of Undeveloped Zoning
Platted Lots Designation
Sheet # 1: 106 R2
(Pelican Court
south to Town Border)
Sheet # 2:
(Oregon Drive
north to Indigo Street) 87
R2

Sheet # 3:
70
R2
(Indigo Street
north to approximately
'
Holden Street)
Sheet # 4:
38
CR
(Holden Street north
to Forest Street)
Sheet # 5:
21
CR
(Forest Street north
to Enterprise Street)
'
6:
15
CR
Sheet #
(Enterprise Street
4
R1
north to Jockey Ridge)
Sheet # 7:
44
CR
(from Jockey Ridge
'
north to Baltic Street)
Sheet # 8:
8
CR
(from Baltic Street
north to the city limits)
r
TOTAL platted vacant
'
lots east of the Beach Road:
393
33.

34.
Approximate Number of Undeveloped Platted Parcels
Near Whalebone Junction Incipient Inlet Area
(approximately 500' north and south of canal line extended to ocean)
South of canal/west of
Beach Road 20
North of canal/west of
Beach Road 25
South of canal/east of
Beach Road 17
North of canal/east of
Beach Road I
TOTAL: 63
Approximate Number of Undeveloped Platted Parcels
Near Nags Head Cove Incipient Inlet Area
(approximately 500' north and south of canal line extended to ocean)
South of canal/west of
bypass 38
North of canal/west of
bypass 43
South of canal/east of
bypass 7
North of canal/east of
bypass 15
TOTAL: 103

35.
7
L
a. Implementation options: Funding
1) Funding through general revenue. One approach is to fi-
nance the acquisition of these high hazard parcels through general revenue
sources, i.e.through local property taxes. This option may be preferable
in circumstances where the public at -large will benefit from the use of
such lands once they have been secured, e.g. through public parks and
recreational areas. Because the benefits of such acquisitions will be
"public" in nature, the use of local general revenue sources to finance
at least a portion of the acquisition appears appropriate.
2) Funding through external sources. The.Town of Nags
Head should make every effort to take advantage of outside funding sources,
including programs that may exist at either federal or state levels. For
instance, FEMA's Section 1362 program has been the source of funds for
the purchase of a substantial number of coastal parcels subject to flooding.
3) Funding through special assessment districts. This
approach would attempt to assess existing property and residents within
a particular delineated district for the costs of such acquisitions. This
would be a sensible option if these acquisitions clearly served to benefit
a specific and non -general set of individuals. While this premise is
likely to be true to some extent, the practical difficulties of establishing
such a system, and determining a logical delineation of "beneficiaries,"
suggest that such a approach would not be appropriate.
4) Impact fees. One option for securing funds for acquisi-
tion is to obtain such funds from the imposition of an impact fee on new
development in the Town. Such a fee could be imposed at the time of site
plan approval, and could be assessed commensurate with a) the number of
planned dwelling units, or number of bedroom units in the case of residential

36.
1
I
P
uses, and b) number of square feet of proposed development in the case
of commercial and industrial uses.
Funds from this fee could be placed in a special hurricane hazard
mitigation fund, and in turn used to cover the costs associated with the
acquisition and holding of parcels in high hazard areas of the community.
The philosophy behind this strategy would be that the permission of new
development which increases the amount of property at -risk must be compen-
sated through the reduction or prevention of storm damage in other sites
or parcels in the community.
This fee could be imposed in a graduated -fashion as well, to take into
consideration the relative extent of risk to which new development is
subjected. For instance, a larger impact fee might be imposed on a new
development located in a beachfront area; than a similar development farther
inland. This fee graduation should correspond with specific designated
zones, so that developers and builders know in advance roughly what this
fee requirement will be.
This impact fee might also be used to fund non -acquisition hazard
mitigation projects. For instance, the fee may also be imposed to cover
the costs of constructing and maintaining hurricane shelters in the commu-
nity. Again, a logical argument can be made that such developer contributions
are required to compensate for and mitigate the additional risks to hurricane
safety created by their projects.
5) Acquisition through development exactions. An alternative
approach would be to require the contribution of land and certain improvements
(i.e. hurricane shelters) as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval.
Because most development in Nags Head is of relatively small scale, an
impact fee appears to be a more sensible approach. However, in the case of

37.
1�
I
H
I
1
1
1
larger projects this approach may be more appropriate. The impact tax
would, however, provide the flexibility to deal adequately with both large
and small developments.
6) Sales tax. A local sales tax might be used as a supple-
mental source of general revenue for land acquisition. This approach
would lessen the opposition of existing property owners who would otherwise,
under the local property tax, incur most of the costs of such a program.
7) Donations or partial donations. Where possible the
Town should seek donations or donations of partial interests in land in
high storm hazard areas.
8) A combined approach. Given the above brief review,
it appears that an equitable and feasible approach is to combine the funding
of land through general revenue sources, and developer impact fees. This
would both place a responsibility on new development to mitigate the storm
risk it creates in the community, it also acknowledges a similar responsibility
on the part of the public at -large, as well as an acknowledgement that the
public at -large will benefit (in varying degrees) from the eventual use
of these lands(if only used for scenic purposes).
b. implementation Options: Use of Acquired Lands
1) Retain public ownership. Maintaining these acquired
lands in public hands has both advantages and disadvantages. Its primary
advantage is that it permits maximum control over the use and management
of this land; in essence, the public retains the full bundle of rights
to this property. In most cases where this land is to provide direct
public use or access, full fee simple ownership by the Town will be necessary.
A disadvantage of such an approach would be that additional public resources
must be expended in managing such lands. In addition, keeping these lands

11
38.
1
1
1
I
1
1
in public hands will reduce the Town's tax base, and deprive it of the
receipts that would be obtained from its sale (or sale of some portion
of the rights). The use of such acquisitions for public parks, open space
and beach access appear most feasible, and.from this perspective maintaining
full public ownership should be encouraged.
2) Leasing fee -simple public lands. While it is unclear
what such lands would be used for, publicly -acquired parcels could be
leased to private parties, for either short or long-term periods. For
instance, a public parcel adjacent to a residential or hotel/motel use
might be leased for exclusive use by these private parties (e.g. a patio
and pool area) for a number of years. This would both maintain the public's
control over this parcel, and also provide a certain amount of revenue,
which might then be used to finance subsequent purchases.- While the Town
should certainly pursue this option where it appears appropriate, this
is not likely to be feasible as a general policy.
3) Sale with deed restrictions. An approach which would
accomplish a similar end, would be to sell public lands to private parties
with certain deed restrictions placed on their use. Presumably, such
deed restrictions would prevent the land's development in the future.
As with the above option, this approach has the advantage of reducing
public expenses -- in this case placing a portion of the parcel's value
back on the Town's tax rolls.
7. Mitigation opportunity:
Fee simple acquisition of land to reduce density at -risk. Both
approaches 2 and 3 above could also be used as an alternative to "downzoning"
high hazard parcels, in turn reducing the inequity often perceived to
exist when land is devalued as a result of such actions. For instance,

39.
1
0
I
1
I
I
instead of rezoning a parcel of land from an R4 to R1 zone (i.e. permitting
a fewer number of residential units), the Town might purchase this land
(at its R4 value), place a deed restriction on its density of development
which equates to the density allowable under an R1 zone, and then resell
the land at new reduced -density value. The result of this strategy is
a lower density, with the public absorbing the costs in land -value reduction
rather than the property owner. We recommend, however, that acquisition
be used as a strategy to keep high hazard parcels in an undeveloped state,
and that generally changes in the zoning provisions (uncompensated) be
used for reducing density in those hazard areas where some amount of develop-
ment is permitted.
Implementation Options: (See above for full discussion).
8. Mitigation opportunity:
Less -than -fee simple acquisition. Less -than -fee simple purchases
of land in high storm hazard areas. The Town could consider the purchase
of easements or "development rights" which would prevent the location
of a substantial amount of future private development in high hazard zones.
These techniques involve the same questions concerning financing options
as are presented under fee simple. However, depending upon the development
value of this land, this purchase alternative will tend to be less costly.
We feel, however,'that because the development value of an average parcel
of land in Nags Head (as in most resort coastal areas) comprises such
a large proportion of the lands' total value, that the Town is better
off purchasing such parcels in fee simple. This will provide greater
public control over the use of these lands and increase the flexibility
of such a technique in advancing other community goals and objectives.

40.
it
fl
If such rights or easements are donated, however, (with property
owners receiving substantial tax benefits), then the Town should be willing
to accept, and indeed encourage, such donations. Because such donations
must typically be made in perpetuity, though, the Town must be careful
to accept open space easements only in locations where it is certain that
future development should not occur.
9. Mitigation opportunity:
Mandatory or optional transfer of development potential. Much
like a clustering provision, this approach would permit the transfer of
development potential from a designated high storm hazard zone (sending
zone) to a development zone (receiving zone), and would in this sense
permit the severing of development potential from the actual parcel of
land. Under a mandatory program high hazard parcels would only be permitted
to be used for non -development uses (e.g. recreation, open spaces, etc.),
and excess development potential could then be transferred to non --or
less -hazardous areas. Under an optional program, the landowner would
have the choices of either developing the land, or transfering this develop-
ment potential to receiving development zones. We recommend that the
Town seriously consider implementing such an approach, albeit -on a limited
and small scale. Sendingzones might be designated in the following areas
9 9 9
of the Town:
- east of the Beach Road
- within 500 feet of the sound coast
- in the area of identified incipient inlets.
# Development receiving zones might be designated in the following areas:
- between the Beach Road and the bypass
- existing developments west of the bypass (and set -back from the sound).

41.
r
10. Mitigation opportunity:
Restrictions to Public Services and Facilities; designation
of public service districts. One option is simply to restrict the avail-
ability of certain key services and facilities to designated urban or develop-
ment areas -- e.g. sewer, water and roads. While development regulations may
permit certain uses in the high hazard zone (e.g. residential) commensurate
service may not be available, in turn encouraging growth to occur in other
locations -where they -are available. Important facilities and services
over which the Town of Nags Head has control include the following.
- police
- fire and ambulance
- water
- streets and roads.
While it will be difficult to legitimately restrict police, fire and ambulance
service to new and proposed development areas, the provision of water
service and the designation and improvement of public roads can act as
deterrents .to development in high risk areas.
The Town should, to the extent feasible, refuse to approve roads
in areas where future development will be placed at high risk. Moreover,
it should prioritize road improvements so that they occur first in areas
where storm risks are lowest, and last where storm risks are greatest,
all other factors being equal.
Similarly, the Town should seek to restrict the extension of water
service, where possible, to parcels in or in close proximity to high storm
hazard areas. Priority should be given in water system improvements to
expanding service to "safer" p-3rcels,-away from areas where storm
risks are greatest.

42.
11. Mitigation opportunity
Evacuation and hurricane shelter provisions. Located on a barrier
island, the routes of egress from the Town of Nags Head in the event of
a hurricane threat are limited. Residents and visitors can evacuate either
to the north through Kill Devil Hills and Kitty Hawk by bridge to the
mainland, or more logically across the bridge to Roanoke Island and then
to the mainland. In a recent application of an evacuation methodology
developed by Stone (1982) it was estimated that over 16 hours would be
required to completely evacuate all residents of Nags Head (Brower, et
M., 1984). It is clear, then, that a substantial portion of the Town's
populace will be unable to evacuate should a hurricane or severe storm
threaten. Future development, adding additional demands to this evacuation
system, can be expected to raise this evacuation time. The implications
of these observations are that (a) actions should be taken to increase
and enhance the ability of residents to evacuate, and (b) in the absence
of substantial advancement in (a), that a substantial number of residents
of Nags Head will simply be unable to evacuate.
Actions which can be taken on the part of the Town of Nags Head to
advance (a) are few, if existent at all. While the Town should do all it
can to lobby for regional improvements (such as an additional two or three
lane bridge system, see Nags Head 1980, P. 7), there is little control
over evacuation which it can exercise itself. Nags Head is but one element
in a larger "evacuation shed," extending from Currituck Banks to Ocracoke
Island, and unilateral actions are largely futile.
However, the Town of Nags Head should and must strive to enhance
its capacity to accommodate residents in sheltered structures in the

1 43.
n
likely event that complete or even nearly -complete evacuation is not possible.
The current Dare County hurricane evacuation plan identifies 4 shelters
for Nags Head residents. However, not one of these shelters is actually
located in the Town itself (Dare County, 1983). There is a strong need,
then, for the Town to increase the number of shelters available.
a. Implementation options: Financing and Provision
1) Mandator
Construction or provision of shelters by new development.
Under this option, developers could be required to provide sufficient
shelter arrangements for all or a substantial portion of the number of
Ak new residents their developments are adding. This requirement might be
satisfied through the actual -construction of a separate shelter structure,
or through making adequate arrangements to ensure "vertical evacuation,"
(i.e. providing shelter in multi -storied engineered structures). The
latter may be provided through the development's own buildings, or developers
may reach agreements with the owners of nearby structures to permit residents
■ to stay there (i.e. where there is excess shelter capacity over and above
the space required by their own residents).
2) Collection of impact fees from new development. The
concept here is similar to that suggested for the acquisition of hazardous
lands. In fact, the two fees could be collected jointly from new develop-
ment (two components of the same fee) and would again be assessed commensurate
with the shelter demand created by the new development, (e.g. assessed
according to number of new dwelling units, bedrooms, square footage).
(See the earlier discussion of this option as an approach to financing
the acquisition of undeveloped parcels in hazardous areas; also, see the
appendix for a fuller discussion of impact taxes).

44.
3) Financing through special assessment district. This
option would tax existing property owners for the provision of new shelter
facilities. It would be a logical alternative if beneficiaries and nonbene-
ficiaries of this good were sharply differentiated. Unfortunately, there
are no adequate existing shelters to speak of and the entire Nags Head
public should in theory be beneficiaries. A more feasible and sensible
approach to the provision of sheltering for the general public is to finance
these provisions through general revenue funds.
4) Financing through general revenues. Because shelters
are needed to accommodate existing residents of Nags Head, as well as
new and future residents, there is a clear need to finance such projects
through general local funds. This is needed basically to "catch up" with
post impact needs. Once these existing needs have been sufficiently addressed,
future shelter facilities and accommodations may be provided entirely
through the impact fee system. In the short-term, however, the impact
fee should be coupled with a substantial contribution from the general
town budget.
4. Shelter..capacity for new public structures. The Town of Nags
Head is currently considering the construction of several new public buildings,
including a public works building and a new town hall. To the extent
possible,these and other public structures should be designed and built
so that they may effectively serve as hurricane shelters for Nags Head
residents. in addition to their construction and design, these buildings
should be placed where possible in locations which are better able to
withstand storm forces.

1
I
1
1
1
U
1
P_J
ILI
45.
At some point in the near future the Town should conduct a study
which would identify the size, number and approximate location of such
shelters, as well as catalogue existing private and public structures
which could be used for such purposes.
V. Post -Storm Reconstruction Plan
Post -Storm Reconstruction Objectives
1. The Town of Nags Head will, to the extent feasible, prevent
the reconstruction of structures in high storm hazard areas which have
been substantially damaged. Where reconstruction on such sites is allowed
to take place, it will occur only at substantially reduced densities.
2. Both minor and major reconstruction, when permitted, will be
subjected to protective building -standards. (See building and construction
objective in pre -storm section). The Town of Nags Head will make all
efforts to ensure that where reconstruction is permitted that it satisfies
existing building code provisions.
3. During reconstruction Nags Head should limit, if not prohibit,
the extension of public facilities or public structures or the reconstruction
of damaged facilities and structures in high hazard areas.
4. if reconstructed, public facilities will, where possible, be
flood proofed and upgraded to better withstand future hurricanes and storms.
This might suggest, for instance, the elevation of roads, or more adequate
structural protection for water lines. Again, where possible, these costs
should be assessed to current or future residents of the hazard zone.

46.
5. When reconstruction is permitted in a storm hazard area, it should
be required to be at a sufficient distance (setback) from the most serious
storm forces. This will require reconstruction set sufficiently back
from dune and beach areas, high erosion areas, and active or potentially -
active inlets.
6. During reconstruction, the Town of Nags Head will attempt to enhance
the ability of residents to evacuate should another hurricane or severe
coastal storm threaten.
7. During reconstruction, the Town of Nags Head will seek to increase
the number of hurricane/storm shelter facilities available to the local
public in the event a hurricane threatens.
8. Where the reconstruction of public facilities damaged by the
hurricane is permitted, the Town of Nags Head will adopt fiscal and institu-
tional mechanisms which will more equitably distribute these reconstruction
costs to beneficiaries. This may take the fo m of a special facility
assessment, or an impact tax. This institution should be developed and
enacted prior to a hurricane, and the financial responsibilities for such
reconstruction made public.
9. The Town will take advantage of the disaster by purchasing,
to the extent feasible, land and property in the hazard zone. Given the
disaster, it may be possible to purchase cleared land, or interests in
such, at reduced prices. The opportunity may also exist to purchase damaged
properties (perhaps through eminent domain) at relatively low prices,
through flood insurance programs.
10. When undertaking recovery/reconstruction decisionmaking the
Town will seek to encourage redevelopment and redevelopment patterns
which better utilize the natural mitigative features of the coastal

47.
1
I
1
1
I
I
environment. This might include, for instance, prohibiting the reconstruction
of homes which interfere with the natural functioning and dynamics of
dunes, wetlands, drainage patterns, and so on. Reconstruction should
permit and encourage the restoration and enhancement of these features
where possible. This might suggest, for instance, the need for a buffer
between a wetlands and area of development, and the need to prevent recon-
struction in this intermediate area.
H. The Town of Nags Head will constitute a special damage assessment
and planning team prior to the storm to undertake recovery analysis and
to serve as professional input to recovery/reconstruction decisionmaking.
12. The Town of Nags Head will, to the extent feasible, seek to
coordinate its recovery decisions with other relevant communities and
jurisdictions in the region. Moreover, the Town will provide opportunities
in the recovery structure for the expression of these extralocal concerns.
13. The Town of Nags Head will make every effort to develop its
capacity to identify and harness various post -storm recovery resources,
while at the same time ensuring maximum local control over the recovery
process. This will include the identification of relevant federal and
state programs, and an understanding of the procedures necessary to utilize
these programs. This will also include an identification of private sources.
For instance, during recovery, the resources and objectives of such groups
as The Nature Conservancy may be harnessed to achieve public reconstruction
goals, such as the purchase and protection of coastal open space.
14. The Town of Nags Head will seek to integrate recovery and
reconstruction planning with the broader set of planning goals and objectives
for the community. In addition to opportunities to mitigate hurricane
and storm hazards, a hurricane-striken community may also be presented with

I
48.
opportunities to advance other importantcommunity goals, such as economic
development, environmental quality, traffic and pedestrian safety among
others. Pre -recovery planning should attempt to identify these potential
opportunities and the extent of their overlap with mitigation opportunities.
Recovery and Reconstruction Mitigation Opportunities
1. Mitigation opportunities:
Damage assessment team. Immediately following the storm event
the Town of Nags should be prepared to convene a special damage assessment
team, composed of local officials and citizens with particular expertise.
The primary tasks of this group immediately following the storm, will
include the following:
a) To assess the extent and location of storm damage, both
to the natural and built environment.
b) To document the type and location of storm forces, including
the identification of following:
1) incipient inlet areas
2) high wave action areas and areas of high erosion
3) high flooding and overwash zones.
c) From the above information, to determine, to the extent
possible, the likely causes of damage (e.g. faulty construc-
tion, proximity to an incipient inlet).
This information will be collected and then presented to the hurricane
recovery committee, preferably in graphic form. The damage team will
also be asked to compare actual damages with the hazard maps available
prior to the storm, and to adjust the delineation of local hazard areas

49.
1
1
L
1
accordingly.
The damage assessment team should consist of the following Individuals
or their appropriate counterparts:
• town planning director
• town building inspector
town engineer
local tax assessor
director of public works
an environmental scientist.
It is important that this group of individuals be appointed as quickly as possi-
ble so that they may organize procedures and develop appropriate forms
for this assessment function. The assessment team will also serve as
an expert advisory group during the period in which specific reconstruc-
tion decisions are being made. For instance, in the case of a proposal
to prohibit reconstruction in a particular portion of the Town, they may
be called upon to provide more detailed information about the degree of
damages.
2. Mitigation opportunity:
Increased decisionmaking capacity: The formation of a reconstruction
committee/task force. Because the reconstruction period offers unique
mitigation opportunities, the Town of Nags Head should consider the crea-
tion of an additional decisionmaking unit to address and hopefully capitalize
' upon these opportunities. This group could meet immediately following
the hurricane, and consider the feasibility and appropriateness of mitiga-
tion and other reconstruction opportunities. They would facilitate and
match specific factors attributed to the storm (e.g. the nature and extent
of damage) with reconstruction goals and opportunities identified before the

1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
50.
storm. (What the following reconstruction plan is meant, at least in
part, to provide.) While this body will convene shortly after the storm
strikes, they should convene periodically prior to the storm event to
review the specific policies and recommendations contained in this docu-
ment, and to modify these as circumstances in the community change over
time.
a. Implementation options
1) A newly formed committee. This reconstruction committee
should be broad -based in its representation of community interests. The
committee might be comprised of the following individuals:
one or more elected officials
° planning director or planning department representative
• one or more representatives of the business community
• public works official
• representatives from specific neighborhoods/geographical
areas of the Town
° [representatives of Dare County and adjoining jurisdictions?]
2) The town planning board. These reconstruction policy
issues could be given to the Town planning board, a body particularly
well acquainted with local development and planning in Nags Head. Allocating
responsibilities to this group would consequently have the advantage of
capitalizing on existing knowledge and expertise of the development process
and the actions involved in it. Unlike the creation of a new recovery
committee, commissioners would generally not have to be brought up to
speed on development issues. Moreover, using the planning board
would still serve to release the elected board from many of these decisions
(at least to the detail or level of consideration), a highly desirable

51.
i
feature given the number and growth of decisionmaking requirements these
individuals are typically faced with in the aftermath of a hurricane.
3) The Town Board. One option is simply to place these
reconstruction opportunities squarely and completely in the hands of elected
officials, with the body serving the function as the reconstruction committee.
This option has the advantage of placing these reconstruction issues and
decisions in the hands of those officials who will be ultimately responsible
for their ramifications. This often may be more politically -expeditious,
as well. A major disadvantage is that elected officials are typically faced
with myriad and numerous decisions in the storm aftermath and it may seem appro-
priate to ciphor, rather than add to, their decision -making responsibilities.
1 3. Mitigation opportunit
Delineation of the damage "triage." An initial task of the
reconstruction committee, in collaboration with the damage assessment
team and other relevant local officials, is to classify and categorize
different areas of damage by type and severity. We propose a classification
scheme based on the medical concept of "triage," in which damage areas
would be grouped into three categories, for the purpose of moving and
quickly responding to local reconstruction needs. These three categories
might be:called the following: Minor damage areas, moderate damage areas,
and major damage areas, and defined more precisely in the following way:
a. Minor damage areas. These are areas in which a relatively
small number of structures have received low -average amounts of damage.
' For instance, structures in this area may have windows broken and some
roofing tiles missing, but no serious structural damage. More precisely,
this damage zone shall include structures which on average have incurred
I
damage amounting to less than 20% of the assessed valuation.

52.
b. Moderate damage areas. These are areas where structures
have received substantially more damage from the storm, and including
serious structural damage to many buildings. The majority of structures
in these areas however, are repairable. in their present condition. More
precisely, this damage zone shall include structures which on average
incur damages of more than 20% but less than 50% of the assessed valuation.
C. Major damage areas. These are areas where many structures
have been completely destroyed and others beyond reasonable repair in
their present condition. These are the areas which have received the
brunt of the storm's forces. More precisely, this damage zone shall include
structures which on average have incurred damages in excews of 50% of
the assessed valuation.
This categorization of damage areas when they are used to arrange
and apply of the post -storm mitigation actions of the Town. An initial
decision is that areas placed in the '4minor" damage category ought to
be permitted to rebuild immediately and under no new conditions or standards.
4. Mitigation opportunity:
Reconstruction moratorium. For those areas which are classified
as moderate and major,'immediate reconstruction will be prohibited. This
temporary moratorium on reconstruction will last no later than 30 days
During this time attention will first be focused on determining whether
and under what conditions structures in "moderate" damage areas will be
permitted to reconstruct, and then, whether and to what extent structures
within "major" areas will be allowed to reconstruct. We propose that
reconstruction policies apply to these two districts commensurate with
the following options for reducing the future vlunerability of properties:

J
53.
5. Mitigation opportunities.
Reduction of amount of private reconstruction permitted following
a storm. The above classification system provides the basis for managing
reconstruction so that the amount of private property at risk from future storm
damage is reduced. This can be accomplished in a number of ways.
a. Implementation options
1) Permanent moratorium. One approach to achieving this
reduction in property at risk is simply to prohibit the reconstruction
of structures in highly damaged areas. We propose that such a technique
only be applied to structures which have been damaged by more than 50%
of their assessed value. Under this assumption, such a moratorium could
1 apply in either of the two zones where substantial property damage has
1 occurred.
a) Prohibit reconstruction of structures incurring
1 damage over 50% of their assessed valuation in both (either) major or
moderate damage areas.
b) Prohibit reconstruction of structures incurring
damages over 50% of their assessed valuation in major damage areas only.
2) Reduction in permissable density through post -storm
zoning changes. In lieu of complete prohibition of reconstruction in
certain high damage areas, reconstruction may be permitted to occur, but
only at substantially reduced densities.
' For instance, overall permissable density in a major damage area
may be reduced automatically by 50% (7). This can be accomplished in
the following ways:
1. Increase in minimum lot sizes in an existing zoning designation.
' 2. Rezoning from an existing higher to a lower density zone (e.g.
Ll

54.
a change from an R3 to an RI).
3. Creation of a special floating zone which reduced
density in a pre-
defined damage zone by a predetermined amount.
Under this situation, a homeowner would not be permitted to rebuild
(if his structure were damaged by 50% or more) unless he was
able to satisfy
the new density requirements: This would require those who
wished to
redevelop to purchase additional land and damaged.structures
of others
located in the damaged area.
Depending upon the precise approach used to reduce the
density, this
may require that a higher density damaged structure (e.g. a
hotel or multi-
family unit) be torn down and replaced with a single family,
or perhaps
a duplex structure.
3) Non -conforming uses. The Town may be able to reduce
the quantity of development at risk by preventing the reconstruction of
' certain uses through nonconforming use provisions. For instance, under
this option the Town would rezone areas to low densities, even though
' these areas have already been built-up. Thus, in the event of a damaging
hurricane, the rebuilding of these high density uses would not be permitted,
"
as they would be considered to be non -conforming.
4) Reconstruction subject to clustering and siting restorations.
It is possible that in many cases redevelopment could occur in a clustered
fashion which would place greater distance between structures and coastal
hazards. Clustering may be required before reconstruction permission
is granted.
6. Mitigation opportunity:
Reconstruction subject to conditions.

I
55.
L�
it
a. Implementation options
1) Reconstruction subject to stronger building standards.
While Nags Head cannot legally impose more stringent building requirements
than those available through the state building code, it can make efforts
to ensure that reconstruction does occur consistent with these provisions.
This may require the allocation of additional resources and personnel
to the town building inspector in the period following the storm.
2) Reconstruction of public facilities and structures
to be more storm resistant. Where public facilities, such as roads and
water lines, are damaged from the hurricane or storm event, and where
it has been determined that these should be reconstructed, this reconstruction
should be undertaken in such a way as to increase their resistance to
future storm forces. For instance, public roads in reconstruction areas
may be elevated, to increase their protection against future storms.
3) Reconstruction subject to impact fees and shelter
provisions. (See below for a fuller discussion of these requirements).
7. Mitigation opportunity:
Land and property acquisition. In the aftermath of a storm,
the Town of Nags Head may be presented with the opportunity of purchasing
land and properties at reduced or "bargain" prices. Vacant land flooded
by the storm may be considerably less attractive on the open land market
than before the storm. Damaged houses and structures may as well be purchased
at such reduced prices. The reconstruction committee should identify
prime/potential land and property purchases following the storm, should
list and prioritize these and present them along with its other recommenda-
tions td the Town board.

56.
The
identification and actual purchase of such land and properties
following listed in
should be
based on the criteria, order of priority:
1.
Land and property located in major damage zones.
2.
Land and property located in moderate damage zones.
In combination
with the following criteria:
1.
Land located in V-zones.
2.
Land located of the Beach Road.
seaward
3.
Land located in the close proximity to an actual or incipient
inlet.
4. Land located in the A -zone.
5. Land located in the B-zone.
a. Implementation options:
' Funding.
1) Funding through general revenue. (See discussion
contained in pre -storm mitigation section).
2) Funding through external sources. Nags Head should
be prepared to take advantage of acquisition funds available from federal
and state sources following a hurricane or severe storm. Section 1362
funds are typically available from FEMA following a disaster to acquiese
high hazard lands on which property has been destroyed.
3) Funding through special assessment districts. (See
pre -storm mitigation section).
4) Impact fees. One option is to require homeowners
' and developers wishing to reconstruct to pay an impact fee which can be
used during (and after) reconstruction to finance high -hazard acquisitions.
This impact fee would vary with the size of the reconstruction proposed.

57.
11
1
This fee would also create an incentive for lower -density reconstruction,
as the amount of this fee would be less for such uses (or perhaps certain
density reductions could be exempted from the fee altogether).
5) Development exactions. The Town may require that
developers and homeowners wishing to reconstruct must acquire and dedicate
to the Town a certain amount of land (and/or damaged properties) in high
hazard/damage zones. This amount would vary with the amount and scale
of reconstruction desired. An incentive for low density reconstruction
may be created by lessening this requirement (e.g. require a fewer number
of uses) for such proposed projects.
6) A combined approach. As for acquisition in the pre -
storm mitigation stage a combined approach.to financing such purchases
appears most feasible and equitable.
b. Implementation options:
Use of acquired lands and property. (For a full discussion
of this issue see the prestorm mitigation section).
8. Mitigation opportunity:
Reconstruction contingent upon hurricane shelter provisions. As
established in.earlier sections of this report a serious need exists in
the Town of Nags Head to provide additional storm shelters. Permission
for reconstruction might be made contingent upon the homeowner or developer
contributing to the provision of these shelters.
a. Implementation options:
Financing and provision.
1) Mandatory construction or provision of shelters. (See

58.
pre -storm mitigation section for a discussion of this option).
2) Impact fees. (See pre -storm mitigation section for a
discussion of this option).
3) Financing through general revenue sources. (See pre -
storm mitigation section for a discussion of this option).
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
APPENDIX
I
APPROACHES TO THE REDUCTION OF COASTAL STORM HAZARDS
11
[l
Several alternatives exist for the reduction of hurricane and
storm hazards. These fall into three main categories or
mitigation strategies: (1) programs designed to structurally
alter the coastal environment so that it can better withstand
the forces of.coastal storms; (2) programs designed to strengthen
buildings and other structures; and (3) development management.
A brief outline and description of the programs follows.
1

1
h
I
LJ
11
1
I
Table of Contents
Approaches to the Reduction of Coastal Storm Hazards
I. Structural Alteration/Reinforcement of Coastal Environment• 2
A.
Sandtrapping Structures 2
- Groins
- Jetties
B.
Sandmoving Programs 2
- Beach nourishment
- Sandsrraping
C.
Shoreline Protection Works 3
- Seawalls
— Revetments
- Bulkheads
- Breakwaters
D.
Flood Control Works 3
- Dams
- Dikes and Levees
- Retaining ponds
- Flood channels
II. Provisions to Strengthen Buildings and Facilities 4
A.
Strengthening Buildings 5
B.
Strengthening Facilities 7
III. Management and Guidance of Development 8
A.
Development Regulation 8
B.
Land and Property Acquisition 20
C.
Taxation and Fiscal Policy 40
D.
Capital Facilities Policy 48

II. STRUCTURAL PROGRAMS
These take the existence or future presence of development
as a given and are designed to reinforce the shoreline environ-
ment to better protect this development from storm wave
' and surge forces. Four primary types of programs exist
within this category.
A. Sandtrapping Structures
The beach and dune structures in the coastal environ-
ment serve as effective protection against storm forces.
Beaches and dunes can absorb much of the impact and energy
of a storm. Groins are structures designed to increase
the deposition of beach materials, or to arrest the further
' erosion of these resources (or more typically both). They
are structures extending into the ocean at right angles
to the coast, and are typically constructed of concrete,
' timber, steel sheetpiling or riprap. Such structures induce
deposition of sand on the updrift side, and in turn block
lateral deposition in down drift areas. Jetties generally ex-
tend further into the ocean, are often constructed in pairs,
and are often built to prevent shoaling in coastal inlets.
IB. Sandmoving Programs
Natural processes of beach acretion can be supple-
mented through programs designed to move sand from other areas where
P

3
1
F
I
1
1
J
it is in greater abundance. Beach nourishment programs are
designed to transport large amounts of sand from one area to
another area typically one experiencing high rates of erosion.
In this way beach and dune structure are preserved by redistri-
buting sand resources to correct for acretion-erosion imbalances.
Large scale nourishment programs can be very expensive, and on
a smaller scale, in areas of high erosion, may require constant
investment even to maintain existing shoreline levels. Sand -
scraping activities may be undertaken to reinforce a beach
structure, e.g., filling -in behind protective seawalls and
bulkheads.
C. Shoreline Protection Works
These types of structures are designed to protect buildings
and property from shoreline forces. Seawalls are typically
constructed from heavy concrete sheetpile, with a stepped -down
or curved face (Yasso & Hartman, 1976). Bulkheads are usually
smaller in scale and used to protect headland areas and inlet
channels. A revetment is similar, though typically involves
rip -rap or interconnecting concrete blocks used to protect
dunes and beaches from erosion. Terraces are also used in
cliff areas, and involve,'the insertion of vertical pilings and
planks at different levels.
D.'* Flood Control Works
These are structural improvements designed to manage and
reduce the damaging effects of flooding. They range from

4
r
relatively small projects such as the construction of retaining
ponds, to the undertaking of large dam and dike projects. The
construction of ditches and channels also falls into this cate-
gory. A number of examples can be cited of the use of these
approaches in addressing hurricane and coastal storm risks.
A series of levees and locks are being constructed on Lake
Ponchartrain (New Orleans) to protect against and manage hurri-
cane flooding (COE, 1980).. Riawah Island, South Carolina, has
developed a stormwater management plan which includes a lagoon
system, which can be emptied prior to a storm landfall (S.C.
Water Resources Commission, 19821. Texas City (.near Galveston,
Texas) is nearing completion of a 16-mile long, earthen levee
system (maximum height of.23 feet MSL ), along with a concrete
floodwall drainage system, a closure gate, and pumping drainage
stations (Texas Division of Emergency Management, 1984). It
is designed to provide protection from storms.,.creating 15-foot
surges. A similar project is found in Freeport (also near Gal-
veston)_. It includes 38 miles of earthen levee, as well as
drainage and pumping facilities, and a tide control gate.
II.PROVISIONS TO STRENGTHEN
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Programs and policies falling in this category do not
rely on improvements which strengthen the surrounding coastal
environment, but rather seek to strengthen the building or
structure itself, and accompanying facilities such as sewerage
collection lines, water distribution lines, and roads. Discussion

5
1
1
I
11
below is organized under two headings: (1) provisions designed
to strengthen buildings and structures, and (2) provisions de-
signed to strengthen facilities and services.
A. Strengthening Buildings
The adoption of building codes and construction standards
has perhaps been the most popular response to hurricane and
coastal risks. Storm -resistant building requirements received
their most substantial impetus from the National Flood Insurance
Program. Created in 1968 under the National Flood Insurance
Act, the program provides for the identification and mapping of
flood -prone communities and the availability of federal flood
insurance for property within participating communities. To
qualify for flood insurance communities must adhere to federal
guidelines in the regulation of flood plain lands (Miller, 1975;
Baker, 1979). Under the "emergency" phase of the program new
construction in floodplain areas (in accordance with Flood
Hazard Boundary maps) has to satisfy anchoring requirements and
use flood -resistant materials.
• After more detailed Flood Insurance Rate Maps.(FIRMS) are
drawn for a community, it has the option (within a certain period
of time) to enter the "regular" program, or lose its flood insur-
ance coverage. Under regular participation, additional build-
ing requirements are specified. In the "A -Zone," the lowest
floor of a new residential structure must be elevated to at or
above the 100-year flood mark (The BFE, or Base Flood Elevation).

6
Commercial and Industrial Sturctures must either be elevated
' or flood -proofed (e.g., flood resistant materials, floodwalls)
(see FIA, 1976). Furthermore, all new construction must be
prohibited in the "floodway." (For a definition and discussion
of what a floodway is, see Kusler, 1972.), Because there is
typically not a floodway in coastal communities, the provision
is of less importance, here. In- many coastal jurisdictions "Coastal
High Hazard Areas C'V" or "Velocity -Zones") have been identi-
fied, in which special building requirements apply. These are
areas where the incoming storm surge is expected to support a
minimum three-foot wave (.see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975).
V-Zones are currently being delineated under a new wave height
methodology developed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS,
19831. Within V-Zones, buildings must be elevated to at or
above 100-year wave heights and built on pilings (.rather than
landfill). New mobile homes are prohibited in V-Zones, and
the alterations of certain sand dunes and mangroves are pro-
hibited if likely to lead to increased flood damages. In both
A and V zones, if flooding damage of more than 50% of the value
of an existing structure occurs, the rebuilding of this struc-
ture must be consistent with elevation and floodproofing re-
quirements. (For a good histry of the NFIP see Burby, French
and Kaiser, 1979).
It is evident that in many coastal communities the NFIP
program and its building requirements have spurred additional
mitigative provisions. A number of communities have mandated

VA
1
1
i
1
1
building elevation in excess of that required under the 100-year
BFE. Referred to as "freeboard" elevation, it can further min-
imize the impacts of wave and surge forces. The City of East
Providence, R.I., for example, has enacted provisions which dif-
ferentiate a high and low hazard zone. In the high hazard zone
(near the beach) residential buildings must be elevated to 15
feet MSL, rather than the 10 feet required under the NFIP re-
quirements (Kusler, 1982, p. 46).
Building codes vary widely in the resistance they provide
from hurricane forces, and a detailed discussion of their pro-
visions is not possible here. It should, however, be observed
that building codes are probably the most widely employed miti-
gation strategy. These requirements may be either local option
or state -mandated, or some combination. Texas is perhaps most
notable for its development of a model set of Hurricane Resis-
tant Building Standards (_Texas Coastal and Marine Council, 1981),
which among other things specifies relatively stringent wind
loading standards. It would have provided provisions to protect
against storm winds of 140 mph (as compared with, say, 105 mph
in the Southern Standard Code). This model code was, however,
not enacted by the Texas legislature.
B. Strengthening Facilities
Inhabited structures located in hazard areas must also be
served by certain basic facilities. These facilities, like the
structures themselves, can be strengthened to better resist

storm forces. Primaryamong these are wastewater collection
g ,
water distribution, electric and telephone lines, and roads.
Sewer and water lines can be floodproofed, while utilities
can be placed underground for better protection. Roads are best
protected through elevation.
III. MANAGEMENT AND
GUIDANCE OF DEVELOPMENT
A. Development Regulation
A primary set of development management tools are those
which regulate and control in a direct fashion the location,
density and type of development in a coastal community. Regu-
lation can address the reduction of exposure of property to
hurricane and storm risks, and reduction of vulnerability of
property, and can lead to the enhancement of the protective
features of the natural environment. Several alternative
regulatory devices are examined below.
1. Conventional zoning. Conventional zoning ordinances con-
trol the type of land uses allowed in particular parts of a
community (e.g., residential, commercial, recreational) as well
as the intensity (.e.g., bulk, height, floor area ratio, setback
provisions). As a result, zoning provisions can control the
amount and type of property exposure to hurricane and storm
hazards. For instance, open space and recreational uses may
be the most appropriate activities to be permitted in high risk
areas (e.g., high wave and erosion areas). Restricting such

E
I
11
I
i
1
1
areas to commercial or public recreational activities will sub-
stantially reduce the amount of property at -risk and in turn the
property losses to accrue from future hurricanes and storms.
2. Exclusive undeveloped hazard zone. One zoning option is
simply to designate an open space or conservation zone in
which all future development is prohibited. Even if this were
a politically -feasible option, in coastal areas where agricul-
tural and other non -developed uses do not yield a reasonable
economic return, a challenge of a "taking" of private property
without just compensation is opened up (see Bosselman et al.,
1976). Depending upon specific state statutes and case law,
such an approach is not likely to be defensible unless some
economic use, such as agricultural, forestal, or commercial
recreation can be supported. The community must examine the
local viability of these non -developed uses and modify its
regulations accordingly.
The legal and political feasibility of a zone where all
development is prohibited may depend on the precise design and
configuration of this zone, and its relation to land ownership
patterns in the community. If, for instance, the zone consti-
tuted a "strip" which was long but not wide, the typical land-
owner could work around such a prohibition, essentially build-
ing on other portions of lots. Such a zone then essentially be-
comes much like an ocean setback. Moreover , even if the zone is
not of a "strip" type, but rather encompasses a large amount of land

10
in one area, if landholdings are quite large, it might be ar-
gued that reasonable development potential (economic use) has
been preserved.
One reasonable alternative is to limit development in the
Coastal High Hazard Area (V-Zone). as designated under the Na-
tional Flood Insurance Program (e.g., see Platt, 1979). This
would ;ae:rve as a natural delineation of the most hazardous
portions of the coastal environment, would simplify mapping
problems, and would enhance the legal and scientific support-
ability of the restrictions. Again, however, the V-zone may
encompass large amounts of prime development land, with no
other reasonable economic use.
Even where a reasonable economic return cannot be ensured,
the legal and political feasibility of development limitation
can be maintained by coupling it with other techniques such as
the transfer of development rights and the acquisition of less -
than -fee simple interests in land. For instance, if the regu-
lated landowner is able to transfer a portion of the pre -
regulatory development value of his parcel to another site where
it can be used (or sell it to someone who can use it for such a
purpose) this will afford the landowner at least some economic
return. These techniques are further discussed in subsequent
sections of this report.
3. Reducing the quantity of development exposed. In most in-
stances, in the absence of land acquisition or some form of
tlandowner compensation, large scale prohibition of new develop-
ment is not likely to be feasible. Often a more sensible
F,

11
1
1
1
approach is one which seeks to reduce the overall quantity of
development at -risk. While a residential designation in an
oceanfront area may still permit considerable development to
occur at high risk to hurricane damages, this quantity may be
considerably less than what the unregulated market would sup-
port. Moreover, reducing a zoning designation from relatively
dense multi -family development to single family may reduce sub-
stantially the amount of property at -risk.
This reduction of risk is also contingent to some extent
on the quality and type of structures to be built. Multifamily
structures, for instance, may be built to withstand much more
effectively the forces of hurricanes and storms, in comparison
to single family structures. While limiting development to the
latter type may reduce the quantity of property at -risk, this
property may be more vulnerable to storm damages. This quantity -
vulnerability relationship should be considered.
4. Reduction of density/extent of exposure according to magni-
tude of site risk. Reduction of the amount of property at risk
in coastal hazard areas can be commensurate with the extent and
nature of the storm and storm -related hazards that exist in various
locations. The quantity of development permissible could be a
function of the accumulated risks in a particular site. For in-
stance, less development may be permitted in an area subject to both
wave velocity action from storms and a potentially -shifting inlet,
than a location subject to velocity effects but without the inlet
hazard. Different hazard zones can be designated with varying
1

12
1
1
11
17
u
degrees and combinations of hazards, with the density of devel-
opment permitted being a direct function of these designations.
Proximity to ocean and sound waters may serve as a good proxy
for storm risks, with the most extensive amounts of new develop-
ment permitted on locations farther inland. An important fac-
tor here is that in a typical coastal community there will be
gradations of hazard and risk, with the primary (mitigation)
objective of zoning to orient future development away from high
hazard areas to lesser hazard areas.
As with many of the other development management techniques
discussed in this paper it is important to utilize zoning provi-
sions to preserve,to the extent possible, the protective features
of the natural environment. It may be desirable, for instance,
to permit only very low densities of development (where permit-
ted at all) around wetlands. Development in close proximity
may threaten the health and vitality of the areas and in turn
reduce their utility in absorbing storm forces (e.g., Conserva-
tion Foundation, 1980; Benton et al., 1980).
Coastal Setback
The concept of development setback has long been part of
zoning and land use controls. Setbacks are used in urban set-
tings, for instance, to ensure that sufficient land is avail-
able in the future for public improvements (e.g., roads), and
to ensure adequate light, access, and separation of structures.
Required setbacks from coastal hazard areas is an extension of

13
1
this zoning concept, and has become relatively popular as a
rtechnique both for minimizing the impact of development on beach
and dune areas, and reducing exposure to storm hazards (e.g.,
see Kusler, 1982; CURS, 1984). Setbacks can be required from
the ocean itself (e.g., from mean high tide), the first line of
vegetation, or dune ridges. Such setbacks may be either state -
mandated or local option. The State of North Carolina requires
coastal development to be located landward from the.first line
of vegetation a distance of 30 times the annual rate of erosion
for that particular segment of the coast. Florida operates a
similar requirement under its Coastal Construction Control Line
' (CCCL). Seaward of the control line, a permit must be obtained
from the state to develop or excavate land. The line is meant
to encompass the 100-year flood area, and varies from jurisdic-
tion to jurisdiction based on local erosion and shoreline changes.
While construction seaward of the CCCL is not prohibited it must
1 satisfy certain structural and design requirements, to ensure
protection of structures and the beach and dune system. It is
at least conceivable that.these mitigative requirements can
discourage or reduce the amount of development in high risk
areas, as it may be easier to obtain development approval in
■ locations outside the CCCL. A number of individual coastal
jurisdictions have established setback provisions on their own
(e.g., see Kusler, 1982).
1

14
1 s.
1
1
1
Subdivision Regulations
Subdivision regulations govern the conversion of raw land
into developed uses, and the types and extent of improvements
made in this conversion. Subdivision regulations can control
the density, configuration and layout of development. It
operates in ways similar to zoning in its ability to control
the amount and density of development on a particular site.
The requirement of a minimum lot size can reduce the amount of
new development exposed to storm hazards. Site plan review
and other requirements of subdivision approval can provide the
opportunity to orient the location of development sites in such
a way that storm risks are minimized. For instance, subdivision
provisions may require that new single family dwellings on lots
in hazard areas be sited in ways which maximize distance from
high hazard oceanfront areas. Perhaps some of the most promising
requirements from a storm mitigation perspective are clustering
provisions (see Whyte, 1968). Such provisions would not affect
the overall density permitted on a particular site, but would
seek to amalgamate this density in areas of the site which are
less -hazardous (e.g., outside of the flood zone, at a distance
from velocity zones and active inlets). These provisions may
either be required or presented to developers as an option.
Clustering could have several advantages from a storm mitigation
perspective. By directing density to a particular portion of a
site, it can both permit and encourage development to locate on
the less -hazardous portions of a site, while preserving hazard-

15
1
1
prone areas in an undeveloped state. These may typically be
areas, such as wetlands, and vegetation areas, which in them-
selves serve to protect against storm forces. Clustering may
also encourage the construction of buildings which are more
structurally -resistant to storm forces, and may provide a more
economical provision of certain storm protection improvements
(e.g., sea or floodwalls). Clustering can, as well, economize
on the public facilities, such as sewer, water and roads, which
must accompany development, in turn reducing the amount of such
property at -risk (RERC, 1974). Clustering may also offer advan-
tages in the provision of community storm shelters and evacu-
ation services.
The process of subdivision approval might be made con-
tingent upon certain mitigative actions, such as the protection
of dunes, wetlands and natural vegetation. Subdivision approval
may be denied, for example, if they do not meet certain evacu-
ation safety or hazard -reduction performance standards, or if
certain mitigative actions are not taken to address these issues.
Traditionally, subdivision approval is contingent upon the
provision by the developer of certain facilities, or monetary
contributions in lieu of such dedications. Referred to as
"exactions," they have conventionally taken the form of require-
ments to construct and dedicate, or to pay for the construction,
of such immediate facilities as sewer and water lines, curbs and gut-
ters, and roads. Typically included, as well, are requirements
that developers contribute a certain amount of land for open

W,
I
.1
space, parks and recreation, and future school sites. These
are generally needs directly related to the new development.
This exactions process offers potential for storm hazard miti-
gation in several ways. It may require, for instance, that
when private developers build and dedicate public facilities,
that these facilities be constructed in ways which are hurricane -
resistant (e.g., flood proofing sewer and water lines, elevated,
etc.). Moreover, in the dedication of lands, or fees in lieu
of such dedications,.the community can require that lands which
are particularly hazardous be dedicated --in turn ensuring that
such areas are used for non -developed (.non -intensive) uses. An.
in -lieu land acquisition fund may allow the community to combine
resources and to acquire in a more aggressive way large tracts/
areas of high -hazard land. Consideration of public reconstruc-
tion requirements may also be appropriate. For example, the
community may wish to make subdivision approval contingent upon.
the contribution of the developer to a "reconstruction fund,"
which would be used to finance both immediate recovery and longer -
term reconstruction tasks.
Some communities have attempted to tie subdivision approval
to the adequate provision of off -site community facilities and
services, such as police and fire. Similar reasoning applies
to hurricane hazard reduction. Subdivision approval might be
contingent, for instance, on adequate community -wide evacuation
capacity, or the provision of community storm shelters.
Clustering provisions are typically associated with the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept. PUD provisions provide
1

17
I
J
I
for flexibility and innovation in project design by relaxing
stringent zoning and subdivision requirements, for a more cre-
ative design which is the result of negotiation between the
developer and public officials. A PUD process may permit the
mixing of residential and.commercial uses in a way which the
conventional zoning in place would not. It is conceivable that
storm hazard reduction can be advanced through PUD project de-
sign, for instance, by permitting deviation-- from normal land use
and subdivision standards for more innovative developments (and
perhaps more profitable from the developer's point of view) when
these designs incorporate storm hazard reduction features, such
as the provision of protective land and vegetation buffers, and
the.provision of on -site storm shelters. (.For a discussion of
PUD provisions see Burchell, 1972).
Two zoning techniques which can increase the ability of
local land use restrictions to reduce storm hazards are condi-
tional and contract zoning. Under contract zoning the juris-
diction agrees to allow a land use activity not normally per-
missable in a particular area (e.g., a rezoning from low -density
residential to commercial, or higher -density residential) in
exchange for a certain desirable feature provided by the devel-
oper (e.g., a deed restriction, certain public improvements)..
Conditional zoning is similar to contract zoning, but without
the community selling or bargaining away its regulatory author-
ity. Here, zoning changes are permitted only if they satisfy
the stipulations laid down by the community at the time of

18
L1
I�
J
project review. For example, a community may agree to rezone
low density residential to commercial uses in a high hazard
zone, only if the developer agrees to ensure, for example, that
such structures can be used for sheltering the public in the
event a hurricane threatens. These are conditions which gen-
erally flow from the project review process and are typically
not formalized or uniform from project to project.
An additional approach to enhancing the flexibility of
land use controls is the use of "conditional" or "special" uses.
These are uses which are permitted by right as long as proposed
development meets certain standards and criteria. These condi-
tions typically relate to the provision of public facilities
and the protection of environmental resources. Such standards
could also incorporate storm risk reduction actions, for in-
stance permitting special uses only when adequate evacuation
capability exists, or only when such uses do not disrupt the
ability of the natural coastal environment to resist and pro-
tect against storm forces.
Another possible mechanism for enforcing storm hazard
reduction in development management is the use of bonus or in-
centive zoning. Typically this is a formal mechanism through
which developers are granted extra development density (.e.g."
square footage, dwelling units, etc.1 in exchange for certain
public amenities. It has been used for some time in New York
City and San Francisco. In New York, for example, a developer
can obtain a 20% increase in permissable floor area for pro-
jects which incorporate a legitimate theatre (_i . e . , within a
1

�L7
!1
1
d
1
designated theatre district ). In the case of coastal hazard
areas, developers may be granted additional development units
if projects incorporate certain hazard -reduction features.
These features may include the purchasing and deeding to the
public of high hazard lands, or the provision of certain design
features which may increase the ability of structures to with-
stand storm forces. It may, however, not be wise public policy
to encourage or permit additional densities in such areas,
even if certain public amenities and hazard -reduction features.
are provided.
It is important to place storm hazard reduction in the
context of our local development goals and objectives. This
observation has several implications. The first is that in
storm hazard reduction efforts, the presence of opportunities
to advance other community goals may increase substantially the
feasibility of such hazard reduction measures. While it may
not be feasible to purchase high hazard parcels solely to re-
duce the extent of.property at -risk, when the community deter-
mines that such lands are also badly needed for open space and
recreational uses, together these overlapping objectives may
cause such a program to be feasible. Secondly in the local
development management process, the reduction or permission of
storm risks must be balanced against other legitimate public
goals. For instance, a community may permit a certain devel-
opment in a high hazard area if these risks are counter-
balanced by other amenities and features provided by the devel-
oper and highly valued by the public.
1

20
1
B. Land and Property Acquisition
The acquisition of land and property, or interests there-
in, may in many cases be the most effective approach to reduc-
ing the extent of exposure to storm forces. Several acquisi-
tion approaches are discussed here: 1) fee simple acquisition
of undeveloped land; 2) acquisition of less -than -fee -simple
interests in undeveloped land; and 3) fee simple acquisition/
relocation of existing development.
1. Fee -Simple Acquisition
of Undeveloped Land
'
Fee
simple
acquisition
entails the public's obtaining of
the full
"bundle
of rights"
associated with a parcel of land.
I
With respect to the storm hazard, acquisition may have several
immediate functions. The first is to secure in public hands
high hazard areas, thus in turn preventing the future exposure
of property and people to storm hazards. On a larger scale
public acquisition of land can serve to influence the direction
and timing of growth and development in a community. Urban
land ing programs, particularly popular in Europe, have at-
tempted to regulate growth by preventing development in unde-
sirable locations while strategically releasing other land more
suitable (see Strong, 1979). Or perhaps, on a much smaller
scale, single parcels of land may be purchased to prevent the
location of certain growth -shaping private activities, e.g.,
the construction of a shopping center, boat marina, manufacturing
1

' 21
1
complex, and so on. Land acquisition can also be used to secure
in advance, and typically at lower prices, land that will be
needed at some point in the future for public facilities and
' services, e.g., school sites. The primary focus of the follow-
ing discussion will be on the acquisition of undeveloped high
hazard parcels as an attempt to reduce the extent of property
and people at risk.
The use of fee simple acquisition poses a number of prac-
tical questions. The most significant perhaps for most coastal
communities have to do with its cost and how such acquisitions
are to be financed. Fee -simple acquisition in coastal areas
' experiencing moderate or high levels of market demand will tend
to be very expensive --prohibitively expensive for many communi-
ties. The purchase of already -improved land (i.e., land with
' homes and facilities) will be even more expensive, although
damaged properties purchased in the aftermath of a storm may re-
duce these expenses substantially. The community must be pre-
pared, however, to take advantage of "bargain sales" after the
tstorm. (This is discussed at greater length in a later section).
The expenses associated with fee -simple acquisition
can be reduced in several ways. First, a community may
seek to acquire land a number of years in advance of develop-
ment, when its market value is relatively low. Reduced acqui-
sition costs may also be obtained through the use of eminent
domain. official mapping is another technique for keeping ac-
quisition costs down. This identifies areas where the public

22
F]
1
11
11
�J
expects toIpurchase land in the future, and where in-
consistent activities and developments will not be permitted.
Such an approach can serve to squelch rising development ex-
pectations which can lead to higher land acquisition costs.
The costs of fee -simple acquisition might also be reduced
through the use of "preemption" or "right of first refusal."
Such a mechanism would essentially permit the local governing
body to insert itself in the place of a property -buyer in any
local land transation. In other words,it would allow the lo-
cality to oversee all land transactions and to spend its limited
resources in acquiring only those lands which are truly threat-
ened by development (i.e., are in fact in the process of being
sold for development uses) . This technique has been used exten-
sively in France under their SAFER program. Here right of pre-
emption is used to purchase farmland, which is in turn reassem-
bled and sold in larger more agriculturally -efficient tracts
(Coughlin et al., 1977). The technique has also been used by
the State of Oregon in protecting its scenic waterways from dam-
aging development. While this concept has legal precedence in
real estate law, enabling legislation will likely be necessary
in most states before it can be used.
Acquisition costs can also be kept down through resale of
properties, with certain covenant restrictions placed on the
use of these lands. This would also address the problem of man-
aging lands and property once they have been acquired. Placing
land back into private hands, where possible, may do much to
1

23
1
�7
1
keep these costs down. This decision, however, will also depend
upon other important community objectives which may exist. If
there exists a local need for parkland, maintaining these lands
in public hands will then make more sense. A locality should in
its acquisition decisionmaking be highly cognizant of other com-
munity goals and objectives that can be advanced simultaneously
with hurricane/storm hazard reduction. The greater the overlap
of such objectives the greater will be the social efficiency of
these acquisitions.
Where possible a locality should seek to obtain "bargain
buys," and land and property donations. Bargain purchases may
be particularly attractive in the aftermath of a storm where
damages are substantial and some property owners may wish to
vacate the hazard area. The locality must, however, be prepared
prior to such damages to act upon these bargains when they pre-
sent themselves.
Acquisition costs may also be reduced by taking advantage
of all available federal and state funding sources. Historical-
ly, where acquisition has been used most extensively as a miti-
gation tool, there has been substantial federal and state fin-
ancial involvement Musler, 1979).. For instance, Section 1362
of the Federal Disaster Assistance Act provides for federal
funds for the purchase of federally -insured properties damaged
by a storm (or other disaster). NFIP provisions also provide
for what is known as "total constructive loss," or payments to
FIA-insured property owners for the complete amount of policy
1

24
1
1
1
n
1
A
coverage even where damages are not this extensive, if owners
agree not to rebuild. The policy has, however,'apparently lost
favor with FEMA officials.
A community may also be able to more efficiently use its
available acquisition funds by coordinating its acquisition de-
cisions with private organizations, such as the Nature Conser-
vancy and the Trust for Public Land, that are intimately in-
volved in land acquisition. These organizations are ofen in a
better position to engage in extensive acquisition than are
single jurisdictions. Although their acquisition decisions are
typically based on non -hazard objectives, a community may be
able to influence these private purchase decisions in several
ways. This may occur, for instance, simply by better communi-
cating their perception of which acquisitions will be in the
public interest, or by convincing :them that 'by
purchasing specific parcels, or parcels in particular areas of
the community, multiple social objectives will be furthered.
As well, the community may be able to devise a cost -sharing
arrangement, in which the community,through some form of finan-
cial contribution, is entitled to share•in specific decisions
concerning acquisition. The community may also be able to
facilitate certain private foundation acquisitions which are
favorable to local storm hazard mitigation.
Even where acquisition costs can be kept down, the com-
munity must address the issue of how it will finance the in-
evitable local expenses involved in acquisition. One such

0
25.
J,
approach is simply to finance these expenses through general
revenue funds. In turn, local taxes must either be raised to
pay for these costs, or funds directed from other local needs.
Because acquisition of hazardous lands reduces "general" or
"community -wide" damage liability, it can be argued that gen-
eral revenue financing makes sense from an equity point of view.
An alternative approach would be to obtain these funds through
special means, which might include the collection of a special
acquisition fee from new development, or through special dis-
trict levies and assessments. Land acquisition as part of the
exaction process during development approval has been discussed
in a previous section (.see p. 15). The use of special assess-
ments or levies would appear contingent, at least from an
equity (as well as a legal) standpoint, on the extent to which
these acquisitions will benefit existing property owners (i.e., the
property -owners to which the tax is applied). To the extent
that such acquisitions serve to enhance protection from future
storm damages, as well as provide other benefits to nearby
landowners (e.g., scenic and recreational benefits) such a
mechanism seems a reasonable approach to financing acquisitions.
Relocation to Reduce Exposure
Development management may also involve the relocation of
structures and facilities from high storm hazard areas to areas
of the community with lesser storm hazards. Relocation can take
at least two forms: 1). relocation of the structure and its

26
1
I
fl
contents to another site, and 2) relocation of the contents of
a structure while demolishing.or putting to a new use the re-
maining structure. Johnson (1978) has suggested that the first
option entails the following steps:
• Locating and purchasing land at a new site.
• Preparing the new site; services, driveway, sidewalk,
new foundation.
• Raising the structure off its existing foundation, trans-
porting it to the new site, and placing it on the new
foundation.
• Moving contents from'the existing to the new location.
• Removing, disposing and backfilling the foundation at
the existing site.
• Providing temporary lodging during relocation (.p. 47).
Johnson (1978) suggests that the second option entails the fol-
lowing steps:
• Locating an existing structure, or building a new struc-
ture, at a flood free site.
• Moving contents from an existing to a new location.
• Either demolishing, and where possible salvaging the
existing structure, or reusing it for a less damage sus-
ceptible use (.p. 47)..
Relocation of the structure to a hazard -free or less haz-
ardous site while physically possible, may be economically in-
feasible. This will depend on the type of structure involved.
It is generally not feasible with respect to most commercial or
industrial structures and multifamily residential structures.
Single family residential structures (one or two stories) and
light commercial structures, are most feasible (those with wood
frames and with basements or raised foundations). These are

27
I
1
structures which generally weigh less and contain accessible
floor joists (Johnson, 1978). Structures with slab -on -grade
foundations are difficult to relocate. Reducing the distance
a structure must be transported may increase the feasibility
of this technique. It may be, for instance, that signifi-
cant additional protection can be afforded a structure by
moving it back from the ocean or high hazard area.
Relocation of families and their belongings to new hous-
ing outside the hazard or "high" hazard area will generally be a
more feasible approach. This is particularly true following ex-
tensive storm damage, where demolition of damaged properties
(rather than extensive reconstruction) involves fewer opportunity
costs. The recent efforts in the town of BayTown Texas to purchase
properties in the Brownwood subdivision --an area devastated by Hurri-
cane Alicia --are illustrative of the technique. Here some 300 des-
troyed or heavily damaged single family homes have been prevented
from being rebuilt (See FEMA, Aug. 1983; Dec., 1983). Federal
monies are being used to acquire the land the structures sit on
(Section 1362), while SBA loans are being used to make up the differ-
ence between federal flood insurance payments and the replacement
costs of these homes. This particular subdivision had been flood-
ed at numerous times in the past, and federal officials saw
this as an excellent opportunity to reduce future property losses
and the federal insurance liabilities that would accompany them.
Once these lands are acquired by the federal government they
will be deeded to the City of BayTown, which in turn must agree
to keep these lands in an undeveloped state.

28
n
1
F]
I
The question of relocation following the storm will be ad-
dressed in greater detail at a later point in this paper.
2. Purchase of Development
Rights/Donation of Easements
Where the fee -simple purchase of hazardous lands is, for
various reasons, not feasible, a community may consider the pur-
chase of less -than -fee -simple interests in land. one such ap-
proach is the acquisition of rights to develop, from owners of
high -hazard parcels. Under this arrangement, a jurisdiction
would pay the landowner the fair market value of this right in
exchange for agreeing to leave the land in an undeveloped state
for some specified period of time, typically perpetuity. This
is usually accomplished through a restrictive covenant which
runs with the property deed. Throughout the section we will
refer to this technique as the Purchase of Development Rights
(PDR) .
As with fee -simple acquisition a number of immediate prac-
tical questions arise. First, in what manner are these rights
to be acquired? Does the community use its powers of eminent
domain, or instead simply bargain for them on the open market,
acquiring such rights only from those who wish to sell them?
This question may have significant implications for the ability
of PDR to protect large blocks of high hazard land. For in-
stance, relying upon voluntary sales may permit substantial de-
velopment in an otherwise undeveloped high hazard area --it may
do little more than shift new development from some parcels to

29
11
11
1
1
E
ri
1
1
1
other parcels (perhaps denser development) within high hazard
areas. Through the use of eminent domain, this potential
"checkerboard effect" in high hazard areas may be prevented.
There is, as well, the question of what a "development
right" is to consist of--i.e., exactly what rights are being
purchased by a locality. Clearly, extensive residential devel-
opment should be precluded; but should this include private
recreational uses and developments which do not place substan-
tial amounts of private or public property at risk? The greater
the economic use which remains for the property owner, the great-
er will be the parcel's remaining fair market value, and the
less costly will be the development rights purchase. Exactly
what uses are permitted after development rights have been pur-
chased may also influence overall property at risk on other par-
cels/areas. For instance, if private recreational activities
are permitted in PDR circumstances, this may in turn induce
further residential and other development in adjacent areas
(lands where development rights have not been purchased).
These types of development influences and side effects should
be considered when defining the rights to be purchased (and
the types of uses and activities that will be permitted in the
future) .
While a leading reason for preferring development rights
acquisition over fee -simple acquisition is that public expense
will be less, PDR may still be a very expensive mitigation
approach. In areas where market demand for developed uses is

.30
1
1
1
I
I
1
high, the purchasing of a development right will constitute the
major portion of the parcel's fair market value (Coughlin and
Plaut, 1978). Because of this fact, PDR may be no more finan-
cially feasible than fee -simple acquisition. A community can,
however, investigate alternative techniques for keeping down
the costs of these rights. For instance, the Maryland Agri-
cultural Land Foundation, a state -funded agency which purchases
development rights from farmers, seeks to get the most from its
limited funding by giving preference to parcels where the fol-
lowing ratio is highest: development rights (easement) value -
asking price/development rights (easement) value (Furuseth.and
Pierce, 1982; Nielson, 1979). Under this arrangement farmers
wishing to sell their development rights submit bids to the
state foundation, which in turn gives preference to high value
parcels with low sale prices. A similar procedure might be ap-
plied in coastal communities. A jurisdiction might designate a
general area of high storm hazard from which it will accept bids
for development rights sales --in turn maximizing limited local
monies by purchasing those rights which consist of the "best
deals." A system could also be developed by which to evaluate
the extent of relative storm hazard for each parcel (e.g., dis-
tance from the ocean) in turn incorporating this information
into the evaluation procedure (i.e., getting the largest hazard
reduction for the dollar).
The period of time for which the development rights are
purchased will also have significance for the cost of such a
J

31
r,
F
FJ
I
1
L
program. The Maryland program requires that development be
restricted for a minimum of 25 years. A shorter period of time
may serve the needs of the locality (e.g., in directing growth
in certain areas) and preserve for the landowner a greater por-
tion of the market value of the land, thus reducing the overall
costs of development rights to a locality. Instead of purchas-
ing these rights, the locality may find it more economically
efficient to "lease" them for shorter periods of time.
As with fee -simple acquisition;y there arise important ques-
tions of how the securing of these rights will be financed.
Again, where possible, outside assistance should be utilized
along with attempts to collaborate with the purchasing efforts
of private groups. As before, developers of projects in hazard-
ous areas might be required to purchase such rights themselves,
or contribute to a local development rights purchasing fund,
based on the magnitude of the project (e.g., sq. feet, number
of bedrooms). The purchase of development rights may advance
other community goals, as already noted, such as the preserva-
tion of open space and the protection of natural amenities,
and as such funding by the general public may be justified.
The general public will also benefit to the extent that future
public expenditures for recovery and reconstruction are reduced.
It should, however, be remembered that the purchasing of such
rights may also reduce the local -tax base, as may be the case with fee -
simple acquisition. This impact will, of course, depend upon
the extent of the local purchase program and characteristics

LJ
32
r
G
1
I
1
of the local tax base. Generally the impact on local tax base
is not likely to be substantial.
PDR can be used effectively in collaboration with develop-
ment regulation. On the one hand, restricting development in a
particularly hazardous area of the community may prevent the
checkerboard effect that sometimes results from a voluntary
PDR. In turn, PDR may serve to soften the economic effects of
development regulations, and reduce as well the political oppo-
sition typically arising around such regulatory programs.
While not widely used, the PDR concept has recently been
proposed by North Carolina's Forsyth County (.Zaneski, 1984).
Under this proposal the county would spend $1 million each year
to purchase development rights to prime farmland in the county.
These lands could then not be developed for at least 25 years.
At the end of this period the landowner would be given the op-
tion of buying back the development rightsif he so desired, but
at their current (new) market value. As currently proposed this
program would be completely voluntary.
As an alternative to the purchasing of development rights,
a community might investigate encouraging the donation of scenic
or conservation easements. Landowners can be encouraged to make
such donations in large part because of the income tax deduc-
tions permissible under Section 170 of the IRS Code.
For easements to qualify as charitable deductions, the instru-
ment must be for perpetuity, must run with the land, and all

Ll
33
I
C1
subsequent owners must be subject to the restrictions. Under
new provisions (.1980), the Treasury Department is now required
to make a determination that the easement "will yield a signifi-.:_
cant public benefit." This does not appear, however,to have been
an impediment to receiving the charitable deduction.
The community can take either an active or passive role
in soliciting easement donations. It may, for example, active-
ly search out and encourage these donations by landowners in
hazard areas. In contrast it may simply assume a passive role
as the recipient of easements. In either case, the community
must carefully evaluate the significance of each charitable
easement for local storm hazard mitigation. Accepting easements
located in the wrong places simply because they are donations
(or at least inexpensive) may do more harm than good in the long
run. Easements in perpetuity may lock the community into land
use and development patterns that it may later find undesirable
or inappropriate. In the case of extreme coastal hazard areas,
this is unlikely to be a significant problem, but in certain
situations it may prove to be an important consideration.
If an easement is accepted, the jurisdiction and donating
party should seek a clear understanding of the precise restric-
tions to the use of the land which will be in place. Experi-
ence with easements by the U.S. Park Service and others indi-
cates that substantial difficulties can arise where misunder-
standings about easement restrictions exist (Coughlin & Plaut,
1978). This highlights the importance of educating landowners

L
V
'J
34
concerning easement restrictions both at initial time of dona-
tion and during subsequent sale or transfer of the land. The
jurisdiction accepting the easement should also ensure that
certain positive rights of entry are included, so as to facil-
itate public inspection and ensure compliance with easement
provisions. Administrative processes need to be devised to
detect these violations at an early point.
3. Transfer of
Development Rights
One potentially effective approach to reducing the amount
of property at -risk is to permit the transfer of development
rights from a high storm hazard zone to a non -hazard or "safe"
zone in another part of the jurisdiction. Such a system could
either be voluntary or mandatory. Under the latter, a locality
would simply zone the storm hazard area so that fewer units of
development are allowed (or prohibit new development entirely),
and the owner of land within this zone would then be permitted
to transfer all or some of this unused development density to
parcels in designated safe areas, or to sell these on the open
market to others who own land in areas designated for develop-
ment. The locality would then permit increased levels of de-
velopment in the "safe" zone as a result of possessing extra
development rights; thus a natural market for the transfer of
these rights is created. A voluntary approach would simply
present this transfer as an additional option for the landowner--

35
1
a way of maintaining the land in its undeveloped use if the
landowner wishes. The landowner in this case would still have
the option of developing his land, or selling it for develop-
ment purposes (e.g., see Rose, 1975).
A number of practical issues must be considered by the
community wishing to use a TDR approach. First, there are sev-
eral alternative institutional approaches to operating such a
program. On the one hand, the transfer of development rights
can be left entirely to market dynamics, with the community in-
volved only in designating "sending" and "receiving" zones, and
determining the number of rights to be allocated. Whether a
selling landowner receives a fair price for his rights will de-
pend simply on what the market will provide. While there are
decisions which must be made in the initial allocation of
rights, the community adopts essentially a "hands -off" stance
once the system is created. An alternative institutional
structure would have the community play a more direct and active
role in the development rights transaction itself, perhaps
serving as a broker --buying and selling rights as needed. This
in turn helps to ensure that an adequate price is obtained
(e.g., overcoming short-term market oscillations). While the
latter approach would permit greater control over the price
and quantity of rights sold, it would also require greater
government expense and oversight. An intermediate position
might permit the local government to enter the market at oc-
casional critical points, e.g., to stabilize prices, etc.--

36
1
1
1
yet leaving transactions, by and large, to the dynamics of the
local market.
An initial difficulty is devising.a methodology for as-
signing rights. _They might be allocated, for instance,
strictly according to acreage (e.g., one right per acre), or
according to the market value of the property (i.e., the greater the
value of property the more rights assigned). Eventually at sore point in the
future the question will arise as to whether additional rights
should be allocated. If this is considered appropriate
a practical and fair procedure for allocating these additional
subsequent rights must be devised.
The locality must also decide how rights transferred from
hurricant-prone sites can be used. If a developer purchases
ten development rights from land in a high hazards area, and
seeks to apply these in a non -hazardous (or less -hazardous)
receiving zone, what will this entitle him to? Each addition-
al development right, for example, might translate into a cer-
tain amount of additional floorspace (e.g., footage) allowed
in the receiving zone. In the case of residential development
these additions may be measured in terms of additional dwell-
ing units, bedrooms, etc.
The transfer of development rights can also be viewed as
a form of compensation when restrictions are placed on devel-
opment in storm hazard areas. For instance, although an ocean-
front landowner may be prevented from developing his land (.i.e.,
it is now zoned for open space or recreational uses), he may
11

37
be able to realize a portion of this development potential by
transferring (or selling to those who will transfer). his allo-
cated development rights to areas of the community more pro-
tected from storm hazards. Viewing TDR primarily as a form of
compensation raises several questions: key among them is the
extent of compensation deemed to be desirable or equitable.
Atwhat point will the market value of a development right be
unacceptably low as a form of compensation? If full or substan-
tial compensation is a goal;this may require a more active role
for government in the development rights market say by
entering the market- to buy rights at times when demand is
I low.
1
A large-scale TDR program requires extensive information
and knowledge about local market conditions and land development
trends, and this can represent a majorlimitation. How
large, for example, should the receiving zone be (by how much
should the community raise permissable densities?) to ensure
an adequate demand for development rights? How readily will
landowners in sending zones sell their development rights and
when? One reasonable approach to these empirical limitations
is to develop a modest TDR program, at least initially, with
relatively small receiving and sending zones which can be moni-
tored closely over time.
A number of illustrations of the use of TDR can be cited.
One of the better known is that of Buckingham Township, in
Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. Here

W.
11 J
1
the TDR concept was coupled with performance zoning. The
Township was initially divided into two major districts:
1) a development district, designed to accomodate some twenty
years of future growth; and 2) a rural district. The develop-
ment zone was further divided into more specific use and density
zones, and the rural district was divided into agricultural and
resource protection zones. The TDR program here is entirely
voluntary. Owners of land in agricultural protection zones are
able, if they wish, to transfer unused development rights to
development areas. Each landowner has been awarded one right
per acre. If, instead of transferring development rights the
landowner wishes to develop his land, he can do so but only
under stringent performance standards. Landowners might be re-
quired, for example, to preserve as much as 90% of the area of
the land in permanent open space, under clustering provisions
(see Merriam, 1978).
Collier County, Florida, is another example of effective
use of TDR. Here the intent was the protection of the coastal
ecosystem. The county has placed more than 80% of its land area
in what is called a Special Treatment ($T) zone, where a permit
is required for development. The County will issue a permit,
however, only in instances where development will not cause
"significant environmental damage." If the County finds that
such damage will occur and thus prohibits development, or if
the landowner simply wishes to leave his land in an undeveloped
state, he may transfer unused development rights to areas outside

39
1
11
of the Special Treatment zone. As of 1979, some 40,000 acres
of land had been included in ST zones, and 374 residential
units had been transferred to less environmentally -sensitive
areas (see Spagna, 1979).
Two Maryland communities have also recently initiated TDR
programs: Montgomery and Calvert counties. Montgomery operates
a development rights bank, while Calvert County operates an
"unfettered" program in which development rights are transferred
on an open market. Calvert does provide assistance, however, in
matching -up prospective buyers and sellers. Both programs are
designed primarily to protect local farmland. In the case of
Calvert County, development rights transfer is available only
for parcels located either in a voluntarily -created "agricul-
tural presentation district," or a "designated agricultural
area" identified by the County. Landowners within these areas
are generally allotted one development right per acre,although
development rights are subtracted for existing residences and
additional rights are allocated for existing lots of record.
Owners of land within transfer -zones can increase their allow-
able densities by one single family residential building lot for
each five development rights purchased. Increased density may
not exceed one dwelling unit per acre and in most cases one
dwelling unit per two and one-half acres. If a landowner who
has already sold his development rights wishes to subdivide a
lot for a family member he may do so by purchasing five devel-
opment rights from other landowners in the district. However,
this lot may not be smaller than 25 acres.
0

40
C. Taxation and
Fiscal Policies
The specific provisions included in this broad mitigative
category are designed primarily to affect indirectly the use of hazard-
ous parcels and the quantity and type of develognent to occur in•storm hazard
zones. in contrast to the.public acquisition of storm -prone lands, a taxation pol-
icy might seek to reduce develgmnent by decreasing the holding costs of
open space and vacant land, in turn reducing the opportunity
' costs of not developing such lands for more intensive uses.
While the broad category of taxation and fiscal policy can en-
tail numerous specific tools and mechanisms, primary attention
' in this paper is given to the following: preferential tax as-
sessment, public facilities and services pricing policy, and
the use of, hazard impact taxes or special hazard assessments.
' 1. Differential Taxation
The use of differential taxation is based on the theory
that by reducing the property tax burden on undeveloped parcels
of land, this will decrease their holding costs and increase
the profitability of their current uses, and in turn their abil-
ity to resist pressures to convert to more intensive uses. Al-
most every state now has a provision for some form of differen-
tial assessment (Coughlin and Keene, 1981).
The uses which are typically eligible for such reductions are
farm and forestland, open space and recreational uses. These
' are all uses which could occur in coastal high hazard areas,
J

1 41
and which could in turn reduce the amount of property and peo-
ple exposed to the storm threat.
Three basic variations of differential assessment are cur-
rently in use: 1) pure preferential assessment; 2) deferred
taxation; and 3) restrictive agreements (_see Keene et al., 1976).
Under the first type of program preferred land uses are assessed
' for local property tax purposes not at their fair market value
(i.e., the potential development value) but rather at their
' value in their current uses. If the land is in farmland, for
instance, it is assessed according to its value in this use
(usually based on a state -determined capitalization formula).
' If the benefitting landowner decides after several years of
receiving this lower assessment that he wishes to develop his
' land, he is still able to do so, without having,to.repay
the property taxes foregone as a result of this lower assessment.
' In contrast to this pure approach, is that of deferred taxation.
The difference here is that the landowner changing the use of
his land is required to repay a portion of the tax benefits he
received. This recapture period is, however, not typically
very long, with five years perhaps average. In addition most
states using this approach require the landowner to pay interest
' on these recaptured funds (.although usually at a below market
rate).. A third approach, the use of restrictive agreements, is
' best exemplified by California's Williamson Act. Here,in order
for qualifying landowners to obtain lower tax assessments they
must be willing to enter into ,.written agreements to keep their

42
land inn its current use for a minimum period of ten years. This
contract is a "rolling -front" agreement which is self -renewing
each year unless the landowner explicitly notifies the locality
of his intention to change the use. There are also provisions
which permit the landowner to "break" his contract subject to
certain penalties.
While differential taxation has been used in most states
as a technique to preserve farmland, its effectiveness at re-
taining land in undeveloped uses is generally found to be low
(see, for instance, Keene et al., 1976; Coughlin et al., 1981).
Preferential assessment may indeed reduce holding costs some-
what or'.even substantially, but in the face of high market
prices, and thus high opportunity costs of maintaining land in
open space, the pressures to develop will generally far outweigh
these incentives. Consequently differential assessment is
likely to be most successful in circumstances (perhaps specific
locations in the community) where development pressures are
slight -to -moderate, and where landowners are actively inter-
ested in maintaining the present'_ undeveloped use of the land.
Differential assessment will also be a more effective tool
at reducing development of hazardous sites when used in colla-
boration with other approaches, such as the regulation of new
development, the fee -simple purchase of land, and the transfer
of development rights. 'For instance, reducing the permissible
development density in a hazard location together with prefer-
ential assessment may reduce opportunity costs to the landowner
I

43
enough to reduce actual conversion of hazard lands to developed
I uses.
d
1
1
To maximize the effects of these tax benefits, a community
should consider establishing mechanisms for funneling these
benefits to those lands with the greatest hazard -reduction po-
tential. This might entail, for example, the reduction of local
assessments/rates of taxation in excess of what is provided under
normal differential assessment provisions. This would provide
greater tax benefits for parcels of open space, forestland, etc.,
which are designated as particularly hurricane -prone. Such
additional tax benefits would be directly tied to the zones de-
lineated on hazard boundary maps.. Obviously, this approach
would reduce local tax revenues, and thus in turn cost a juris-
diction more than the typical differential assessment program
would. The extent of this cost would depend, of course, on the
degree of property tax reduction deemed necessary to retard
the conversion of hazardous parcels. Moreover, providing
these additional tax benefits will raise significant questions
concerning whether the community has legal authority for such
• a program. If this is viewed as a desirable policy direction
it may be necessary to seek state enabling legislation.
2. Special Assessment
and. -Impact Taxes
Building in, and inhabiting, high hazard areas often in-
volves substantially greater public.costs than in similar less -
hazardous sites. These costs are seen when a hurricane or

44
al storm strikes or even threatens a community. As
or coast , y
' we have already mentioned, there are, for instance, public
costs of evacuation, search and rescue, temporary housing, the
' reconstruction of public facilities such as roads, utilities,
water and sewer lines, and so on. One public policy approach
is to acknowledge that such additional public expenses will
exist as a result of permitting this development to occur and
to attempt -to -assess those who will ultimately benefit for
these expenditures. This can be accomplished through several
means .
One alternative approach is to attempt to tie more closely
' benefits received and costs incurred through the use of
cial benefit assessments. A common example is a special assess-
ment charged to property owners benefiting from the public in-
stallation of curbs and gutters, or the improvement ot.roads,
' drainage, and sewer and water services. Such assessments are
' typically tied to a geographically -delineated district in which
property owners are generally determined to receive a distinct
' and substantial benefit in excess of the general benefits re-
ceived by the public at -large (Bagman and Misczynski, 1978) .
' Applying this concept to storm hazard management, a community
' would thus be required to delineate an area in which "special
storm services" are provided, and in which residents would be
subject to the special assessment.
This approach raises a number of issues. The first is how
the extent or magnitude of the special assessment is determined
1

45
and justified. This may require a number of assumptions, and
rather rough estimates, about the public costs associated with
an actual or potential hurricane. The magnitude of these
costs will, of course, depend on the assumed size and severity
' of the storm event, among other things. The special assessment
required to cover the expenses associated with a Category 5
hurricane (on the Saffir/Simpson Scale) will be substantially
greater than those associated with a Category 1 storm. The
actual delineation of a special assessment district is dependent
I
on these assumptions as well.
An additional question has to do with the manner in which
this assessment will be levied. A traditional approach is the
use of an ad valorem propertytax, in which the size of the
levy for an individual property owner is a function of the mar-
ket value of land and property. This is sensible from the per-
spective of ability -to -pay as well as the fact that it seems
intuitively fair that those who have the greatest property at -
risk ought to be required to contribute the most. An alterna-
tive basis is to assess an equal amount for each home or dwell-
ing unit (or other similar units). The community must decide
the most equitable approach.
A variation on this theme is the impact tax. Here the
tax may be designed to recoup and mitigate the overall "Im -
pacts"of a project or development on the community at -large --im-
pacts that may extend beyond the immediate environs and re-
quirements of a project or development. For instance, while a

46
1
l�
LI
1
special assessment may be. levied to cover the immediate costs
associated with the floodproofing of sewer and water service,
an impact tax might assess broader and perhaps more diffuse
consequences, less clearly related to services or benefits
received directly by a specific site or development. Rather,
it is less an issue of direct and visible benefits received,
so much as the negative impacts on the community created by
the developer or landowner which must be mitigated. For exam-
ple, the jurisdiction might levy an impact tax according to
the extent to which a new project further reduces the overall
ability of the community to evacuate in the event of a hurri-
cane. While it may not be designed to cover the costs of a
specific improvement or set or improvements by which the par-
ticular development will benefit in a unique and special way,
it is designed to require the developer (and presumably future
residents who purchase these properties) to compensate the pub-
lic for the costs of these consequences.
Unlike a special tax assessment, and accompanying tax
district, there may be greater freedom in how -and in which
areas of the community -the proceeds are used. Under an impact
tax scheme, it may be possible for the community to use pro-
ceeds to improve hurricane evacuation or to provide additional
hurricane shelters in parts of the community quite distant
from the development the impact tax is levied upon. The
impact tax proceeds might, for example, be used to purchase
hazardous land, which would in turn reduce overall community

47
1
LF]
risk, but which only indirectly benefits the contributing pro-
ject or developer.
The impact tax may be instituted as a separate instrument,
or more typically, attached to the exactions process during
development review and approval (Hagman and Misczynski, 1978),
The impact tax also usually represents a way of getting around
court -imposed and legislative limitations on the extent of exact-
ions permissable (i.e., for the installation of roads, sewers and
other facilities, and the donation of open space, school sites,
and other land) (Stroud, 1978) .
How the impact tax is assessed is an important question.
Commonly considered approaches are to assess the tax according
to the number of bedrooms,.number of dwelling units, or square
footage involved. Which of these is closer as a proxy for im-
pact will depend on the types of these community impacts the
tax is meant to address, and the primary kinds of new develop-
ment it will be imposed upon. If new commercial development
is considered as substantial and as "impacting" as residential,
a tax based on number of bedrooms will be inappropriate. On
the other hand, if the primary concern is evacuation -ability,
it may be an appropriate gauge. On the other hand, if public
emergency services and reconstruction/recovery expenditures
are the concern, the total amount or value of property at risk
may be the most suitable indicator.
The impact tax in its ability to construct a formal sys-
tem or procedure for calculating and assessing impacts, may

I
48
r�
I
C�
I
1
present a greater level of certainty for the developer than is
the case under the exaction process, which may tend to be high-
ly negotiated. Adjusting the expectations of the development
community and creating a relatively clear and consistent set
of public storm safety obligations on their part may be an im-
portant local objective.
D. Capital Facilities Policy
Coastal development --its type, location, density and tim-
ing --is highly influenced by capital facilities such as roads,
sewer and water services. Such public investments have been
aptly called the "growth shapers."
In this section we will briefly review the potential role to
be played by the location, type and timing of capital facilities
in reducing local storm hazards. Issues relating to the fin-
ancing and pricing of these facilities have been discussed in
a general way in the taxation and financial incentives section
of this paper, and will not be repeated here.
Two primary dimensions to capital facilities emerge which
have implications for local storm hazard mitigation: one is
geographical (where will capital facilities be placed), and
the other temporal (when will these be placed there) (_see
Nugent, 1976). With respect to the first dimension, a locality
can develop an explicit set of capital facilities extension
policies designed to avoid high hazard areas, thus reducing the
amount of development and property which is placed at risk, and
1

49
I
i
1
reducing the potential threats to personal safety. This will
only become an effective deterrent, however, if development in
high hazard areas is dependent upon --or deems as highly attrac-
tive --the existence of these public facilities. For instance,
if coastal development is able to obtain water through indi-
vidual site wells, and disposing of wastewater through septic
tanks, a reorienting of sewer and water facilities by the lo-
cality will do little to impede growth in hazardous zones. It
may be necessary for the locality to foreclose other service/
facility options available to development by restricting the issu-
ance of septic tank permits, for example, V: thaut,,v& d health
reasons, foreclosing such alternative options for development
may be legally difficult
It is advisable that the community closely coordinate its en-
vironmental protection, health and other community objectives
with those of reducing storm hazards. Restricting the deple-
tion of coastal groundwater supplies, for instance, may also
serve to advance the effectiveness of capital facilities policy
at reducing the number of people -and property at risk in high
storm hazard areas. '
Redirecting capital facilities, and thus the development
which accompanies them, into "safer" areas of the community
can be facilitated through several means. One is the clear
delineation of an urban service area or district, in which the
community agrees to provide certain facilities and services.
This district would also likely entail a temporal dimension,
for example including sufficient land to accomodate ten or

50
I
1
I
1
twenty years of future growth, under certain assumptions
(e.g., alternative densities). Such a practice has several
advantages. It provides a long-term perspective on growth
and development, and permits developers, residents and the
community generally, to visualize where and when such facilities
will become available in the future (.and in turn where they cannot
be expected). This, in effect, modifies long-term expectations
about where future development will and will not be acceptable
to the community. Development pressures may tend to shift na-
turally as a result of this public designation, as developers,
landowners and others realize that certain facilities will not
become available outside of these designated areas. The pro-
vision and availability of facilities may determine the amount
of overall development that can take place in a community, and
suspicions of "no growth" objectives are often held. Designa-
tion of a service area in "safer" parts of the community, and
a good faith effort to satisfy growth demands here,will tend to
enhance the political and legal acceptability of such an ap-
proach.
In perhaps more intermediate terms, the community needs a
policy instrument by which to systematically identify, finance
and sequence specific capital improvements. This is typically
the function of a capital improvements program (CIP). Ideal-
ly, the CIP follows closely designated service boundaries, as
well as the comprehensive plan, zoning and other regulatory and
planning provisions. The CIP provides a specific framework
1

51
[I
1
I
for making short-term (i.e., each year) decisions about which
improvements to make and where. Avoidance of storm hazard
areas can be incorporated into this instrument and decision
framework, as a specific CIP policy.
A close connection between the designation of service
areas and the capital improvement program, and the overall plan-
ning process in a community (including the local comprehensive
plan) is essential. Such a close link will tend to enhance
their effectiveness in advancing overall community objectives,
and their legal fortitude. From a practical standpoint, the
concept of guiding growth through capital facilities should be
closely linked to the objective of reducing the public costs of
such facilities and the extent of public investment at risk in
high storm hazard areas. The latter is, by itself, a legitimate
argument for denying facility extension. This is a facility -
related reason which is likely to enhance the legal standing of
hazard -sensitive capital facilities extension policy (Nugent,
1970.
Post -Storm Recovery
and Reconstruction
While most of the development management techniques
described above are equally relevant to post -storm circumstances,
there are certain factors which make the post -storm situation
unique, and its decisionmaking demands special. The first of
these factors is the multiplicity and magnitude of the tasks
which must be undertaken in the post -storm context. They range

52
1
from such immediate concerns as the clearance of debris, the
location of adequate water supplies, and the restoration of
public utilities, to less immediate questions about redevelop-
ment and reconstruction. An additional factor is that even
those activities which are not immediate, do require relatively
rapid actions and decisions; and even more rapid analysis and
information -gathering, before such decisions can be made. A
locality recovering from a hurricane or severe storm should be
prepared to effectively manage this process and should have the
appropriate institutions and tools available to bring this ra-
tional management about. The following sections examine these.
institutions and tools in a relatively general way. Again, we
are concerned primarily with reconstruction, and will say little
about how to go about organizing emergency and short-term recov-
ery activities.
A Post -Storm
Reconstruction Plan
A community should, to the extent possible, foresee alter-
native damage scenarios from hurricanes and severe storms, and
have in place a set of policies or planning instruments which
will facilitate post -storm decisionmaking. That is, a substan-
tial portion of the reconstruction decisionmaking can in this
way be undertaken prior to the actual storm event. This will
permit a less pressured, and more deliberative set of decisions
concerning reconstruction options. This in turn permits the
focusing of the energies and attention of governing officials

53
after the disaster on questions of a highly "contingent" nature,
which could not be completely foreseen prior to the event_ -or
which were simply unexpected. The community should always be
prepared to take stock of factors and circumstances that have
not been considered (or not considered fully] in pre -storm
planning.
Redevelopment Plan v.
Reconstruction Policies
The actual output of pre -storm reconstruction planning can
' take several forms. On the one hand the community may develop
very specific and detailed reconstruction/redevelopment plans,
indicating sites and locations which should not be developed,"
1 areas where changes in uses and activities should occur during
redevelopment, where certain capital improvements should take
place, and so on. Such a detailed plan would provide a blue-
print for reconstruction decisions after the storm. Its pri-
mary advantage is that it reduces the deliberation and decision -
making pressures on local officials after the storm (_assuming
that local officials generally concur with the substance and content of
' such plans. One of the -disadvantages- -of such a detailed redevel-
opment plan is that for it to be accurate it must be updated
frequently Ci.e., land usecircumstances change) . A second limita-
tion is seen in the fact that it must make specific assumptions
about the extent, location and nature of damages, as well as
the political and economic opportunities which may urge after the storm
(e.g., the nature of demands to rebuild, amount of external

54.
1�
1
r
disaster relief). These are factors which undermine any very
precise program or design for reconstruction.
In contrast, is the development of a set of general poli-
cies concerning reconstruction following the storm. This would
provide general guidance to more specific reconstruction deci-
sions following the storm. For instance, a reconstruction policy,
may state that rebuilding shall not occur in areas where homes
have been destroyed an average of 50% or more. This policy
then,would not attach itself to a particular location or site
until after the storm occurred. Such policies would simplify
public decisions, but would depend heavily upon contingent fac-
tors and an analysis of the relationship between reconstruction
and other community objectives. Such an approach has the advan-
tage of being more flexible, and sensitive to the numerous con-
tingent factors which will exist in the aftermath of the event.
Such a plan or set of policies (whether a detailed redevelopment
plan or more general reconstruction policies) should address at
least the following issues:
• Identification and mapping of coastal hazards, and iden-
tification of high hazard areas (presumably occurring prior
to the event), and a process for updating this information
following the storm.
• A process for identifying the extent and nature of actual
damages from the storm event, by geographical location
and zone.
1 o Identification of instruments and tools that can be ap-
plied in the post -storm context to address hazard reduction
goals. In the case of a detailed redevelopment plan these
mechanisms may be designed to "spring into place" follow-
ing the event. More general policy plans may simply iden-
tify the range of alternatives leaving for post -storm de-
cisionmakers�to choose which are most relevant.

55
1
• Identification of redevelopment opportunities Un addi-
tion to hazard reduction) that may be present should cer-
tain locations, types and magnitudes of damage result.
Again, the extent of detail and advance precision can
vary tremendously.
• Description of a post -storm decisionmaking process by
which potential reconstruction decisions are structured
and organized in logical fashion, and in which relevant
actors and decisionmakers are brought together to solve
reconstruction problems.
Institutional Structures
and Frameworks
Post storm reconstruction places special decisionmaking
pressures and requirements on community officials, which in
turn require institutional and decisionmaking arrangements to
cope effectively with them. Several of :these specific arrange-
ments are briefly described below. This discussion is meant to
be exploratory and not intended to be our recommendation for
organizing reconstruction --rather, possible approaches which
may or may not be relevant in a particular situation.
Post -Storm
Damage Assessment
Critical to public decisions concerning redevelopment and
reconstruction is a clear understanding of the magnitude, type
and causes of damages from the storm. Moreover, the assessment
of community damages must occur quickly. A sensible approach
is to prepare for the need by constituting in advance of the
storm a damage assessment team. Such a team would be organized
so as to come into existence immediately following the emergency

r�
IJ
7,
L
phase and should be comprised primarily of individuals with ap-
propriate technical expertise (e.g., engineers, planners, build-
ing code specialists). Procedures for estimating and document-
ing the extent and nature of storm damages should be established
in advance of the storm (e.g., damage assessment forms, field
guide). Adequate local resources and authority must be invested
in this group for an expeditious damage assessment.
Recovery Task Force
The creation of a special task force to deal with the
unique issues and problems of reconstruction has occurred in a
number of disaster circumstances, and is a result of recogni-
tion that normal local decisionmaking capability often needs to
be supplemented. Such a task force (or multiple task forces)
could have several possible functions. A primary function is
to receive and review the damage and other analyses of post -
storm circumstances, and to compare these circumstances with
mitigation opportunities identified prior to the storm to dis-
cern appropriate areas for post -storm change and innovation.
Where needed, it can review in a more specific fashion alterna-
tive mechanisms for bringing these changes about, and go about
harnessing internal and external resources for achieving these
ends. Essentially, then, a primary function of this group is
comparing contingent factors and circumstances (physical, eco-
nomic, political) with pre -storm mitigation opportunities, to
arrive at and implement a set of post -storm changes. Such a

57
1
I
1
task force would also ideally undertake a similar process for
non -mitigative community objectives and opportunities. Among
these other goals which would be considered during reconstruc-
tion decisionmaking might be the following:
1). Enhancement of local.recreational and open space
opportunities; enhancement of public access to beach
and ocean.
2) Enhancement and restoration of local natural eco-
systems.
3) Reduction of traffic congestion, noise, and other
transportation -related problems.
4) Enhancement of the long-term economic vitality of
the local commercial and industrial base.
5) Others.
The ease with which opportunities can be capitalized upon
in the aftermath of a hurricane will be in large part dependent
on the extent and nature of the damages incurred (Ciborowski,
1981). That is, if in an impacted area destruction is both
widespread in terms of the number of structures affected and
the extent of damage for each structure, substantial changes in
land use patterns will be more feasible. The greater the vari-
ation and mixture of these damages, the less likely are major
land use changes during reconstruction. The existence of un-
damaged or moderately damaged homes and buildings will tend to
increase the political resistance to such changes.
The extent and size of this damage area will in turn deter-
mine the magnitude of the mitigative opportunities which are
feasible. Substantial redirecting of urban settlement patterns
away from high storm hazard areas will simply not be possible in

1 58
II
17
1
1
circumstances where the damage area is relatively small. How-
ever, less ambitious mitigative programs may be more appropriate
and feasible in these circumstances (e.g., the purchase of
smaller damage sites and their use as open space).
It is important to remember as well that hurricane dam-
ages main open up the possibility of changes in land uses which
are responsive to various community objectives not related to
hurricane hazard mitigation. Destruction from a hurricane may
provide opportunities to advance these objectives, and the com-
munity should be prepared to act quickly to capitalize upon the
circumstances. The recovery task force can serve as the body
which oversees and advances this "opportunities -pursuing" pro-
cess. Again, ideally the task force would be guided by (In
varying degrees of specificity) the reconstruction policies
and redevelopment plans developed before the storm hits.
The composition of this body is an important
question. For it to effectively advance mitigation (and other)
opportunities it must have sufficient local political clout.
This implies the need to have as diverse a committee base as
possible represented on the committee, with major community
groups and interests having a hand in the deliberative process.
This objective, however, must be balanced against the need for
such a body to make relatively quick decisions concerning re-
construction.

59
Reconstruction Moratoria
and the "Triage"
One approach to manage redevelopment after a storm is.
' to institute a moratorium. While this approach has already
been briefly discussed in a previous section of this paper, a
few remarks on its application in the post -storm phase are ap-
propriate. Rogers, Golden and Halpern (1981, see Chapter 5)
have developed an elaborate and relatively detailed set of
guidelines for the reconstruction of Sanibel Island (Florida),
' outlining steps, issues and opportunities to be addressed dur-
ing reconstruction. They suggest the need to establish a mora-
torium on the construction of new buildings and the reconstruc-
tion of damaged buildings in particular locations of the island,
and a "triage" process for organizing damage areas and the par-
ticular decisions which must be made with respect to them. A
"Recovery District Map" would identify the areas subject to this
' moratorium as well as other affected areas. Based on damage
assessment maps and preestablished criteria, land would be
' classified in one of three zones:
• a "redevelopment district,"
' • a "restoration district," or
• an "impacted district."
Redevelopment districts would encompass areas of severe damage,
' awhile impacted areas, on the other extreme, would entail pro-
perties of little or no damage. Restrictions in each district
would be instituted commensurate with the extent of destruction
11

W
and the nature of the hazard in that zone. (See Haas et al.,
1977, for this original idea.) The idea appears to have a
' medical analogy in the separation of critical and non -critical
patients during an emergency. "Through the process of estab-
lishing the Recovery Districts, the areas most heavily damaged
are insulated by a reconstruction moratorium from other areas
' where repair and restoration are allowed to proceed." (Rogers,
Golden and Halpern, 1981, p. 4-86).
1
k