ISMART GROWTH

FOR COASTAL

AND

COMMUNITIES

WATERFRONT
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

II

SMART GROWTH

AND WATERFRONT

FOR COASTAL

COMMUNITIES
SMART GROWTH

AND WATERFRONT

FOR COASTAL

COMMUNITIES
Acknowledgments

The authors of this report would like to 

thank the numerous people who provided 

invaluable input on the text and assistance 

with collecting photographs. Through the 

incorporation of the smart growth elements 

defined in “Smart Growth for Coastal and 

Waterfront Communities,” we hope to 

positively impact the future of our coastal 

and waterfront communities.

http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov
VSMART GROWTH

Mix land uses, including water-dependent uses

Take advantage of compact community design that enhances, 

preserves, and provides access to waterfront resources

Provide a range of housing opportunities and choices to meet 

the needs of both seasonal and permanent residents

Create walkable communities with physical and visual access 

to and along the waterfront for public use

Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense 

of place that capitalizes on the waterfront’s heritage

Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and the critical 

environmental areas that characterize and support coastal 

and waterfront communities 

Strengthen and direct development toward existing

communities and encourage waterfront revitalization

Provide a variety of land- and water-based transportation 

options

Make development decisions predictable, fair, and costeffective through consistent policies and coordinated 

permitting processes

Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in 

development decisions, ensuring that public interests in and 

rights of access to the waterfront and coastal waters are upheld 

2

6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

38

42

46

50

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Table of Contents

Glossary

Endnotes

Photo Credits

Element

Element

Element

Element

Element

Element

Element

Element

Element

Element

Introduction
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES 2 ...many coastal and 

waterfront communities 

have found that 

conventional development 

patterns threaten the 

assets they treasure most.

Smart Growth 

for Coastal and 

Waterfront 

Communities

INTRO
3SMART GROWTH

Coastal and waterfront communities have a distinctive 

sense of place created by their history, as well as by their 

characteristic sights, sounds, and smells. On the coast, 

the bellow of tugboats and the salty taste of ocean air; 

along lakes and rivers, the sound of the water and the 

feel of brisk waterborne winds—all come together to 

shape our sense of these special places. 

The water, beaches, cliffs, rocky shores, and other natural 

features attract people and spur development. But many 

coastal and waterfront communities have found that 

conventional development patterns threaten the assets 

they treasure most. Smart growth approaches—guided 

by a set of principles that help communities grow 

in ways that expand economic opportunity, protect 

public health and the environment, and enhance places 

that people care about—can help these communities 

accommodate development while protecting their 

traditional sense of place. Some of these approaches 

also can help communities be more resilient to hazards 

created by weather and climate, such as drought, sea 

level rise, and coastal and inland flooding.

Living near the water has historically been, and is expected 

to remain, desirable. Lake and riverfront properties are 

typically in demand. Coastal counties, which cover less than 

17 percent of the land area in the United States,1 are home 

to about 52 percent of the population and are expected 

to continue to grow.2 The ways in which cities, towns, and 

neighborhoods along the water handle the development 

pressures they face will affect their environment, economy, 

and quality of life for decades to come.

How can smart growth strategies help coastal 

and waterfront communities manage growth and 

development while balancing environmental, economic, 

and quality of life issues? How can communities on the 

water adapt smart growth strategies to fit their unique 

character? This publication will help communities answer 

these questions. It is specifically targeted to anyone who 

plans, designs, builds, approves, or has an interest in 

development at the water’s edge. 

Smart growth is defined by 10 principles. These 

principles provide a framework for making growth and 

development decisions that yield better economic, 

environmental, community, and public health results. 

Developed in 1996 by the Smart Growth Network, 

a coalition of national and regional organizations 

that believe where and how we grow matters, the 

principles are based on the characteristics and 

experiences of thriving, diverse, and successful 

communities. These principles help guide growth and 

development in communities that have a clear vision 

for their future and understand the values they want 

to sustain. 

The coastal and waterfront elements presented in this 

document augment the existing smart growth principles 

to reflect the specific challenges and opportunities 

characterizing the waterfront, be it on a coast, a river, or a 

lake. These elements provide guidance for communities 

to grow in ways that are compatible with their natural 

assets, creating great places for residents, visitors, and 

businesses (see table on page 4). 

This guide begins with an overview of some of the 

challenges and opportunities that communities along 

the water face. Ten sections follow, one for each of 

the smart growth coastal and waterfront elements. 

Each section begins with a description of what smart 

growth looks like and how it may be applied differently 

along the water—and then offers examples, tools, and 

techniques for implementing smart growth approaches. 

The guide includes regulatory approaches as well as 

voluntary, incentive-based tools.

Although this document is organized by individual 

elements, the tools and techniques proposed in 

each element should be used together to support 

a comprehensive approach to achieve multiple 

community goals. The guide closes with a glossary of 

terms and notes. Additional tools and examples are 

provided at http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov. 

The natural beauty of the water draws people and development to its shores. 
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES 4

Smart Growth Principles

Smart GrowthCoastal

andWaterfrontElements

1. Mix land uses 1. Mix land uses, including water-dependent uses

2. Take advantage of compact building design 2. Take advantage of compact community design that enhances, 

preserves, and provides access to waterfront resources

3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices 3. Provide a range of housing opportunities and choices to 

 meet the needs of both seasonal and permanent residents

4. Create walkable communities 4. Create walkable communities with physical and visual access 

to and along the waterfront for public use

5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong 

sense of place

5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense 

of place that capitalizes on the waterfront’s heritage

6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical 

environmental areas

6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and the 

critical environmental areas that characterize and support 

coastal and waterfront communities

7. Strengthen and direct development toward 

 existing communities

7. Strengthen and direct development toward existing 

communities and encourage waterfront revitalization

8. Provide a variety of transportation options 8. Provide a variety of land- and water-based transportation options

9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and 

 cost effective

9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost 

 effective through consistent policies and coordinated 

 permitting processes

10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration 

 in development decisions

10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in 

development decisions, ensuring that public interests in and 

rights of access to the waterfront and coastal waters are upheld

Resilience to Natural Hazards 

and Climate Change

Coastal and waterfront communities must be ready 

to respond to and rebound from hazards created 

by weather and climate. The uncertainty about 

exactly how the climate will change should not stop 

communities from acting to protect property and lives. 

Although much of the attention on climate change 

focuses on sea-level rise and coastal storm intensity, 

other potential effects may also affect inland river and 

lakefront communities, such as changing water levels 

and more extreme precipitation patterns that could 

lead to increased flooding and drought.

3

Planning with smart growth principles can help 

communities make efficient investments in buildings 

and other infrastructure, protect and restore critical 

environmental areas, and protect public health. In 

applying these principles to any development project, 

communities need to explicitly consider natural hazards, 

including the potential impact of climate change.

Resilience to natural hazards, such as storms and storm 

surges, sea-level rise, and shoreline erosion, is inextricably 

linked to the siting and design of development, as well 

as to the built and green infrastructure that supports it.

4

Coastal and Waterfront Challenges and Opportunities

Bounded by water, coastal and waterfront communities are challenged to make the best use of limited 

land while protecting critical natural resources from the potentially damaging effects of growth. These 

communities must consider a common set of overarching issues when managing growth and development.
5SMART GROWTH

INTRODUCTION

Well-planned and well-maintained natural systems can 

help protect communities in many ways. For example, 

natural floodplains can act as protective buffers that 

absorb floodwater, reducing the speed and amount of 

flooding, controlling erosion, protecting drinking water 

supplies and water quality, and insulating buildings and 

roads from damage. 

Vulnerability to the Combined Effects 

of Development 

The natural environment that draws residents and 

visitors and defines the economy and character of 

these communities is vulnerable to both site-specific 

development impacts and the cumulative and secondary 

effects of development decisions. For example, the 

erection of a new dock or pier may have a small natural 

resource impact on a large estuary, but if adjacent 

channels are deepened to access the new pier, demand 

for more docks in nearby areas may increase and cause 

more extensive natural resource impacts (a cumulative 

impact). Boat and shipping traffic may also rise over 

time, causing congestion and additional pollution (a 

secondary effect). Residential development and road 

building in upland portions of coastal watersheds can also 

cause cumulative and secondary coastal impacts, such 

as reduced freshwater inflow to coastal areas, degraded 

estuarine water quality, and increased air pollution from 

increased traffic. The impacts of any single development 

project may be minor, but when combined with all other 

development impacts to a watershed over time, they 

can threaten fragile coastal and waterfront resources 

and the quality of life. Policies governing growth and 

development along the water must be sensitive to these 

unique vulnerabilities and protect the community’s 

valuable natural assets. 

Competing Uses 

A growing population creates a greater demand for 

land for housing, placing pressure on coastal and 

waterfront industries, recreation, and public access 

to the water. Non-water-dependent uses, such as 

residential waterfront development, can compete 

with water-dependent uses like commercial and 

recreational fishing and port commerce. Waterfront 

and coastal communities must find ways to balance 

these uses along the water’s edge.

Public Trust Doctrine 

Communities must consider the public’s right of 

access to the water when making development 

decisions. The public trust doctrine establishes that all 

navigable and historically navigable waters, including 

the lands beneath and resources within, are held in 

trust by the state for the public’s benefit and use. The 

doctrine protects a range of uses, including commerce, 

navigation, and fishing. This doctrine is a key factor 

affecting coastal and waterfront development and 

must be considered in all land use decisions involving 

the waterfront. 

State and Federal Framework 

This guide focuses on local solutions, but those solutions 

must be crafted in accordance with the state and federal 

regulations governing development along the water. 

Regulatory issues along the water are complex, with 

laws and regulations beyond the environmental, land 

use, and transportation rules for inland development. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water 

Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and other laws give 

broad planning and regulatory authority to federal and 

state agencies. In addition, a variety of federal agencies 

have regulatory authority over floodplain management, 

wetland protection, and disaster recovery. Given this 

complicated web of regulations, coastal and waterfront 

communities must coordinate with many agencies and 

make development decisions in a process that is clear 

and predictable.

Coastal and waterfront communities face unique challenges, including how to protect development from shoreline erosion, how to successfully manage 

cumulative impacts from development, and how to best balance competing uses of the water and the waterfront.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES 6

In coastal and waterfront 

communities, thoughtfully 

integrating a mix of land 

uses with the waterfront 

can deliver many benefits 

including generating 

vibrancy from active, 

pedestrian-friendly 

streets, sidewalks, and 

public spaces. 

Mix land uses, 

including waterdependent uses

ELEMENT

1
7SMART GROWTH

In contrast to conventional development approaches 

that isolate residential, commercial, and civic uses from 

one another, mixing these land uses creates vibrant, 

sustainable communities. Putting homes, stores, 

offices, schools, and other uses close to one another 

makes it easier for residents to walk or bike to their 

daily destinations instead of driving. Communities 

can use existing infrastructure more efficiently, 

with the same sidewalks, streets, and utility systems 

serving homes, commercial centers, and civic places. 

Having these diverse uses in the same neighborhood 

generates vibrancy from active, pedestrian-friendly 

streets, sidewalks, and public spaces.

In coastal and waterfront communities, thoughtfully 

integrating a mix of land uses with the waterfront can 

deliver these same benefits. This approach can also 

incorporate the area’s distinctive visual, historical, 

and natural features into the daily life of residents 

and visitors, giving people a strong connection to 

the water. On the coast or waterfront, a mixed-use 

approach to development may mean weaving waterdependent uses with those not dependent on the 

water. While some uses may complement one another, 

others may require buffers, such as warehouses, 

research facilities, or open space, to separate ports 

and heavy industry from homes, schools, shops, and 

other incompatible uses. Integrating compatible, nonwater-related uses with the water-dependent ones 

that have traditionally defined the identity of coasts 

and waterfronts can provide a more stable economic 

base. If water-dependent activities slow down 

because of economic conditions, weather, or seasonal 

fluctuations, the compatible non-water-dependent 

uses can help sustain the local economy and continue 

to serve the daily needs of those who live, work, and 

play in the community. 

The challenge in many waterfront and coastal 

communities is to provide and protect this mix of uses 

when faced with changing development conditions. 

Population growth, demographic changes, and 

declining natural resources like fish stocks will affect 

the value and use of waterfront land.5

 In communities 

experiencing rapid growth and high demand for land, 

as well as those with slower growth or economic 

decline, a mixed-use approach to development 

provides a way to plan for growth that protects the 

environment and strengthens the economy. In all 

cases, preserving working waterfronts and public 

access to the water requires communities to plan 

ahead and create a vision for future growth that retains 

this mix of uses. 

A waterfront master plan can be an effective starting 

point to engage the community in envisioning future 

development and articulating the values that new 

planning policies will support. In addition, an effective 

harbor management plan can govern activity in the 

water, complementing the community’s waterfront 

master plan, or can manage activities in both the 

water and the adjacent land area.6

 By recognizing the 

interdependence of land and water uses and crafting 

rules that value and support water-dependent uses, 

both types of plans can help communities fulfill their 

vision. In New York State, for example, waterfront 

communities integrate these two approaches into a 

comprehensive local waterfront revitalization program, 

developed in partnership with the state’s coastal 

management program. The local plan provides a 

framework for addressing waterfront issues, beginning 

with a community’s vision for its waterfront, and 

leading to specific projects to achieve the vision. 

By aligning local resources with state priorities 

for economic growth and environmental health, 

Mizner Park in Boca Raton, Florida, features shops, restaurants, 

homes, and office space all within easy walking distance.

A mix of restaurants and shops and an active waterfront create a 

vibrant community in Newport, Rhode Island. 
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

8

Portland, Maine, located on Casco Bay, 

began its waterfront planning effort 

by identifying a range of land uses 

appropriate for its commercial harbor 

(water-dependent, marine-related, 

and compatible non-marine) and 

then developing zoning approaches 

that allowed these uses to be mixed 

together. The community found 

that adopting a mixed-use zone that 

allows compatible non-marine uses to 

be located above, and in certain areas 

along side, water-dependent uses 

was more successful (and flexible) 

than the previous zoning designation, 

which restricted the waterfront area 

solely to water-dependent uses. This 

zoning change allowed pier and 

wharf owners to fill vacant properties 

and generate income by leasing 

second-floor and other commercial 

space, which helped pay for the high 

costs of maintaining commercial 

marine infrastructure. For instance, 

Portland’s Union Wharf rents docklevel space to commercial fishers 

and harbor support industries, while 

the upper-level space is rented to 

law offices and other businesses. 

The rent from the non-marine 

tenants subsidizes the water-based 

activities on the dock. The mixed-use 

overlay also allows development of 

Portland, Maine

communities can leverage public investments for 

revitalization. Since 1994, over $158 million has been 

appropriated for at least 1,100 projects in 300 New 

York waterfront communities to revitalize waterfronts, 

downtowns, and local economies, create public 

access, restore habitats and wetlands, and improve 

water quality.7

Other approaches, such as building and zoning codes, 

can help a community achieve its vision. Zoning, in 

particular, is critical to managing and maintaining an 

appropriate mix of water- and non-water-dependent 

uses. Portland, Maine, adopted a comprehensive 

approach to zoning for a mix of uses, both vertically 

(within buildings) and horizontally (across the 

waterfront), that resulted in a more vibrant working 

waterfront (see the Portland, Maine, case study below 

for more detail). 

In addition to codes and ordinances, certain fiscal 

policies can help communities ensure that waterdependent uses remain a viable, stable part of 

the mix of uses. Tax abatements, tax exemptions, 

and current-use taxation programs can reduce the 

overhead costs for commercial activities that are critical 

to a working waterfront. Tax increment financing 

districts can generate funds to support infrastructure 

improvements, such as pedestrian or boating access 

to the water. Communities can better support their 

working waterfronts by improving access to the water 

and ensuring that space along the waterfront exists for 

support facilities. 

By ensuring that water-based activities and compatible 

non-water-dependent uses are close together, where 

appropriate, and by protecting and ensuring access 

to the water for water-dependent uses, coastal and 

waterfront communities can provide the basis for 

more sustainable growth that allows residents and 

businesses to thrive. 

CASE STUDY

The cities of Tonawanda and North Tonawanda, New York, 

used their waterfront revitalization plan to enhance boater and 

pedestrian amenities.

In Portland, Maine, compatible offices are co-located above 

commercial fishing businesses.

With careful planning, waterdependent uses such as fishing 

facilities can be managed in 

harmony with non-waterdependent uses.
9SMART GROWTH

appropriate “transitional” uses, such 

as research facilities, that can buffer 

marine industries (such as shipping 

or processing facilities) from nearby 

residential or commercial uses and 

provide jobs within walking distance of 

homes and services. Additionally, retail 

and restaurant uses are concentrated 

along Commercial Street, Portland’s 

waterfront drive, away from the 

working ends of piers and closest to 

downtown and historic shopping 

areas. Economic downturns, coupled 

with long-term declines in fishing 

and maritime industries, continue to 

challenge the feasibility of maintaining 

the waterfront’s aging marine-related 

infrastructure. Portland’s innovative 

application of mixed-use zoning is an 

important strategy to help generate the 

funds needed to protect and maintain 

that built infrastructure.8

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Adopt zoning policies and building codes that support 

mixed-use development

•	 Create overlay and special area zones that permit 

horizontal and vertical mix of uses

•	 Create form-based codes that prescribe building type, 

not use

Plan for the needs of water-dependent recreational, 

commercial, and industrial users

•	 Employ visioning exercises to determine community 

support for maintaining working waterfront

•	 Develop waterfront master plans to guide 

land-based uses

•	 Develop harbor management plans to guide waterbased activities

•	 Create special area management plans to supplement 

existing plans for natural resource protection in 

specific areas

Implement fiscal policies and incentives that support a 

mix of uses

•	 Use current-use zones, tax abatements, and tax 

exemptions to reduce the cost of critical activities of 

a working waterfront

•	 Create tax increment financing districts to improve 

infrastructure to support water-dependent activities

Portland, ME

ELEMENT 1

Portland, Oregon’s vibrant downtown is a short walk from the 

Willamette River.

Baltimore, Maryland’s Inner Harbor provides a diverse mix of 

uses along its revitalized waterfront. 
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

10

Coastal and waterfront 

communities have a 

natural boundary—the 

water—that makes 

efficient land use critical.

Take advantage 

of compact 

community design 

that enhances, 

preserves, and 

provides access 

to waterfront 

resources

ELEMENT

2
11SMART GROWTH

Compact design of buildings and neighborhoods can 

help communities use land more efficiently, which 

has several advantages. Well-designed, appropriately 

scaled compact development accommodates more 

uses on less land, which preserves natural areas and 

requires less funding for building and maintaining 

infrastructure. Compact communities can provide a 

wide range of housing choices, from single-family 

homes to apartments and townhouses, allowing people 

of different incomes and at different stages of life to live 

in the same neighborhood. As mentioned in Element 

1, when a variety of uses are close together, people are 

more likely to walk, public places are livelier, and a civic 

identity develops more readily than in a conventionally 

planned development. Compact communities also 

help achieve the population density needed to support 

more transportation choices, including public transit. 

The form and density of compact design will vary with 

its context, with urbanized settings being generally 

appropriate for more units per acre than rural ones. 

Coastal and waterfront communities have a natural 

boundary—the water—that makes efficient land use 

critical. Not only is development physically limited 

within this boundary, but proximity to the water is 

often of highest value and at greatest risk from natural 

hazards, requiring an approach to community and 

building design that provides high structural integrity 

and the greatest benefit on the least amount of land. 

Compact community design accommodates increased 

development in waterfront districts through higher 

densities and narrower streets. Through smaller 

building footprints for new construction, reuse of 

existing buildings, and creative solutions to parking 

(discussed in Element 8), compact building design can 

leave undeveloped land to absorb rainwater, thereby 

reducing the overall level of impervious surface in 

the watershed. Together, compact community and 

building design techniques reduce runoff, flooding, 

and stormwater drainage needs, contributing to 

better watershed health. For waterfront communities 

dependent on the health and beauty of neighboring 

waters, these outcomes are vital. 

Since compact design will still include impervious 

surfaces, communities are well-served by incorporating 

site-level green infrastructure/low impact development 

(LID) practices to manage stormwater runoff. Many 

attractive techniques are available, including rain 

gardens, tree boxes, and green roofs. Combining these 

site-specific approaches with the preservation and 

restoration of larger interconnected natural areas (a 

green infrastructure network at the community and 

regional scale) can protect local aquatic resources and 

help communities be more resilient to the impacts of 

natural hazards and climate change. 

At the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia 

Rivers, Portland, Oregon, is an excellent example of a 

waterfront community that has made the connection 

between how it grows and the health of its rivers. In 

addition to its many efforts to build compactly within 

existing neighborhoods, Portland has implemented 

green infrastructure policies that support compact 

design. Those policies include incentives, such as 

stormwater fee discounts and higher allowed density, 

for new construction projects that include green 

roofs.9 Portland has combined these policies with a 

comprehensive Metropolitan Greenspaces Program 

that provides recreational opportunities while also 

protecting the city’s water quality, floodplains, and fish 

and wildlife habitat.10

Annapolis, Maryland’s compact downtown provides easy access 

to a wide range of amenities.

Increasing density can increase stormwater runoff in the 

immediate area. Incorporating site-specific design techniques, 

like this “green street” in Los Angeles, California, can help 

mitigate impacts.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

12

CASE STUDY

Barnstable, Massachusetts

Located on Cape Cod, the 

town of Barnstable has been 

experiencing tremendous growth. 

In particular, Hyannis, one of the 

town’s seven villages, was seeing 

low-density growth at its edges 

while its downtown emptied. 

This pattern strained the town’s 

infrastructure and diminished its 

historic character. In response, 

Hyannis developed a strategy 

that encourages growth in the 

urban center, which is served 

by existing sewer and water 

lines. The strategy includes 

mixed-use zoning and design 

guidelines, expedited permitting 

for downtown development, 

incentives to shift development 

from outlying areas to downtown, 

and improved connections 

to the waterfront. The town 

also purchased land to protect 

drinking-water aquifers and other 

Waterfront communities are linked to the water by 

docks, piers, and boardwalks. Applying compact 

community design principles to these uses 

can improve both function and aesthetics. The 

proliferation of individual docks shades and fragments 

aquatic habitats and impairs the view of the water. 

Docks also can crowd navigation channels, making it 

difficult for large and small watercraft to maneuver. 

Compact designs, including shared access points 

and community docks, can reduce visual and habitat 

impacts, navigational hazards, and conflicts among 

water-dependent uses. These compact designs also 

can create attractive community spaces. For example, 

on Skidaway Island near Savannah, Georgia, the 

Landings community built two community marinas 

instead of allowing private docks. This compact 

approach protects marsh habitat, preserves scenic 

vistas, and lets residents enjoy the island’s shorelines 

free of the crowding from multiple docks. Since then, 

the state has increasingly seen developers placing 

deed restrictions on waterfront lots to prevent the 

building of individual docks in favor of promoting 

community-based approaches.11

Waterfront views are an eagerly sought amenity; 

communities can protect them by using compact 

design approaches such as a “wedding cake” approach. 

Here, the area with the highest development 

density is a short distance inland at a higher 

elevation. Building heights gradually decrease as 

development approaches the waterfront. Putting 

denser development on higher land with taller 

buildings protects water views for all buildings as 

they step down in height to the water. This preserves 

visual access to the water across the community, 

creating a compact neighborhood that complements 

surrounding uses, including the waterfront itself.

Compact development can capitalize on the natural 

advantages of the waterfront, provide attractive 

communities by the water, protect valued assets, 

and improve the overall quality of life. When applied 

at both the building and community-level, compact 

design can make better use of the land at the water’s 

edge, as well as the water bordering it.

Individual docks can crowd navigation channels, fragment habitat, and impair views of the water. A compact design, like the Skidaway 

Island, Georgia, community marina (above right), can reduce those impacts. 
13SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

 Offer incentives that encourage local communities to 

 increase density

•	 Provide floor-to-area-ratio (FAR) bonuses

•	 Provide density bonuses 

•	 Create overlay districts

•	 Create design guidelines

Create walkable communities and emphasize 

pedestrian access to and along the waterfront

•	 Create public access master plans

•	 Use context-sensitive solutions for street designs

•	 Prioritize pedestrian use on waterfront streets

•	 Create transportation options (e.g., water-based transit, 

bikes, rail)

•	 Create networks to connect the waterfront to parks, 

greenways, and other open space

•	 Develop street standards in neighborhoods to ensure 

connected grid designs

 Match building scale to street

•	 Employ form-based codes

•	 Use zoning and permit approval processes that 

automatically allow appropriate scale rather than require 

individual variances for it

 Maintain and increase viewshed for waterfront area

•	 Incorporate tiered development by setting back tallest 

and highest density development to maintain access 

and viewshed

•	 Use waterfront master plans

 Integrate hazard mitigation into local comprehensive 

 and capital planning and regulations

•	 Engage in hazard mitigation planning 

•	 Consider hazard mitigation plan findings and 

recommendations when updating comprehensive plans 

and regulations

 Encourage green infrastructure approaches at the site,

 community, and regional scales to increase resilience 

 to natural hazards (including climate change impacts) 

 and better manage stormwater runoff

•	 Assess and protect critical areas as buffers

•	 Create a setback from waterfront for natural 

hazard mitigation

•	 Plan for open space preservation (community-scale 

green infrastructure)

•	 Engage in floodplain mapping and protection

•	 Employ site-specific green infrastructure/LID applications 

•	 Use U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Water 

Quality Scorecard to align local codes and ordinances with 

water quality goals12

Barnstable, MA

important natural areas. The result 

is a renaissance for Hyannis’s 

downtown. As of 2007, 93 new 

residential units and 22,000 square 

feet of commercial space had 

been created since the initiative 

began, along with approximately 

342 new jobs and $25 million in 

private investment. Improvements 

continue, including construction of 

a harbor-front visitor’s center and 

additional segments for the town’s 

planned harbor walk.13

ELEMENT 2
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

14

A comprehensive 

approach to housing that 

offers options for seasonal 

and permanent residents, 

visitors, and workers 

provides a strong basis for 

a vibrant economy.

Provide a range 

of housing 

opportunities and 

choices to meet the 

needs of both 

seasonal and 

permanent 

residents

ELEMENT

3
15SMART GROWTH

As individuals pass through various stages of their lives, 

their housing needs, as well as what they can afford, 

vary. Young adults just starting out, families, and retired 

people all need different types of housing, but because 

of the way housing is built in many communities, they 

may not be able to stay in the same neighborhood as 

their needs and income levels change. Communities 

with smart growth policies meet these challenges 

by providing a broad range of housing types, with 

easy access to jobs, schools, shops, and recreation, 

to meet the needs of households at varying income 

levels. Implementing this approach lets communities 

use infrastructure more efficiently, accommodate the 

housing needs of all residents, and help everyone, from 

aging citizens to young people getting their first home, 

remain in the community. 

Waterfront communities face the additional challenge 

of providing housing for permanent and seasonal 

residents and workers. Seasonal influxes of visitors 

and demand for second homes can overwhelm the 

existing housing supply in resort towns or vacation 

destinations, driving prices up and adding to the cost 

premium already associated with land near water. 

The result is that housing is unaffordable for much of 

the workforce, such as police officers, teachers, and 

retail employees, that communities need to grow 

and thrive. These employees may choose to endure 

long and costly commutes from less expensive inland 

locations, generating congestion and pollution. In the 

long term, affordable housing choices help protect the 

environment and keep the local economy viable. 

For all the challenges that communities have in 

providing affordable housing, there are a variety 

of tools to help meet the need. For example, local 

jurisdictions can use land more efficiently by 

encouraging flexibility for single family homes, 

including the construction of accessory dwelling units 

(ADUs). Detached cottages, spaces above garages, or 

attic units with separate entrances are all potential 

homes for seasonal visitors, as well as the elderly, 

single adults, or young singles and families. These 

“mother-in-law” apartments can generate seasonal 

rents for permanent residents and provide affordable 

options for workers, part-year residents, and seniors.14

To reap the benefits of ADUs, communities may have 

to revise their zoning ordinances and building codes 

and consider the concerns of neighbors, such as the 

need for increased parking, to ensure that ADUs will 

not make the look and feel of a neighborhood less 

appealing. In addition, condo-hotels in a dense, multifamily arrangement can help respond to the demand 

for second homes and reduce pressure on the existing 

housing supply. Furthermore, communities can use 

inclusionary zoning to require developers to construct 

or pay for new affordable housing units as part of the 

approval of new developments. Communities that have 

found the greatest success with inclusionary zoning 

have offset the additional cost of these requirements 

with density bonuses for the developer, thereby 

allowing the affordable units to be constructed at little 

or no net cost to the builder or the local government. 

Where consistent with state and local regulations, 

well-managed marinas and mooring fields provide 

another opportunity to increase housing options. 

Live-aboard vessels can provide an alternative for 

seasonal and permanent residents in areas with high 

land and housing costs, although environmental 

and public access impacts must be addressed.15,16

Many marinas in Maryland accommodate live-aboard 

Fernandina Beach, Florida’s zoning code allows for residential 

use on the second floor. 

Orenco Station in Hillsboro, Oregon, has won accolades for both 

livability and design.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

16

CASE STUDY

Santa Cruz, California

Like many communities in 

northern California, Santa Cruz 

has seen its housing costs 

increase dramatically, in part 

because of its coastal location on 

Monterey Bay and its desirability 

as a vacation, retirement, and 

second-home destination. In 

response to concerns over how 

to retain teachers, police officers, 

and service workers, the city 

created an Accessory Dwelling 

Unit (ADU) Development 

Program.18 The program makes 

it easier for homeowners to 

build a new structure or to 

convert all or part of a garage 

into an ADU. The city revised its 

zoning ordinance, commissioned 

design guidelines, and produced 

architect-generated building 

prototypes that have been prereviewed by city departments, 

thereby reducing processing time, 

planning fees, and design costs. 

To encourage affordable housing, 

loan and fee waiver programs are 

available to homeowners who 

will rent the unit at an affordable 

level. The program has been 

The award-winning Katrina cottage was developed in response 

to the hurricanes of 2005 to meet the demand for affordable 

housing while respecting the architectural tradition of the 

Gulf region.

Houseboats on Lake Union provide an alternative housing 

option for Seattle, Washington, residents.

Winooski, Vermont’s downtown 

revitalization effort added 

much-needed housing, stores, 

and public space.

vessels and protect coastal water quality from 

adverse effects by adopting environmentally sound 

operating and maintenance procedures as part of the 

Clean Marina Initiative.17 

These land- and water-based approaches help ease 

pressure to convert undeveloped land into new 

housing construction, and better distribute the 

demand for housing over a larger number and wider 

range of housing types. Yet the coastal premium 

in home prices requires policies that go beyond 

expanding the supply of affordable housing to also 

maintain affordability over time. Deed restrictions can 

be attached to units developed with public funds to 

limit the share of appreciation that homeowners can 

claim upon resale of the units, thereby guaranteeing a 

permanent supply of affordable housing to local lowwage employees. 

In coastal and waterfront economies dependent on 

tourism, the need to provide affordable workforce 

housing can be an opportunity to galvanize support 

among a broad range of stakeholders, including 

environmentalists, business owners, civic leaders, 

and other community members. A comprehensive 

approach to housing that offers options for seasonal 

and permanent residents, visitors, and workers 

provides a strong basis for a vibrant and sustainable 

local economy. 
17SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Provide a range of housing types

•	 Create inclusionary zoning, which requires new 

construction to include a portion of affordable units

•	 Create increased zoning for construction of multi-family 

and rental units

•	 Allow increased density near waterfront amenities

•	 Consider vessel live-aboards, while addressing publicaccess issues and environmental impacts

•	 Provide seasonal rentals and time-shares

Promote affordable housing for permanent and 

seasonal residents

•	 Provide workforce housing accommodations (e.g., 

single-room occupancy projects, college dorm 

conversions)

•	 Develop live-near-your-work programs for permanent 

and seasonal workers

•	 Allow accessory dwelling units

Maintain affordable housing for permanent and 

seasonal residents

•	 Have community land trusts retain ownership of 

underlying land while the house is bought and sold, 

lowering cost for buyers and ensuring long-term 

affordability 

•	 Write deed restrictions to maintain permanent 

affordability

Santa Cruz, CA

successful. In 2003, the program’s 

first full year, 35 accessory units were 

built—a fourfold increase over the 

eight units built in 2001. Between 40 

and 50 new accessory unit building 

permits have been issued each year 

since the program began.19 (See 

photo (left) and illustration (right) for 

example of garage conversion.)

ELEMENT 3

The High Point Redevelopment Project in Seattle, Washington, 

increased low income housing opportunities by 43%.

Housing can be conveniently located above commercial space.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

18

The pedestrian connection 

to the water can be 

improved physically, with 

better street, path, and 

trail connections, and with 

access points to the water 

that are open to the public. 

Create walkable 

communities with 

physical and visual 

access to and along 

the waterfront for 

public use

4 ELEMENT
19SMART GROWTH

In a walkable community, trips by bicycle or on foot are 

viable transportation alternatives to the car. Walkable 

communities locate a mix of uses, such as homes, 

shops, and schools, close to each other. They provide 

sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes that create 

safe passage for walkers and bikers, and they offer 

convenient, well-designed parking that encourages 

people to park and walk to their destination. Walkable 

communities offer more transportation choices, higher 

levels of social interaction, greater opportunities 

for physical activity, and reduced emissions from 

automobile travel. 

For waterfront communities, improving the connection 

between pedestrians and the water can increase 

interest in walking and biking and help to decrease 

the pressures of seasonal traffic. The pedestrian 

connection to the water can be improved physically, 

with better street, path, and trail connections, and with 

access points to the water that are open to the public. 

The connection also can be approached visually, by 

designing the built environment in ways that preserve 

the view of the water and encourage residents and 

visitors to access the waterfront on foot. Orienting the 

built environment to the water can improve public 

access to it and encourage a better appreciation of this 

precious asset.

Ensuring physical access from streets or sidewalks to 

the waterfront can be a challenge, however. Many 

coastal and waterfront communities have a shortage 

of public-access facilities, such as public walkways and 

boat launches. In some communities, traditional public 

access sites have been converted to private uses. It can 

be difficult to acquire new access points because of 

the prohibitive costs of both land and maintenance. 

The public also may be unsure of how to access the 

water if adequate signage is not provided. Additional 

challenges arise when people headed to the water 

to swim, stroll, fish, or surf inadvertently degrade 

sensitive natural areas near the water. Pedestrian 

access to the water must not only be connected to the 

built environment, but also accommodated in ways 

that protect natural resources. 

A number of tools can help. Communities can 

inventory where the public access points are, flag the 

gaps, and put all this information on a map. Then, with 

maps and inventories at hand, visioning exercises can 

help residents and visitors articulate how they expect 

to access the water and what they expect to do there. 

In Grand Marais, Minnesota, the city used a community 

visioning process to define redevelopment options for 

a derelict gas station located between the waterfront 

and downtown. The community decided to create a 

waterfront park on the site. Today, Harbor Park better 

connects downtown Grand Marais to its waterfront; 

visitors and residents walking its paths enjoy 

unobstructed views of and access to Lake Superior. The 

park has become a community centerpiece, regularly 

hosting festivals and other community gatherings.20

Once a vision is developed, it should be incorporated 

into pedestrian master plans, mixed-use zoning, 

and capital improvement plans that codify and fund 

improved access. Localities then can provide incentives 

or adopt regulations guiding plans for water access 

in future development. Along the Amelia River 

waterfront area of Fernandina Beach, Florida, the city 

established a “floating” overlay district that allows 

property owners to double their density if they grant 

the city an easement to build a public boardwalk along 

Visitors to Annapolis, Maryland, can stroll within easy sight 

of the harbor.

The beach is a short walk from downtown Lewes, Delaware.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

20

CASE STUDY

Ogunquit, Maine

In Ogunquit, Maine, the Marginal 

Way is a public walkway along 

the Atlantic shore, located 

a block from Ogunquit’s 

downtown. The Marginal Way is a 

remnant of a pre-colonial coastal 

trail, which a coastal property 

owner donated to the town in 

the 1920s. The town, working 

with several contiguous property 

owners, acquired easements 

in the 1940s to extend the trail 

another 2,000 feet. Signs direct 

pedestrians from downtown to 

the entrance of the Marginal 

Way, which extends along the 

coastline for nearly two miles, 

including access paths, ending 

at Perkins Cove, a small working 

harbor near Ogonquit with a 

variety of shops and restaurants. 

The town holds full title to most 

of the land area of the trail and is 

responsible for its management 

Informational signs encourage people to visit and 

learn about the waterfront. 

Homes, stores, restaurants 

and the water all are within 

an easy walk of downtown 

Burlington, Vermont.

the riverfront, allow pedestrian access, and maintain 

a view corridor. The overlay district also promotes a 

mix of uses by requiring housing to be located above 

ground-floor commercial or office uses.21

Efforts to ensure access are complemented by tools 

that can make communities safer and more appealing 

for pedestrians. A “park once” strategy encourages 

development of centrally located parking (preferably 

away from the water) that allows workers and visitors 

to leave their cars and walk to their destinations. Proper 

“wayfinding” planning can encourage more activity 

on foot or bike by providing maps, good signage, and 

other guidance directing people to the waterfront and 

other amenities. Additionally, placing a public dock 

near a walkable waterfront makes it easy for visitors 

arriving by water, via a public ferry or private vessel, 

to access the community by foot (see Element 8 for 

additional information on water-based transportation). 

Sidewalk design standards that provide ample room for 

walking (buffered from traffic by parked cars or trees 

and other vegetation) can encourage more pedestrian 

activity. Trees, planting strips, and rain gardens create 

more pleasant pedestrian environments and can 

be designed to manage stormwater runoff. Finally, 

routine evaluations of permits, zoning laws, street 

design guidelines, and other policies can help ensure 

that existing regulations and programs enhance the 

walking environment and support the community’s 

desire to design and position buildings in ways that 

make the water easy to access. 

A walkable community requires much more than a 

sidewalk, path, or boardwalk. In coastal and waterfront 

communities, it calls for a comprehensive approach to 

building and street design, parking, zoning, and water 

access that ensures that pedestrians are safe, welcome, 

and have a range of destinations—water- and landbased—to which they can walk.

The City of Fernandina Beach, Florida, uses density 

incentives to encourage visual and physical access 

to the waterfront. 
21SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Mix land uses and design buildings to 

foster pedestrian activity and visual access 

to the water

•	 Adopt policies and codes that allow for a mix of uses 

compatible with waterfront development

•	 Adopt building codes that establish appropriate building 

heights around water resources and ensure visibility of 

special points of interest or viewing areas

•	 Connect buildings, streets, and paths to the waterfront

•	 Create central parking facilities to serve as park-once 

locations within walking or shuttling distance of waterfronts 

or central business districts 

Foster a safe and supportive infrastructure 

for walking, biking, and other nonmotorized means of travel

•	 Establish a pedestrian master plan that supports 

investment in good sidewalks, narrow streets, crosswalks, 

bike lanes, on-street parking, street art, and appropriately 

scaled green infrastructure

•	 Ensure pedestrian safety through street design standards 

and speed control measures

•	 Provide maps for pedestrians, bikers, and “blue trail” 

users (with tours and points of interest), informational 

signage, and guides to boating storage facilities, racks, 

and access points

•	 Provide well-maintained pedestrian walkways and 

bicycle paths 

•	 Assess and consider impacts from expected sea level rise or 

lower lake levels

Expand and manage physical access to 

the water

•	 Inventory existing access sites compared to current and 

projected demand for access

•	 Prioritize access needs by identifying what types of access 

are needed and their most appropriate location

•	 Identify potential funding sources that will support 

the acquisition of properties for new access and the 

construction of any physical infrastructure needed

•	 Provide attractive and safe pathways between parking 

areas, public transportation, and waterfronts, ensuring 

that the connections are well-lit with adequate signage

Ogunquit, ME

and maintenance. For an 

Ogonquit resident or tourist, the 

Marginal Way complements an 

already walkable community. The 

vibrant, mixed-use downtown has 

wide sidewalks and shade trees, 

and visitors are encouraged to 

park in a municipal lot next to 

the downtown and explore the 

area on foot or via the Ogunquit 

Trolley, which provides service 

along the coast during the 

summer months.22, 23 

ELEMENT 4
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

22

Coastal and waterfront 

communities can 

capitalize on their location 

and strengthen their sense 

of place by visually and 

physically connecting their 

streets, buildings, and 

public spaces with 

the water.

Foster distinctive, 

attractive 

communities with 

a strong sense 

of place that 

capitalizes on 

the waterfront’s 

heritage

ELEMENT

5
23SMART GROWTH

Vibrant streets and attractive public spaces are 

hallmarks of healthy communities. Distinctive features 

such as tree-lined boulevards, historic buildings, or 

rows of shops and cafes make neighborhoods and 

downtown centers places where people want to be. 

Old buildings lend themselves to reuse as housing, 

businesses, and cultural centers; new building designs 

can blend with the character of surrounding structures 

and the environment. Smart growth approaches reflect 

the varied interests of community residents, creating a 

more cohesive community fabric that helps maintain 

economic vitality.

Many of the techniques that inland communities use 

to ensure that new growth and development enhance 

the character of a place also apply to communities 

along the water. Waterfront and coastal communities 

are defined by the sights, sounds, and smells of the 

water; the activity on the docks or wharves; and the 

opportunity to boat, swim, and fish nearby. While 

historically these communities took advantage of 

their location for industries such as shipbuilding, fish 

processing, and warehousing, over time many of the 

buildings and docks that supported those activities 

have fallen into disrepair. But communities can 

adapt neglected historic buildings and structures for 

reuse. Protected and restored lighthouses, harbors, 

and public piers can affirm historical connections 

and draw both visitors and residents. These features 

not only represent physical assets that illustrate the 

community’s sense of place, but they can also be the 

center point for redevelopment that strengthens the 

local economy. 

Regional and global economic changes may mean 

that many small-scale fishing, shipping, and other 

traditional ventures are now less viable. Efforts 

to maintain a working waterfront often require 

thoughtful intervention and land use management 

by local government. Many communities envision 

a working waterfront as part of their revitalization 

efforts and adopt policies to support it. For example, 

Newburyport, Massachusetts, used a number of 

strategies to create a vibrant waterfront. The city 

initiated an urban renewal project in the 1970s that 

documented historic buildings and eventually led to 

the establishment of a historic district.24 Newburyport 

protected water-dependent uses, including boatyards 

and marinas, from encroachment, created a mixed-use 

district along the Merrimack River, and adopted design 

and zoning guidelines for new development to protect 

the town’s historic character. The city also developed a 

strategy for streets and public paths to protect views 

and access to the water and extended a harbor walk 

connecting neighborhoods to the downtown and its 

waterfront parks.25 The waterfront is now a central 

gathering place for residents and tourists alike and is in 

easy walking distance of restaurants, art galleries, and 

other amenities.

Coastal and waterfront communities can capitalize on 

their location and strengthen their sense of place by 

visually and physically connecting (or reconnecting) 

their streets, buildings, and public spaces with the 

water. The waterfront community of St. Andrews, 

Florida, used its traditional working waterfront 

and historic structures along the St. Andrews Bay 

as the focal point for community revitalization. 

Tourism and charter fishing flourished in St. Andrews 

until the 1970s, when the charter boats moved to 

neighboring beach communities, and the historic 

community fell into decline. Through a communitybased visioning process, residents identified existing 

historic and cultural resources as a revitalization 

Even simple design elements, like these gas lamps in Charleston, 

South Carolina, can add to a community’s sense of character.

Creating fun, interactive public spaces with a connection to the 

waterfront can bring new vibrancy to a community.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

24

CASE STUDY

Leland, Michigan

Leland, Michigan, turned 

the challenge of a declining 

commercial fishery into an 

economic opportunity by 

focusing revitalization efforts on 

its historic and natural resources 

fronting the Leland River and 

Lake Michigan. Leland identified 

the fishing complex known as 

“Fishtown,” with its weathered 

fishing shanties, smokehouses, 

and docks,28 as a key element 

to preserve in maintaining the 

city’s maritime heritage. Listed 

on the National Register of 

Historic Places, the preserved 

and renovated structures of 

Fishtown now provide visitors 

with an opportunity to learn 

about the Great Lakes’ maritime 

tradition and enjoy recreational 

Creative signage directs residents and visitors to local shops in 

St. Andrews, Florida.

Chattanooga, Tennessee’s riverfront redevelopment reclaimed 

the city’s link to the water.

Maritime heritage fosters a 

strong sense of place in New 

Orleans, Louisiana. 

priority. The resulting redevelopment plan focused 

on strengthening these assets through targeted 

investments in the working waterfront and historic 

district, including a wayfinding signage program.26

Chattanooga, Tennessee, also recognized the 

opportunity that existed in its neglected waterfront 

along the Tennessee River and made it a centerpiece 

of its revitalization efforts. Faced with extensive air 

pollution and a weakening economy, Chattanooga 

initiated a public visioning process in 1984 and 

created a plan to turn the city around. The plan helped 

Chattanooga transform its riverfront into a focal point 

for residents and tourists through the addition of an 

aquarium, art museum, public art, picnic areas, natural 

greenways to protect creek corridors leading to the 

river, and pedestrian bridges to facilitate access. The 

result is evident not only in Chattanooga’s reclaimed 

relationship with the river, but also in the revitalization 

of the broader community that these waterfront 

efforts inspired.27

In new coastal or waterfront communities, pedestrianscaled streets, well-designed buildings, and inviting 

public spaces can be connected with the water to 

create great places. In established communities, 

redevelopment efforts can incorporate buildings, 

docks, and other structures historically connected 

to the working waterfront, capitalizing on the rich 

heritage the waterfront provides. 
25SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

 Create an understanding of the community’s assets

•	 Conduct a community asset inventory

•	 Write an ecological history of the community

•	 Incorporate community asset inventories and ecological 

history into visioning efforts

 Create a community vision for the future

•	 Use visual preference surveys

•	 Conduct visioning exercises

•	 Incorporate ideas from citizen advisory committees

•	 Consider potential short- and long-term impacts of 

climate change

 Incorporate the community vision into policies 

 and codes for new development as well as

 redevelopment projects

•	 Adopt design guidelines

•	 Adopt form-based codes

•	 Require new development projects to incorporate public 

charrettes into the plan development process

 Incorporate historic and cultural structures in 

 development projects, including working waterfront 

 features such as buildings, docks, and piers 

•	 Implement historic preservation districts

•	 Implement tax incentives to protect historic resources 

•	 Provide grants for reuse of historic structures

•	 Implement an economic development agenda that 

capitalizes on the community’s waterfront heritage and 

natural assets

Leland, MI

activities on Lake Michigan and Lake 

Leelanau.29 Fishtown has helped 

Leland, with its walkable downtown 

and easy access to the water, 

capitalize on its heritage and history 

despite the decline of its traditional 

fisheries-based economy.30

ELEMENT 5

The distinctive Victorian-style houses around San Francisco, 

California’s Alamo Square have become the backdrop for many 

popular postcards of the city. 

The beautiful buildings in San Diego, California’s Gaslamp 

Quarter create a welcoming vista for drivers and walkers alike.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

26

By preserving open space, 

farmland, natural beauty, 

and critical environmental 

areas, communities 

can maintain essential 

environmental services 

and improve 

community resilience.

Preserve open 

space, farmland, 

natural beauty, 

and the critical 

environmental 

areas that 

characterize and 

support coastal 

and waterfront 

communities 

ELEMENT

6
27SMART GROWTH

Natural and working lands play an essential role in 

the economic, environmental, and social well-being 

of communities. Natural areas and parks increase 

neighboring property values, attract businesses 

and residents, support tourism, offer opportunities 

for recreation, and provide scenic value. Farmlands 

provide food; working forests provide timber. 

Wetlands, forests, stream buffers, and other critical 

environmental areas provide many additional benefits, 

including water and air filtration, recharge of precious 

groundwater resources, protection of drinking water 

supplies, and habitat for plants, animals, and beneficial 

insects. Conserving these resources is important 

to the environmental health and well-being of any 

community as it grows or redevelops.

Coastal and waterfront communities depend on their 

working lands, waterscapes, and ecological systems. 

The dynamic natural processes that characterize the 

shifting boundary between the land and the water 

create beautiful landscapes that are essential to both 

local ecology and economy. Freshwater and tidal 

creeks, marshes, cliffs, dunes, estuaries, and beaches 

intertwine to support complex ecological systems that 

provide invaluable services. Wetlands provide critical 

habitat, mitigate flooding, and capture and retain 

sediments, helping to keep pollutants from reaching 

downstream waters. Estuaries provide essential 

nurseries for commercial and recreational fish species. 

And beach and dune systems protect the shoreline 

against the natural hazards of erosion, storms, and sealevel rise. Local economies fueled by such activities as 

sport and commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism, 

as well as retiree and artist communities, rely on the 

natural assets that support them.

Protecting the strength and health of waterfront 

and coastal communities’ natural resources requires 

balancing the needs of the built environment with 

those of the natural one. Green infrastructure planning 

can help communities get this balance right. Through 

green infrastructure planning, a community or 

region can identify and prioritize natural areas that 

should be preserved or restored to protect long-term 

ecological health and build community resilience. 

The process begins with an assessment of an area’s 

most important environmental assets, identifying 

the natural and working lands and water bodies that 

need to be protected or restored. Along the water, 

this process should include a community vulnerability 

assessment, which systematically identifies areas that 

are vulnerable to, or that can help buffer communities 

from, natural hazards. The result is a framework that 

defines which lands and water bodies need protection 

and which areas can best accommodate growth. 

On the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, 

the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 

illustrates the green infrastructure approach. The 

commission developed a green infrastructure plan 

that identifies and links riparian-based conservation 

corridors, defines a future land use map outlining 

no-development conservation areas, and identifies 

land purchases to protect high-priority sites. This 

multi-stakeholder effort balanced interests and 

achieved many benefits, including habitat protection, 

stormwater management, wetlands mitigation, 

comprehensive planning, and support for recreation 

and tourism.31

Both visitors and locals enjoy the beauty and abundant wildlife 

found in wetland areas. 

Communities can protect important natural resources by 

integrating green infrastructure assessments into their 

comprehensive land use plans.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

28

CASE STUDY

Brays Bayou, Houston, Texas

The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s 

(NOAA) Coastal and Estuarine 

Land Conservation Program 

(CELCP) was established in 2002 

to protect valuable coastal and 

estuarine lands. One of CELCP’s 

projects is in Brays Bayou in 

Houston, Texas. Through direct 

acquisition, CELCP grant funds 

are helping to protect about five 

acres of undeveloped floodplains 

along the bayou in a mixed-use 

neighborhood in East Houston. 

The city of Houston, in association 

with the Houston Parks Board, 

initiated this project in an effort 

to set aside land for public open 

space, restore and maintain water 

quality, reduce the potential 

for flood damage, and enhance 

wildlife habitat along the bayou. 

Although CELCP funds are buying 

only a small number of acres, 

these lands will complement 

previously acquired parcels 

and be combined with several 

planned acquisitions along the 

stream corridor. By improving 

access to the bayou, including 

walking and biking trails as well 

as scenic, shaded spaces for 

picnics, this project protects open 

In Puget Sound, Washington, protecting natural areas can bring 

many benefits, including protecting fish stocks and encouraging 

appropriate recreation and tourism. 

Protecting and restoring natural dunes also 

protects coastal property. 

Wetlands provide communities 

with important enviromental 

services. 

A variety of tools can be used to protect high-priority 

areas on land or in the water. On land, preservation 

and protection tools include the purchase or transfer 

of development rights, direct purchase of the land, 

and various types of conservation easements. For 

example, in 1990, San Juan County on Puget Sound, 

Washington, established a land bank to permanently 

protect areas with environmental, agricultural, and 

scenic value. Since its inception, the land bank has 

protected 4,300 acres using funds generated from 

a real estate tax, donations, and grants. The San 

Juan County Land Bank’s work is guided by county 

ordinance and overseen by a citizen commission.32 

Central to any planning process along the shore must 

be the recognition that shorelines are constantly 

changing systems. Erosion, flooding, storm surges, 

and sea-level change in response to tides, waves, 

and storms are all natural and familiar processes, as 

are Great Lake water level fluctuations, but when 

they clash with the built environment, they can be 

hazardous. Furthermore, these processes are likely 

to intensify under some climate change scenarios.33

Smart shoreline development can mitigate the 

damaging effects on the built environment caused by 

these changes by incorporating land use approaches 

that reduce the risks from coastal and waterfront 

hazards. For example, protecting, maintaining, and, 

where possible, restoring natural areas along the 

water can create buffers that protect development 

from environmental changes. Communities can use a 

variety of tools to implement this approach, including 

development setbacks (e.g., from the high tide line), 

conservation easements, and rolling easements, 

which shift automatically with natural changes in the 

shoreline. Capitalizing on the inherent resilience of 

these assets by properly protecting them can help 

protect people and property from the impacts of 

natural hazards and the additional challenges posed 

by a changing climate. 

Coastal and waterfront communities depend on 

their natural and working lands and the water. By 

preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty, 

and critical environmental areas, communities can 

maintain essential environmental services and 

improve community resilience. 
29SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Plan with nature, anticipating dynamic waterfront 

and coastal processes (e.g., storms, sea-level rise, 

lake level fall, erosion) and manage ecological 

systems to be adaptive to changes caused by 

human activity

•	 Conduct community vulnerability assessment to determine 

natural hazard risks; model future scenarios; include 

participatory approaches to understand risks perceived 

by the community 

•	 Link community hazard mitigation plan to community 

comprehensive plan; incorporate into zoning, 

capital expenditure plans, and other local land use 

management tools

•	 Use green infrastructure assets (such as natural buffer zones) 

to accommodate projected risks from climate change 

•	 Protect, restore, and enhance vulnerable shorelines through 

acquisition, rolling easements, living shorelines, buffers and 

setbacks, or site-level green infrastructure/LID stormwater 

management practices

Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, restore 

ecological systems, including submerged lands 

and shore habitat

•	 Use green infrastructure planning to identify community and 

regional environmental assets 

•	 Designate marine or terrestrial management areas 

•	 Use purchase of development rights, transfer of development 

rights, and land or marine conservation agreements to 

protect critical areas

•	 Use best management practices promoting on-site 

stormwater infiltration, native species, and living shorelines

•	 Protect or restore connectivity between natural areas where 

needed to support ecosystem function

•	 Define appropriate indicators to measure and monitor 

ecosystem function and health over time 

•	 Produce report cards and illustrative maps, based on goals and 

community vision, to align science with management priorities 

and to convey results to the public

Preserve open space and natural lands for scenic 

resources and recreational opportunities

•	 Partner with community land trusts to protect high 

priority lands

•	 Designate protection of waterscapes or coastal viewsheds 

within zoning schemes

•	 Create nature preserves, hiking and blue trails

•	 Use targeted funding for open space and habitat preservation 

•	 Zone waters for specific uses based on local circumstances 

and constraints 

Houston, TX

space to reconnect a historically 

underserved urban community 

with the water. Restoration efforts 

undertaken by local volunteers 

and school groups are not only 

restoring marshland vegetation 

and wildlife habitat, but are also 

teaching the participants about 

the value of functioning wetlands. 

By keeping the land undeveloped 

and permeable to capture runoff 

from storms, this project will help 

reduce the potential for flood 

damage in an area that, since its 

early history, has had significant 

flooding problems. The project is 

also providing important wildlife 

habitat and a welcome community 

amenity that will strengthen 

residents’ connection to the bayou.

ELEMENT 6
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

30

Waterfront revitalization 

can enhance historic, 

cultural, and scenic 

resources, supporting 

community efforts to 

maintain a strong sense of 

place while protecting the 

water and other 

natural resources.

Strengthen and 

direct development 

toward existing 

communities 

and encourage 

waterfront 

revitalization

ELEMENT

7
31SMART GROWTH

Infill development in existing communities, where 

roads, utilities, and transportation connections 

are already in place, is a preferred growth strategy 

because of the many environmental and economic 

benefits it provides. When communities convert 

underused infill sites, such as parking lots or vacant 

properties, into vibrant mixed-use developments, they 

strengthen their local tax base, concentrate growth, 

and reduce pressure to convert undeveloped land, 

yielding significant air and water quality benefits. 

Redevelopment of brownfields—sites where reuse 

is complicated by real or perceived contamination—

removes environmental hazards from communities 

and provides new investment opportunities in 

areas already well served by infrastructure. New 

development and investment in these infill locations 

can re-energize lagging commercial corridors, 

providing new stimulus to preserve traditional 

uses and promote recreational opportunities that 

strengthen the local economy. 

In many coastal and waterfront areas, properties at 

the water’s edge are prime redevelopment targets, 

since they are in or near the historic center of the 

community, are well connected to land- and waterbased modes of transportation, and are close to jobs, 

services, and tourist sites. Waterfront revitalization 

can enhance historic, cultural, and scenic resources, 

supporting community efforts to maintain a strong 

sense of place while protecting the water and other 

natural resources. 

However, redevelopment of waterfront properties 

can pose challenges as well as opportunities. 

Historic buildings are distinctive, potentially 

profitable opportunities for reuse. But to encourage 

their renovation, communities may have to adopt 

“rehab” codes to offset the unintended barriers to 

redevelopment that standard building codes for new 

construction may contain. Brownfield revitalization 

efforts along the water also may be complicated 

because of the presence of protected, threatened, and 

endangered species and the possibility of contaminant 

runoff. Furthermore, the redevelopment of buildings 

to support non-water-dependent uses in areas 

traditionally dominated by water-dependent uses can 

result in displacement and gentrification (see Element 

1 for further discussion of mixing uses). Finally, all 

coastal and waterfront communities need to consider 

their vulnerability to natural hazards such as storms 

and flooding, and, for those on the coast, the risks 

from sea level rise, so that revitalizing the waterfront 

does not make the community more vulnerable to 

natural disasters. 

Nevertheless, infill and redevelopment efforts at the 

water’s edge offer great potential for underscoring 

the connections between a community’s culture, 

built environment, and natural resources. Through a 

robust planning process, stakeholders representing 

varied interests and organizations can unite in the 

common goal of revitalizing the waterfront in ways 

that protect the built and natural environments. For 

example, the city of Glen Cove, New York, located 

on Long Island Sound, used a community-based 

waterfront revitalization planning process to transform 

214 acres of brownfields to mixed-use development 

along the north shore of Long Island. The city brought 

together federal, state, and local partners to leverage 

support for its waterfront revitalization. The city then 

The site of a former brownfield, Seattle, Washington’s Gas Works 

Park was cleaned up and reused as a waterfront park. 

The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, is the site of continuing 

revitalization efforts, including mixed-use development and 

plans for a city park. 
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

32

CASE STUDY

Providence, Rhode Island’s Downcity Providence and Waterplace Park

For much of the past two 

centuries, the downtown and 

Old Harbor of Providence, 

Rhode Island, functioned as the 

city’s industrial and commercial 

center. Now often referred to as 

“Downcity,” the area declined 

beginning in the 1950s, leading 

to the departure of water-related 

industries and the eventual 

burial of the Providence River 

for urban renewal purposes. In 

the early 1990s, when many of 

the Downcity buildings were 

vacant or underused, Providence 

developed a revitalization strategy 

to create a “round-the-clock” 

neighborhood and destination in 

the core of the city and along the 

Providence River. The Downcity 

Master Plan and Implementation 

Plan called for the city to focus 

arts and entertainment uses in 

the downtown; create personal 

tax exemptions for artists, writers, 

painters, and composers to move 

to the area; and implement tax 

incentives for developers to create 

apartments and lofts in underused 

properties. Providence also 

reformed its zoning code to allow 

residential uses in commercial 

buildings. In combination 

with tax credits for restoring 

historic buildings, this led to the 

rehabilitation and reuse of many 

Waterfront revitalization plans can provide guidance for 

redevelopment, such as in Oswego, New York, where the 

community has rehabilitated and reused historic buildings.

Compact, historic mixed-use development patterns provide a 

strong sense of place in Provincetown, Massachusetts. 

developed and implemented the Glen Cove Creek 

Waterfront Revitalization Plan in partnership with 

NOAA and the New York State Coastal Management 

Program. The plan and resulting zoning changes 

provided a road map for the community’s vision and 

was a basis for building stakeholder support and 

developing partnerships for implementation. Because 

of this work, Glen Cove has leveraged over 

$40 million from public and private sources to 

support its waterfront revitalization initiative.34

In addition to creating rehab codes and pursuing 

brownfields redevelopment, communities can use 

other tools to target development to strengthen 

existing areas. Historic preservation districts, tax 

benefits, and incentives can support retrofitting the 

historic waterfront for new uses while protecting 

important structures and facades. Also, state or 

local “fix it first” policies can give priority for scarce 

public infrastructure investment dollars to existing 

communities, rather than expand services to 

undeveloped areas. States such as Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, and Maryland—all of which have many 

waterfront communities—have implemented “fix 

it first” policies to attend to the needs of existing 

communities. In addition, concurrency policies can 

ensure that new development supports itself—in the 

form of roads, utilities, and schools needed to support 

new growth—thereby conserving public resources 

for repair and upgrading in already developed areas. 

Communities must carefully consider the economic 

and environmental context before determining 

the best location for growth, development, and 

redevelopment. Along the water, this has always 

included factors such as sensitive natural areas, 

storms, and flooding. Communities facing the 

possibility of increased vulnerability from climate 

change-related impacts, such as increased flooding 

and sea level rise, may need to consider whether 

infill or redevelopment is appropriate. In appropriate 

locations, these development strategies can 

yield important economic, environmental, and 

community benefits. 
33SMART GROWTH

Revitalization of Downcity, including Waterplace Park and Riverwalk, has signaled the rebirth of downtown Providence, Rhode Island.

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Promote community-based waterfront 

revitalization efforts

•	 Conduct community vulnerability assessments to 

ensure redevelopment is directed to appropriate areas

•	 Create waterfront master plans

•	 Use special area management plans

•	 Use harbor management plans 

•	 Employ tax increment financing

•	 Create business improvement districts

Promote infill development by preserving, upgrading, 

and reusing existing properties 

•	 Fix current infrastructure (fix it first policies)

•	 Employ development incentives such as 

expedited permitting processes in areas with 

existing infrastructure

•	 Create concurrency policies for new development

Retrofit historic waterfront for new uses

•	 Establish or promote historic preservation 

districts with associated incentives such as tax 

credits or easements

•	 Establish rehab codes for renovation of historic 

waterfront (or other area) buildings

Clean up and reuse brownfields •	 Use state and local brownfield assessment and 

cleanup programs

Providence, RI

historic structures. Downcity is 

now connected with Waterplace 

Park and the Riverwalk, public 

spaces on the river that draw 

hundreds of thousands of visitors 

annually. These places were made 

possible in part by uncovering 

the Providence River, which once 

again flows through the city and 

is the focal point for Waterplace 

Park and the Capital Center area. 

Downcity and the area made up 

of Waterplace Park, Riverwalk, 

and the Capital Center have seen 

more than $200 million in private 

investment, including over 40 new 

ground-level retail, entertainment, 

and restaurant establishments. 

While the nature of waterfront 

activities has changed, the area 

is again a thriving downtown 

with a variety of entertainment, 

shopping, cultural, and living 

opportunities.35

ELEMENT 7
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

34 All communities wrestle 

with traffic congestion; in 

waterfront communities, 

this congestion can be 

exacerbated by local 

topography, bridges, 

surges in seasonal visitors 

and part-year residents, 

and the hub-and-spoke 

nature of marine-based 

freight movement.

Provide a variety 

of land- and 

water-based 

transportation 

options

ELEMENT

8
35SMART GROWTH

Giving people more options for getting around meets 

many community goals. When people find it easy and 

safe to walk, bike, or take transit, they no longer have 

to rely exclusively on cars to get to shops, work, and 

school, reducing air pollution and traffic congestion. 

Walking and biking also help people include physical 

activity in their daily routines, give more freedom to 

those unable or unwilling to drive, and can reduce 

household transportation costs.

While waterfront and coastal communities share many 

of the transportation-related concerns faced by inland 

communities, their proximity to water creates distinct 

transportation challenges as well as opportunities. 

All communities wrestle with traffic congestion; in 

waterfront communities, this congestion can be 

exacerbated by local topography,36 bridges, surges in 

seasonal visitors and part-year residents, and the huband-spoke nature of marine-based freight movement. 

Parking can be a challenge in any vibrant economic 

center; seasonal and weekend waterfront visitors or 

part-year residents compound that challenge. 

Coastal and waterfront communities, though, can 

offer water-based transportation options, such as 

ferries and water taxis, that are unavailable to their 

landlocked counterparts. When combined with higher 

density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development on 

the waterfront, water-based transportation becomes 

more attractive to both tourists and commuters. The 

Washington State ferry system, the largest in the 

country, serves more than 26 million people per year 

with 20 terminals throughout Puget Sound. The ferry 

system has reduced automobile use in the region, 

in part because of developments like the Bremerton 

Harborside project.37 This high-density, mixed-use 

redevelopment connects the ferry terminal to homes, 

stores, and other places and makes better use of 

valuable waterfront land than its previous incarnation: 

parking lots for ferry riders.38 (See Element 9 for more 

information about Bremerton.) Elsewhere, Baltimore, 

Maryland’s water taxi system, the oldest in the country, 

benefits from its connections to the redeveloped Inner 

Harbor, which attracts tourists and houses permanent 

residents and workers.39 The Baltimore water taxi 

service provides access to more than 30 attractions 

and neighborhoods for tourists (and, increasingly, 

commuters) across the city. Smaller watercraft can be 

viable transportation alternatives, too. Communities 

are adding blue trails for recreational and commuter 

kayaking. In Seattle, for example, the Lakes-to-Locks 

Water Trail connects inland lakes, rivers, waterways, 

and the ship canal with the shores of Elliot Bay 

and Puget Sound.40 Baltimore’s Canton Kayak Club 

maintains four docks with boats, paddles, and life vests 

around the harbor, and some club members use the 

boats to paddle to work.41

When appropriately connected, water-based 

transportation options also can strengthen the 

value and utility of ground transit (such as buses, 

subways, commuter trains, and streetcars). Boston’s 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority operates 

commuter boats and ferries with many destinations 

and with connections to subway lines, commuter 

rail lines, and bus routes, making transfers and trip 

planning easier for residents and visitors. 

Other tools to improve transportation options apply 

to both waterfront and inland settings. These tools 

include variable pricing that charges higher fees 

during peak demand, and convenient park-once or 

shared parking facilities with good shuttle or walking 

connections to desired destinations (see Element 4 for 

more information on walkable communities). Locating 

parking facilities away from the water’s edge can free 

Light rail helps make it easier to get around San Diego, California. Bike racks on the Lake Michigan waterfront encourage 

alternative transportation in Traverse City, Michigan. 
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

36

CASE STUDY

The Staten Island Ferry, New York

Every year, the Staten Island 

Ferry gives more than 19 

million passengers—including 

commuters, residents, and 

tourists—a ride across New York 

Harbor between Staten Island 

and lower Manhattan. The ferry 

runs 24 hours a day, every day of 

the year. Operated by New York 

City as a municipal service since 

1905, the ferry serves 65,000 

passengers on a typical weekday 

and is open to pedestrians only. 

Rail and bus service is available 

at both ferry terminals; the 

Staten Island Terminal is served 

by multiple buses and the 

Staten Island Railway, while the 

Whitehall Terminal in Manhattan 

is within walking distance of the 

city subway and three bus lines.44

According to New York City’s 

Independent Budget Office, about 

40,000 weekday trips are made on 

Kayaking provides great recreational opportunities, as illustrated 

in this photo of Michigan’s Detroit River. In some places, 

communities are also exploring kayaking as a commuting option.

In Baltimore, water taxis provide viable transportation between 

key sites throughout the harbor.

In Port Clinton, Ohio, ferries 

provide access to islands in 

Lake Erie.

valuable waterfront land for development or water 

access. Other system-wide investments in reliable 

public transit (including buses or streetcars), improved 

connectivity among road networks, and better 

infrastructure for biking and walking can help make 

alternatives to driving easier and more appealing. 

Besides the movement of people, the movement 

of goods is an important transportation issue for 

waterfront and coastal communities. Deep draft ports 

accommodate oceangoing vessels, which carry more 

than 99 percent of U.S. overseas trade by weight 

and 64 percent by value.42 The connections between 

water and surface transportation—specifically, port 

connections to rail, air, road, and pipeline—are critical 

to moving goods efficiently and cost-effectively. 

These connections also affect the environment 

and quality of life in adjacent communities. Many 

of these communities have historically suffered a 

disproportionate share of adverse environmental 

impacts and are seeking alternatives to moving 

freight from port to highway to reduce the truck 

traffic going through their neighborhoods.43 The 

20-mile, $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor project in 

Los Angeles is one of the most visible efforts to shift 

the movement of goods off roads and onto rails to 

relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality, and 

improve the quality of life for nearby neighborhoods. 

Transportation options that reduce congestion can 

help ensure the vital movement of goods while 

protecting the quality of life in adjacent communities. 

Providing a wide range of land- and water-based 

transportation options can help communities by 

the water create a welcoming, pedestrian-friendly 

environment that also accommodates the 

efficient movement of goods necessary to 

waterfront commerce.
37SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Enhance water-based public transportation and link it 

to pedestrian and land-based transit systems

•	 Encourage water-based public transportation options, 

particularly those that accommodate walk-on 

passengers (e.g., ferries and water taxis)

•	 Coordinate water-based public transportation with 

land-based systems and schedules (e.g., rail, bus) 

•	 Apply transit-oriented development principles to water 

taxi or ferry terminal areas, using high-density, mixeduse projects to attract water transit riders

Ensure that transportation options consider the 

movement of goods, as well as people 

•	 Ensure efficiency of intermodal connections (e.g., port to 

truck, rail, air)

•	 Coordinate between marine transportation and port 

plans, local land use plans, and land transportation and 

infrastructure plans

Plan for seasonal transportation needs 

•	 Use variable pricing policies for parking or tolls

•	 Consider a park-once strategy for cars and boats; 

complement with shuttle services and improved 

pedestrian access 

•	 Locate parking structures and sites away from 

water’s edge

•	 Increase shuttle service during seasonal peaks

New York, NY

the ferry by Staten Island residents, 

equivalent to roughly 20,000 twoway commuter trips a day across 

the two bridge and tunnel routes 

into lower Manhattan.45 Given that 

a typical bridge or tunnel lane can 

accommodate about 6,000 vehicles 

during peak rush hours, the ferry 

has helped to reduce congestion, 

as well as the need for investment 

in additional lane capacity. 

ELEMENT 8

The effective linkage of marine shipping with land-based transportation can be critical to water-based economies such as those 

along the Great Lakes.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

38

In waterfront and 

coastal communities, 

strong and often 

competing demands 

between development, 

recreational uses, 

and protection of the 

environment must 

be balanced.

Make development 

decisions predictable, 

fair, and costeffective through 

consistent policies 

and coordinated 

permitting processes

ELEMENT

9
39SMART GROWTH

In most communities across the country, the private 

sector is responsible for the overwhelming majority 

of new development. New development has many 

costs. Most of them—land, materials, and labor, for 

instance—can be accurately identified and accounted 

for by a developer. However, the costs for permitting, 

zoning variances, site reviews, and compliance with 

applicable regulations are often less clear and can 

be compounded by the time each process takes. 

Because compact, mixed-use projects diverge from 

conventional plans for single-use projects, they are 

more likely to need extra reviews in communities 

that do not have smart growth-supportive zoning 

codes. For development projects to succeed, they 

must be buildable within a reasonable timeframe, 

with a likely profit commensurate with their risk. The 

public sector can support environmentally responsible 

development by reducing barriers to smart growth, 

ensuring that the development process for all projects 

is efficient, fair, and transparent.

In waterfront and coastal communities, strong and 

often competing demands between development, 

recreational uses, and protection of the environment 

must be balanced. The uncertainty in development 

can be magnified by the extra layers of local, 

state, and federal regulations that apply along the 

water. Often, planning and permitting agencies 

have different roles and responsibilities that must 

be reconciled. By creating an easily understood, 

predictable development process, waterfront and 

coastal communities can create a climate that is 

more likely to produce projects that meet multiple 

community goals. This can be achieved by effectively 

coordinating across regulatory agencies, providing 

non-regulatory incentives, and allowing flexibility in 

local development policies. 

In any community, a first step toward greater fairness 

and predictability is to establish a vision for growth. 

Visioning is often accomplished through charrettes 

and other stakeholder involvement processes (see 

Element 10 for more detail on these processes). 

Some communities have followed up on visioning 

processes with “policy audit” tools that help identify 

inconsistencies between their established vision for 

growth and existing policies, codes, and regulations. 

Others have directly approached developers, 

public officials, and interested citizens to simply ask 

what they each believe are the barriers to better 

development. Whatever the method used, once these 

obstacles are identified, communities can work with 

the appropriate regulatory agencies to adopt a policy 

framework that makes it easier for developers to 

implement the community’s vision. 

Such a policy framework may include centralized, 

easily accessible information for the planning, 

review, and permitting processes, making them 

more transparent and helping to hold responsible 

regulatory agencies accountable. For example, 

Louisiana’s on-line Coastal Use Permit system allows 

applicants to file an application and revisions, track 

the application’s progress through the entire permit 

process, and receive expedited authorizations.46

Readily available information like this on the status 

of pending applications makes the process more 

predictable. Other jurisdictions coordinate the 

review and approval of plans and permits. Florida, 

for example, consolidates applications for coastal 

construction permits, environmental resource 

permits, wetland resource (dredge and fill) permits, 

and submerged lands authorizations for a single 

project into a “joint coastal permit” issued by a single 

agency. This system minimizes potential conflicts 

The Digital Coast Legislative Atlas provides a searchable 

database of coastal and ocean legislation, spatially illustrating 

the boundaries of laws, jurisdictions, and policies (www.csc.noaa.

gov/digitalcoast/tools/legatlas/).

Bringing a community together to establish a vision for 

growth is an important part of creating a predictable and fair 

development process.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

40

CASE STUDY

Bremerton, Washington

The city of Bremerton, 

Washington, recognized 

that the revitalization of its 

waterfront along Puget Sound 

and its downtown next to the 

waterfront were central to the 

community’s future. Revitalization 

of the waterfront was particularly 

challenging, since the area 

included the U.S. Navy’s Bangor 

shipyard and submarine base 

and the state-controlled SeattleBremerton Ferry terminal. Vacant 

and underused sites that were 

ideal places for new development 

were subject to a myriad of 

development regulations, as well 

as Homeland Security regulations 

(given the proximity to the 

shipyard and submarine base). 

To address these challenges, 

Bremerton implemented a 

Shoreline Master Program, a 

waterfront redevelopment 

policy tool available to localities 

through Washington’s Shoreline 

Management Act and the 

Bremerton Community Renewal 

Program, and set out to create 

a redevelopment climate that 

among permitting agencies and helps ensure 

efficient reviews.47 

A tool specifically applicable to the coastal 

development process is the Special Area 

Management Plan (SAMP). Created by the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, these plans provide a formal 

mechanism for cross-jurisdictional coordination of 

land-use policies in coastal areas. The Rhode Island 

Metro Bay Region SAMP, which encompasses 24 miles 

of shoreline at the head of Narragansett Bay, was 

developed by the Rhode Island Coastal Resources 

Management Council in collaboration with the 

four metropolitan communities of Cranston, East 

Providence, Providence, and Pawtucket. Covering 

most of the waterfront in these four cities, the Metro 

Bay Region SAMP was developed to improve the 

working waterfront, provide public access to the 

water and along the shoreline, and attract new 

development with a more predictable and efficient 

permitting process. Rhode Island state agencies and 

municipalities are required by state law to hold joint 

permit review meetings for large-scale projects. The 

SAMP process ensures a coordinated review of coastal 

projects and facilitates a more effective and efficient 

local and state permitting process.48

Design guidelines can also help streamline the 

process. Communities can create guidelines that 

show developers and builders the form of buildings, 

streetscapes, setbacks, and elevations that are 

compatible with local codes and ordinances. 

Guidelines can include specific provisions reflecting 

the community’s distinctive natural setting and 

heritage. The city of Norfolk, Virginia, on the 

James River and Chesapeake Bay, commissioned a 

pattern book that identifies various styles found in 

different neighborhoods and illustrates architectural 

components, such as the design of windows, doors, 

and porches, that have the development character the 

community wants.49 This gives developers a clear guide 

to what designs are acceptable.

In coastal and waterfront communities, the complex 

local, state, and federal regulatory framework may 

make it more challenging to create a predictable 

development climate. However, these communities 

have access to a wide variety of tools to make it easier 

for the private sector to build projects that meet 

multiple community goals.

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council’s Metro Bay Special Area Management Plan is enhancing public access and 

recreational opportunities along the shorelines of the Providence, Rhode Island, metro region. 
41SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Come to consensus on a vision for future growth •	 Employ design charrettes, comprehensive plans, and 

other stakeholder visioning processes

Develop processes that make decisions 

predictable and faster while meeting community 

development objectives and protecting natural and 

cultural resources

•	 Create consistent cross-agency review criteria 

and processes

•	 Use one-stop shops for interagency review

•	 Develop pattern books and design guidelines that 

include form-based codes

Make development processes transparent, fair, 

and inclusive 

•	 Create development policies and regulations that are 

easy to understand and apply

•	 Use published project review timelines

•	 Build on-line databases showing project status

•	 Use a variety of stakeholder involvement processes, 

including community meetings, design charrettes, and 

on-line discussion forums

Provide centralized, easily accessible information

•	 Produce publications and websites that outline processes

•	 Create on-line databases 

•	 Use one-stop shops for information on the 

permitting process

Bremerton, WA

would attract private developers 

to build projects the city 

needed and the market could 

support. Public investments in 

the ferry terminal, a conference 

center, and a waterfront park 

attracted private developers 

who invested in office and 

residential properties. Since 

2000, over $500 million worth of 

construction has occurred in the 

Harborside District. Bremerton 

has capitalized on this success 

by adopting a new downtown 

plan, complete with design 

guidelines, mixed-use zoning, 

and streetscape standards, 

that has streamlined the 

development process.50

ELEMENT 9

Community members need forums where they can discuss 

desired outcomes for future growth and development. 

“A Pattern Book for Norfolk Neighborhoods” features architectural components and styles that 

reflect the community’s design preferences.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

42

An inclusive planning 

process is critical for 

waterfront and coastal 

communities because of 

the complex regulatory 

environment, the diversity 

of stakeholders, the 

demand for public 

access to the water, 

and the competing 

interests for use of 

waterfront resources. 

Encourage community 

and stakeholder 

collaboration 

in development 

decisions, ensuring 

that public interests 

in and rights of access 

to the waterfront and 

coastal waters 

are upheld

ELEMENT10
43SMART GROWTH

One of smart growth’s signature characteristics 

is a meaningful public involvement process that 

ensures that the needs and concerns of all affected 

stakeholders are identified and addressed. Successful 

development requires inclusive planning processes 

that give community members and other stakeholders 

a clear voice in the development process. Growth 

can create great places to live, work, and play—if it 

responds to the community’s vision of how and where 

it wants to grow.

An inclusive planning process is critical for waterfront 

and coastal communities because of the complex 

regulatory environment, the diversity of stakeholders, 

the demand for public access to the water, and the 

competing interests for use of waterfront resources. 

What happens on and near the water can enhance 

property values, support businesses, enhance 

community resilience to natural hazards, and greatly 

affect a community’s overall quality of life. 

The tools for effective involvement are similar for 

inland and waterfront communities. The goal is to 

fairly identify and respond to all legitimate interests 

by providing clear and convenient opportunities 

for substantive involvement at critical stages in the 

development process. Involvement should begin well 

before a development plan is on the table, the scope 

of participants’ decision-making power should be clear 

at the outset, and all involved should be periodically 

updated on how their input is being used. 

One of the primary interests of people living and 

working near the water can be access to the water. 

However, the legal framework regulating access is 

complex. In most waterfront settings, historic public 

use can establish an easement allowing public access 

to the water across private land. In addition, where 

navigable or tidal waters are involved, the public trust 

doctrine requires states to protect public use of and 

access to the water, as well as the land beneath it. Each 

state applies this common law principle according 

to its own legal traditions. In most states, fishing and 

boating, including recreational use of the water, must 

be accommodated, and access cannot be denied 

simply because adjoining lands are privately held. 

But public access rights vary across jurisdictions.51 For 

example, in a handful of states, shorefront property 

owners also own the adjacent intertidal zone. The 

quality of life in coastal and waterfront communities 

depends in part on finding ways to constructively 

balance these rights of public access and private 

ownership. Well-designed, collaborative stakeholder 

involvement processes can help reach this objective. 

Identifying who to involve requires understanding 

who has an interest in, or will be affected by, proposed 

development. Near the water, there can be many 

stakeholders, such as recreational users, commercial 

fishers, developers, waterfront business owners, and 

permanent and seasonal residents. On the coast, a 

wide range of federal, state, and regional government 

entities also must be engaged, since they are 

responsible for community health and safety and for 

protecting both the environmental quality of coastal 

ecosystems and the public’s right of access to them. 

The stakeholder involvement process can help 

create a vision for future development. In 2004, the 

communities of Northwest Indiana began a regional 

Maps can help people better understand a community’s 

vulnerability to hazards.

Public access to the water is critical to coastal and 

waterfront communities.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

44

CASE STUDY

Vienna, Maryland

Vienna is a small town on the 

Nanticoke River, a tributary of 

the Chesapeake Bay. One of the 

oldest settlements in Maryland, 

with an original plan dating back 

to 1706, this town on Maryland’s 

Eastern Shore retains a strong 

fishing and agricultural base.54 In 

response to growth pressures in 

the early 2000’s and to prepare 

for a scheduled update of the 

town’s comprehensive plan, 

Vienna asked The Conservation 

Fund, a national nonprofit group, 

to help develop a new vision for 

the community. The town council, 

the mayor, and experts from 

The Conservation Fund worked 

with the community to assess 

the town’s natural resources, 

economic opportunities, land 

use trends, and development 

potential. The tools they used 

included a public opinion survey 

that involved about half the 

town’s adult population, indepth community interviews 

The Marquette Plan provides a regional vision for 45 miles of shoreline along Lake Michigan in Northwest Indiana. 

plan for their 45 miles of shoreline along Lake 

Michigan. The Marquette Plan unifies the area by 

leveraging the collective strengths of these lakeshore 

communities. Through a public involvement process 

that included multiple community forums and 

stakeholder interviews, five communities agreed 

on three guiding principles: increased public access 

to the shoreline; creation of a multi-purpose trail 

connecting lakefront communities; and minimum 

200-foot setbacks from the lakefront for all new 

development. To date, one new development project 

has been completed, five are funded, and 16 are in 

the planning process.52

Engaging all affected stakeholders is especially 

critical in the wake of natural disasters. After 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Mississippi Governor 

Haley Barbour created the Governor’s Commission 

on Recovery, Rebuilding and Renewal to develop 

a strategy for rebuilding communities damaged 

by the hurricane. The commission hosted design 

forums in 11 communities. In the Gulf of Mexico 

community of Pass Christian, the process included 

walking tours through the devastated area and 

a charrette involving community residents and 

officials. The result was a plan with four goals: 

recover economic sustainability; support and 

unite the community by restoring the civic realm; 

support and unite the diverse interests in the 

community; and rebuild city-wide. The rebuilding 

plan incorporates core smart growth approaches, 

including mixed use, walkability, a variety of 

housing options, and codes that support them.53

Involving stakeholders from the outset of a 

waterfront development project creates the basis 

for a shared vision of the future. The result can be 

a development plan that uses the land efficiently 

and wisely, upholds public rights of access, and 

protects the community’s interest in a precious 

natural resource.

Community members and 

planners worked together 

to develop community 

redevelopment maps for Pass 

Christian, Mississippi. 
45SMART GROWTH

Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation

Develop an inclusionary process to 

maximize participation and results 

•	 Conduct a stakeholder analysis 

•	 Schedule meetings to accommodate all stakeholders (including seasonal residents)

•	 Conduct individual and small group interviews

•	 Administer community surveys through the mail

Develop a common understanding among 

the diverse stakeholders

•	 Engage all stakeholders to set goals 

•	 Conduct walkability tours and audits 

•	 Administer visual preference surveys

•	 Hold community visioning exercises

•	 Perform policy audits to ensure that plans, codes, and regulations are consistent 

with community vision

Use appropriate and transparent meeting 

and communication techniques

•	 Use charrettes to resolve complex design issues

•	 Use trained meeting facilitators

•	 Employ a communication strategy to keep all interested constituencies updated 

and involved

•	 Use geographic information systems (GIS) to create maps depicting alternative 

development scenarios

•	 Analyze alternative development scenarios using visualization software 

Collaborate with federal, state, and local 

authorities who have jurisdiction over the 

public trust and coastal natural resources

•	 Employ special area management planning

•	 Conduct joint coastal permit reviews

•	 Provide feedback when federal agencies solicit input for environmental 

impact statements

Vienna, MD

with individual residents, and 

community workshops. As a 

result, the town developed a 

plan that preserves Vienna’s 

rural town character while 

still accommodating growth. 

Although the nationwide real 

estate downturn of 2008 gave 

the area some breathing room, 

residents and real estate experts 

expect development to return. 

When it does, the Vienna–

Conservation Fund process can 

serve as a model for conservation 

and growth in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed.

ELEMENT 10

Community meetings provide an opportunity to explore shared 

goals, issues, and concerns.

Rural Vienna, Maryland, is working to protect its historical ties to 

the river and the surrounding rural landscape.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

46

Accessory dwelling unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a second 

residential unit that may be contained within an existing single-family 

home, garage, or carriage house. An ADU usually is required to be a 

complete housekeeping unit that can function independently, with 

separate access, kitchen, bedroom, and sanitary facilities. These units 

are sometimes also termed “granny flats,” “mother-in-law” apartments, 

or elder cottages.55 

Blue trail, blueway: Blue trails are the water equivalent to hiking trails. 

They are created to facilitate recreation in and along rivers and water 

bodies and are found in urban settings as well as remote environments. 

They may also be used for commuting purposes.56

Brownfield: A brownfield is real property (e.g., a parcel of land), the 

expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by 

the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, 

or contaminant.57

Business improvement district: Business improvement districts 

(BIDs) are an expansion of the Principal Shopping Districts Act of 1961. 

BIDs allow qualified downtown and commercial areas to levy a special 

assessment to fund improvements to the district.58 

Capital expenditure plan: Also called a capital improvement plan, 

a capital expenditure plan is a schedule or budget, usually covering 

five years and updated annually, for funding capital improvements. 

Capital improvements can include buildings, sanitary and storm sewer 

facilities, water systems, roads and highways, sidewalks, and parks 

and open space. A capital improvement plan is one of the major tools 

for implementing comprehensive plans. It includes a list of projects, 

priorities, estimated costs, financing methods, and time schedules for 

project completion.59 

Charrette: A charrette (sometimes spelled charette and often called 

“design charrette”) is a community planning and design technique 

for consulting with stakeholders and incorporating their concerns in 

final development designs. Charrettes are typically intense, possibly 

multi-day meetings that bring municipal officials, developers, 

community residents, and other local stakeholders together with 

planning, architecture, and design professionals. A charrette promotes 

joint ownership of the solution and attempts to diffuse traditional 

confrontation between communities and developers.58

Clean Marina Program: A Clean Marina Program is a voluntary, 

incentive-based program promoted by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and others that encourages 

marina operators and recreational boaters to protect coastal water 

quality by engaging in environmentally sound operating and 

maintenance procedures. While Clean Marina Programs vary from 

state to state, all programs offer information, guidance, and technical 

assistance to marina operators, local governments, and recreational 

boaters on best management practices that can be used to prevent or 

reduce pollution. Marinas that participate in the Clean Marina Program 

are recognized for their environmental stewardship.

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program: The Coastal and 

Estuarine Land Conservation Program is a land conservation program 

run by NOAA and established to protect coastal and estuarine lands 

considered important for their ecological, conservation, recreational, 

historical, or aesthetic values. The program provides matching 

funds to state and local governments to acquire outright, or protect 

through conservation easement, properties they have prioritized for 

conservation. Lands may only be purchased from willing sellers and are 

protected in perpetuity. 

Coastal county: A coastal county meets one of the following criteria: 

(1) a minimum of 15 percent of the county’s land area is located within 

a coastal watershed or (2) part of the county accounts for at least 15 

percent of a “coastal cataloguing unit.” For more information see: NOAA, 

National Ocean Service. Population Trends along the Coastal United 

States: 1980-2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 2004.60

Coastal viewshed: The coastal viewshed encompasses the area of 

coastal land and water that is visible from one or more viewing points.

Community asset inventory: A community asset inventory is a list of a 

community’s assets, including community-based service and advocacy 

organizations, religious institutions, public institutions, businesses, 

schools, locally owned real estate, and parks and public spaces 

where residents can socialize or just enjoy being outside. Developing 

an inventory of a community’s assets helps people understand 

the diversity of their community as well as what their friends and 

neighbors value and consider important to life in the community.61

Community land trust: Community land trusts are private non-profit 

corporations created to acquire and hold land for the benefit of a 

community and to provide affordable access to land and housing for 

community residents. Their missions are often shaped by the intent to 

meet the needs of residents least served by the prevailing market.62

Community vulnerability assessment: A community vulnerability 

assessment assesses a community’s vulnerability to hazards. 

Vulnerability is the susceptibility of people, property, and resources 

to negative impacts from hazard events. A vulnerability assessment 

can be a guide for developing hazard mitigation strategies and 

prioritizing hazard mitigation projects. One approach to community 

vulnerability assessment is to evaluate a community’s physical, social, 

environmental, and economic vulnerabilities.63

Concurrency policies: Concurrency policies require that adequate 

public facilities either are in place when new development is approved 

or will be in place within two years.64 

Condo-hotel: Condo-hotels typically are high-rise buildings developed 

and operated as luxury hotels, usually in major cities and resort areas. 

These hotels have condominium units that allow individual ownership 

of each unit. When property owners are not using their condo-hotel 

unit, they can let the hotel chain rent it out as if it were a hotel room.65

Conservation easement: A conservation easement is a voluntary 

agreement between a private landowner and a municipal agency 

or qualified not-for-profit corporation to restrict the development, 

management, or use of the land. The agency holds the interest and 

is empowered to enforce the agreed-upon restrictions against the 

current landowner and all subsequent owners of the land.55

Current use taxation program: Current use taxation designations 

give landowners a tax break when the “current use” of their land 

meets the criteria for farm/agricultural land, timber land, open space, 

or forest land. Current use lands are taxed according to the value of 

their current, existing use instead of the presumably higher market 

value of the land if it were developed for residential, commercial, or 

industrial use.66

Glossary
47SMART GROWTH

Deed restriction: A deed restriction is a requirement placed in a deed 

to restrict the current and future use of the land in some way.55

Density bonus: A density bonus lets a developer build a larger number 

of market-rate units on a site than would otherwise be permitted in 

order to provide an incentive for the construction of affordable housing 

or another public good.58

Ecological history: Ecological history “traces the ongoing dialectical 

relations between human acts and acts of nature, made manifest in 

the landscape.” 67

Fix it first policy: A fix it first policy makes upgrading existing public 

facilities a community’s first priority. Fix it first policies direct public 

investment to maintaining and upgrading the streets, highways, 

sidewalks, water and sewer systems, lighting, schools, and other civic 

buildings and facilities that have already been built in a community. 

This helps maintain the value of investments already made in the 

community by both public and private sources, and it can help attract 

additional investment in rehabilitation and redevelopment projects.68

Floor-to-area ratio bonus: A floor-to-area ratio (FAR) bonus is an 

allowed increase in the amount of buildable space relative to the 

area of the land upon which the building is sited. This bonus can be 

negotiated on a floor-by-floor basis to permit buildings to cover more 

of the site at ground levels, and step back from the street at higher 

levels. FAR bonuses are particularly useful to support form-based 

codes because they allow the design of the building to be adjusted to 

both achieve higher density, and ensure adequate air flow, light, and 

visibility between buildings.

Geographic information system (GIS): A geographic information 

system (GIS) is a computerized database that integrates hardware, 

software, and data for capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying 

locationally defined information. GIS allows users to view, question, 

and interpret data in ways that reveal relationships, patterns, and 

trends in the form of maps, reports, and charts. Commonly, a GIS 

portrays a portion of the earth’s surface in the form of a map on which 

this information is overlaid.69

Green infrastructure: Green infrastructure is defined by a range of 

natural and built systems that can occur at the regional, community, 

and site scales. At the larger regional or watershed scale, green 

infrastructure is the interconnected network of preserved or restored 

natural lands and waters that provide essential environmental 

functions. Large-scale green infrastructure may include (but is not 

limited to) forested corridors and hubs that provide multiple services, 

including habitat and water resource protection. At the community 

and neighborhood scale, green infrastructure incorporates urban 

forestry practices that reduce impervious surfaces and help create 

walkable, attractive communities. At the site scale, green infrastructure 

mimics natural processes to help infiltrate, evapotranspire, capture, and 

reuse stormwater to maintain and restore natural hydrology. Site scale 

green infrastructure practices, sometimes referred to as low impact 

development (LID) techniques, include but are not limited to rain 

gardens, ecoroofs, permeable pavements, and cisterns or rain barrels.

Green roof: A green roof is a roof planted with vegetation. Intensive 

green roofs have thick layers of soil (6 to 12 inches or more) that can 

support a broad variety of plant or even tree species. Extensive roofs 

are simpler green roofs with a soil layer of 6 inches or less to support 

grasses or other ground cover.70

Groin: A groin is a structure built perpendicular to the shore that traps 

sand to stabilize eroding shorelines.

Harbor management plan: Municipal harbor management plans 

are a means for communities to plan and manage uses in coastal 

waters to support waterfront land use plans and regulations. The 

goals are to integrate the community’s land and water use objectives, 

promote water-dependent uses, minimize conflicts among competing 

users, coordinate multi-jurisdictional (state and municipal) decisionmaking, and protect coastal resources. Depending on the enabling 

authority, harbor management plans may cover just the water area and 

complement the community’s waterfront master plan or may include 

both the water and the adjacent land area.71

Hazard mitigation plan: A hazard mitigation plan is a plan that forms 

the foundation for a community’s long-term strategy to reduce impacts 

from future disasters. Hazard mitigation is sustained action taken to 

reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and their property from 

hazards.72

Historic district: Historic districts are officially designated by local 

ordinance or by state or federal government action. Historic districts 

have defined geographic boundaries, within which are properties or 

buildings that may or may not be landmarks, but which contribute to 

the overall historic character of the designated area. Historic districts 

are also referred to as “historic preservation districts.”58

Hub-and-spoke: In a working port context, hub-and-spoke refers 

to transportation connections arranged like a wheel, where traffic 

moves along spokes connected to a hub in the center. In the marine 

transportation system, the working port is the hub.73

Impervious surface: Impervious surfaces are mainly constructed 

surfaces—rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots—covered by 

impenetrable materials such as asphalt, concrete, brick, and stone. 

These materials seal surfaces, repel water, and prevent precipitation 

and meltwater from infiltrating soils. Soils compacted by urban 

development are also highly impervious.74

Inclusionary zoning: Inclusionary zoning requires that some portion 

of every new housing development (e.g., 10%) beyond a given 

threshold size (e.g., 50 units) will be affordable to below-medianincome residents to both increase the number of affordable units 

and create mixed income communities. Some inclusionary zoning 

programs permit developers to make “in lieu” contributions to a 

regional housing trust fund to construct affordable housing, rather 

than requiring units to be constructed on site.

Infill development: Infill development is development or redevelopment of land that has been bypassed, has remained vacant, 

or is underused as a result of the surrounding development process. 

Generally, infill areas or sites are not of prime quality; however, they 

are usually served by or are readily accessible to the infrastructure 

services and facilities provided by the applicable local governmental 

entity. Use of such lands for new housing or other urban development 

is considered a more desirable alternative than supporting continued 

extension of the development pattern laterally and horizontally 

out from the existing community, which would entail higher capital 

improvement costs than would be required for infill development. The 

use of infill development, among other strategies, promotes efficient 

use of resources and contributes to the economic health of existing 

communities.75

Intertidal zone: The area along the shoreline that is submerged at high 

tide and exposed at low tide. 

Live-near-your-work program: Live-near-your-work programs 

provide financial incentives that encourage people to live near their 

workplaces. The intention is to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle 

miles travelled, thus generating environmental benefits such as 

reduced air and water quality impacts. Incentives can include rent 

subsidies and special loans or grants to purchase homes.76
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

48

Living shoreline: Living shorelines are stabilization techniques that 

restore, protect, and enhance the natural shoreline environment 

by mimicking nature. Nonstructural approaches include vegetative 

plantings and sand fill; hybrid techniques combine vegetative planting 

with low rock sills. These approaches can be effective alternatives to 

“hard” stabilization structures such as bulkheads, riprap, or groins.77

Live-aboard housing: Live-aboard housing involves the use of a 

watercraft as a permanent or temporary residence, and is typically 

located in a marina, alongside a dock, or in a mooring field.

Local waterfront revitalization plan: A local waterfront 

revitalization plan is a locally prepared land and water use plan 

and strategy used in New York for a community’s waterfront that 

addresses critical issues and refines waterfront policies to reflect local 

conditions and circumstances.78

LID (low impact development): Low impact development is an 

approach to land development, or redevelopment, that works with 

nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible in order 

to maintain or restore natural hydrologic function. Recently, this term 

has come to be used interchangeably with the term “site-scale green 

infrastructure practices.”79 (See Green Infrastructure.)

Marine conservation agreement: Marine conservation agreements 

are formal or informal agreements between parties to exchange 

benefits, take or refrain from certain actions, or transfer certain 

rights and responsibilities to restore and protect fragile coastal and 

marine ecosystems.80

Natural hazard: A natural hazard is a natural process that 

threatens lives, property, and other assets. Often, a natural 

hazard can be predicted and tends to occur repeatedly in the 

same geographical location. 81

Overlay district: An overlay district is a zoning technique that allows 

a jurisdiction to superimpose additional requirements over a basic use 

zoning district without disturbing the requirements of the basic use 

district. In the instance of conflicting requirements, the stricter of the 

conflicting requirements applies.58 

Park-once strategy: A park-once strategy is an approach to promoting 

“walkable communities” through which ample parking facilities are 

provided within safe walking distance and easy access of a variety of 

destinations, including waterfront areas and land-based transportation 

options. Park-once strategies let residents, workers, and visitors 

“park once,” leaving their car behind and using others means (e.g., 

walking, community shuttles, bicycle rentals) to get to their desired 

destination(s) within the community.82

Pedestrian master plan: A pedestrian master plan provides the 

rationale, goals, objectives, strategies, standards, and maps for 

implementing a comprehensive approach to making a community 

safe and walkable for people travelling on foot. This includes 

approaches for linking sidewalks, walking paths, and pedestrianrelated facilities and amenities.75 

Policy audit: A policy audit is typically a checklist that guides the 

review of a community’s land use and development policies to help 

evaluate whether those policies support the community’s vision 

for smarter growth. Policy audits can help identify areas in which a 

community’s intentions are at odds with existing policy statements 

and implementation rules (e.g., comprehensive plans, zoning codes, 

building codes, street design requirements, and infrastructure 

financing priorities).83

Public trust doctrine: The Public Trust Doctrine provides that public 

trust lands, waters, and living resources in a state are held by the state 

in trust for the benefit of the public, and establishes the rights of the 

public in public trust lands, waters, and living resources for a variety of 

uses. The public trust doctrine may be applicable whenever tidelands, 

navigable waters, or submerged lands are altered, developed, 

conveyed, or otherwise managed or preserved. It may apply whether 

the trust lands are publicly or privately owned. In addition to 

establishing the rights of the public in these lands and waters, the 

doctrine also imposes limitations on the states and the public and 

private owners, as well as establishing duties and responsibilities of the 

states when managing these public trust assets.84

Purchase of development rights: Purchase of development rights 

(PDRs) programs place a permanent restriction on the land, protecting 

it from all future development. PDRs are typically used to protect and 

conserve natural lands (such as open meadows or forests) or rural lands 

(including farmland). Owning land conveys a set of rights, including 

the right to develop the land for residential, commercial, or industrial 

use (subject to applicable zoning restrictions). Under a PDR program, 

property owners can choose to sell their development rights to a land 

trust or other entity. A permanent deed restriction is then placed on 

the property.85

Rehab code: A rehab code, also known as a “rehabilitation code” or a 

“building rehabilitation code,” is a code designed to permit, encourage, 

and facilitate the re-use of existing buildings by exempting them 

from new construction code requirements that are not necessary 

to renovation and might make the renovation and rehabilitation of 

existing buildings economically uncompetitive.86

Riprap: Riprap consists of broken stone, cut stone blocks, or rubble 

that is placed on slopes to protect them from erosion or scour caused 

by floodwaters or wave action.87

Riparian habitat: Riparian habitat refers to a stream or river, its 

bordering lands within the floodplain, and the areas that contribute 

leaves, wood, and other materials to the stream or river, including 

canopy cover. Riparian habitat provides home and shelter to animals, 

insects, and plants and often includes wetlands.88

Rolling easement: A rolling easement is a policy approach that 

preserves natural habitats and public access to the coast as shorelines 

erode or retreat by requiring structures to be removed once they 

are no longer on dry land (because submerged land is publicly 

owned under the public trust doctrine). Usually, engineered shore 

protection measures are prohibited. As the sea advances, the easement 

automatically moves or “rolls” landward. 89

Special Area Management Plan: Special Area Management Plans 

(SAMPs) are resource management plans and implementation 

programs developed to better manage specific geographic areas, such 

as an urban waterfront. SAMPs also supplement existing management 

programs to help address complex multijurisdictional coastal issues. 

SAMPs have increased cooperation among coastal localities and 

provided a more comprehensive approach to addressing coastal 

issues. For example, the communities of New Bedford and Fairhaven, 

Massachusetts, developed a multijurisdictional SAMP for their harbor 

that protects water-dependent port uses and identifies areas for 

waterfront revitalization.

Smart Growth Network: The Smart Growth Network is a coalition of 

national and regional organizations united in the belief that where and 

how we grow matters. For additional information, see 

www.smartgrowth.org.

Stakeholder analysis: Stakeholder analysis is a technique for 

identifying and assessing the importance of key people, groups of 

people, or institutions that may significantly influence, or will be 

significantly influenced by, a proposed activity or project. It can be 
49SMART GROWTH

used to identify people, groups, and institutions that will affect a 

proposed initiative or project (either positively or negatively), help 

anticipate the kind of influence to expect, and develop constructive 

strategies to get the most effective support, and most constructive 

involvement, possible.90

Stormwater fee discount: A stormwater fee discount reduces 

stormwater fees for property owners who implement measures to 

manage and reduce stormwater runoff.91

Sustainable: Sustainable, from an ecological standpoint, is the 

ability to meet the needs of the present human generation without 

compromising the integrity of the ecosystems that future generations 

(human and other) will need to rely upon to meet their needs.92

Tax abatement/exemption: Tax abatement/exemption is a strategy 

to lower, restrict, or otherwise reduce the tax burden associated with 

a piece of property in exchange for the provision of a desired public 

good. Tax exemptions make the property owner “exempt” from part or 

all of the taxes related to the improvements upon a property for a fixed 

period of time.93

Tax increment financing district: A tax increment financing (TIF) 

district is a tool used by cities and other development authorities to 

finance certain types of development costs. The public purposes of a 

TIF are the redevelopment of blighted areas, construction of low- and 

moderate-income housing, provision of employment opportunities, 

and improvement of the tax base. With a TIF, the taxing entity “captures” 

the additional property taxes generated by the development over and 

above the pre-development tax revenue, and uses the resultant “tax 

increments” to finance the development costs.58

Tiered development: Tiered development is development where the 

height of buildings increases as one moves away from the coast or 

waterfront. This optimizes panoramic water views for more buildings. 

Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights 

programs create a market for selling development rights on one parcel 

of land and conveying them to another. These rights are transferred 

away from areas designated for preservation, such as agricultural and 

forestry lands, towards areas deemed appropriate for development and 

higher density.75

Transit-oriented development: A transit-oriented development 

(TOD) is a development with a mix of land uses (e.g., residential, office, 

shopping, civic, and entertainment) within easy walking distance 

of a transit station. The close proximity of transit decreases people’s 

dependence on driving for meeting their everyday needs. Reducing 

vehicle miles travelled in this way can help lower air emissions. TODs 

can also benefit regional water quality by concentrating development 

and reusing previously developed land, thereby reducing development 

pressure on open space. Reuse of previously developed land often 

means accommodating new development without any net increase in 

impervious surface or runoff.94

Visioning exercise: Visioning is a participatory planning process that 

seeks to create a shared image of a desired future for a community. 

To do this, citizens and stakeholders actively engage in discussions 

and exercises about alternative futures. Successful visioning 

processes lead to broad agreement about a preferred future, which 

in turn lead to implementation strategies involving changes in 

public policy and actions.95

Visual preference survey: A visual preference survey is a technique 

that helps a community determine what attributes they value in 

overall community design. As the name implies, the technique is 

based on the development of one or more visual concepts of a 

proposed plan or project. The actual technique may rely on sketches, 

photographs, computer images, or similar techniques to provide 

the basis for participants to rate or assess each visual depiction. As 

a result, participants can express judgments and possibly reach a 

consensus about a visual design, architecture, site layout, landscape, 

and similar design features, which may be incorporated in the goals, 

objectives, design guidelines, enhancement/mitigation measures, or 

recommended standards for a study, plan, or project. Visual preference 

surveys can also be used at the beginning of a planning process to help 

participants identify what they value most about their community. 

In this application, a series of photographs are used, usually from the 

community itself but they can be from elsewhere, to help people 

identify what it is they like, and dislike, about various aspects of 

community design, including roads, buildings, and open space.96

Visualization software: Visualization software is image editing 

software that digitally alters images of real places to create photorealistic simulations of proposed changes. Digital images of the 

planning area are modified with proposed design features, such as 

new buildings, bike lanes, trolley cars, streetlights, or natural features 

like trees, to give the public, designers, and decision makers a better 

sense of the impact of proposed changes on the built or natural 

environment.97

Walkability tour: A walkability tour is a tour (usually on foot) to 

evaluate how pedestrian friendly and walkable an area is. Through a 

walkability tour, the overall “feel” of the community’s streets is assessed 

with regard to how comfortable and safe those streets feel to a person 

walking along them. Walkability tours look at many factors, including 

how parking is handled, how wide the streets are, how many “curb cuts” 

intersect the sidewalk, the location of street trees and street “furniture” 

(e.g., benches), as well as how buildings are designed and the ways in 

which buildings do or do not interact with the pedestrian environment.

Water-dependent uses: While the definition of water-dependent use 

varies among states and locales, a water-dependent activity typically 

requires the use of, location on, or direct access to navigable waters 

or submerged lands to achieve its primary purpose, whether it is 

recreational, commercial, or industrial. Such water-dependent uses 

include fishing facilities, marinas, and ports, and are important to 

maintaining the viability of working waterfronts.

Waterfront master plan: A waterfront master plan is a comprehensive 

long-range plan for the waterfront intended to guide growth 

and development.

*Glossary definitions are from a variety of sources. The numbers at 

the end of glossary entries correspond with the sources listed in 

the endnotes. 

Glossary
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

50

1

 Excluding Alaska.

2

 Statistic calculated by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) using U.S. Census Bureau 2007 County 

Population Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. Available at U.S. Census 

Bureau. Population Estimates, www.census.gov/popest/estimates.

php (accessed March 1, 2009). Also Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 

Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS). 2007.

3

 Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J.P. Palutikof, Eds. Climate 

Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. IPCC Secretariat, 2008, pages 3, 29, 30, 41, and 42. 

Available at www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.

pdf (accessed May 5, 2009). 

4

 Jacob, J., and S. Showalter. The Resilient Coast: Policy Frameworks for 

Adapting the Built Environment to Climate Change and Growth in Coastal 

Areas of U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Texas Sea Grant and National Sea Grant 

Law Center, 2007, pages 8 and 25. Available at www.urban-nature.org/

publications/documents/TheBuiltEnvironment08-sm_000.pdf (accessed 

May 8, 2009).

5

 Maine Sea Grant College Program. Access to the Waterfront: Issues and 

Solutions across the Nation. Maine Sea Grant College Program at the 

University of Maine, 2007, pages 4 to 8. Available at www.seagrant.

umaine.edu/files/pdf-global/07access.pdf (accessed April 19, 2009).

6

 Personnel communication with Jack Wiggin, Director, Urban Harbors 

Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston, on February 4, 2009.

7

 New York Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources. 

Coastal Resources Online: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program 

(LWRP), www.nyswaterfronts.com/aboutus_LWRP.asp (accessed April 

19, 2009); Personal communication with Stephen Ridler, Bureau Chief 

of Local and Regional Programs, New York State Department of State, 

Office of Coastal, Local Government and Community Sustainability, 

on April 6, 2009.

8

 Davis, E. “Preserving Municipal Waterfront in Maine for WaterDependent Uses: Tax Incentives, Zoning, and the Balance of Growth 

and Preservation.” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 2001, volume 141, 

issue 1, pages 163 to 185; Moore, B. “Coastal Character: On the Maine 

Coast, Working Waterfronts Set the Tone.” The Working Waterfront. 

Island Institute, August 2005. Available at www.workingwaterfront.

com/articles/Coastal-Character-On-the-Maine-coast-workingwaterfronts-set-the-tone/10891/(accessed April 19, 2009); Richardson, 

J. “Uncertain Times on the Portland Waterfront.” Portland Press 

Herald Maine Sunday Telegram. Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc., 

January 25, 2009. Available at http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/

story_pf.php?id=235191&ac=PHnws (accessed April 19, 2009); Personal 

communication with Bill Needelman, AICP, Senior Planner, City of 

Portland Planning Division, Maine, on August 25, 2009. 

9

 Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland Oregon. 

Stormwater Discount program: Clean River Rewards. Available at www.

portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=41976 (accessed April 21, 2009); 

City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Ecoroofs, www.

portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?a=114728&c=42113 (accessed April 

21, 2009). 

10 The Conservation Fund, Green Infrastructure. Metropolitan 

Greenspaces Program – Portland, OR, http://greeninfrastructure.

net/content/project/metropolitan-greenspaces-program-portland-or

(accessed April 21, 2009).

11 Personal communication with Karl Burgess, Habitat Management 

Program Manager, Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, on April 2, 2009.

12 The latest version of the scorecard can be found at www.epa.gov/

smartgrowth/.

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). National Award for 

Smart Growth Achievement 2007. EPA-321-K-08-001, November 2008.

14 Massachusetts Government. Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit: 

Accessory Dwelling Units, www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/

pages/mod-adu.html (accessed April 21, 2009).

15 Using marinas and mooring fields as residential alternatives can be 

controversial, and must be implemented in ways that protect public 

access to the water and mitigate the environmental impacts of liveaboards. Thoughtful planning for public infrastructure to support liveaboard vessels, like pump-out facilities, waterfront parking and access, 

and public services, is necessary to avoid unintended environmental 

and social impacts. 

16 See, for example, Paley, A.R. “High Housing Costs Chasing More into 

Water: Lack of Property Taxes, Lower Fees among Lures of Boat Living 

in DC, MD.” Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, April 18, 

2005, page B1. Available at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/

A61358-2005Apr17.html (accessed May 5, 2009).

17 Personal communication with Donna Morrow, Clean Marina Program 

Coordinator, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Boating 

Services, on February 23, 2009.

18 Sustainable Communities Network. Smart Growth Online: Smart 

Growth Network Resource Library, Accessory Dwelling Units, www.

smartgrowth.org/library/articles.asp?art=1828&res=1280 (accessed April 

21, 2009).

19 Personal communication with Carol Berg, Housing and Community 

Development Manager, City of Santa Cruz, on August 21, 2008.

20 Personal communication with Pat Collins, Program Manager, 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota’s Lake 

Superior Coastal Program, on February 23, 2009.

21 City of Fernandina Beach. City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive 

Plan: Adopted May 4, 2004. As amended by Ordinance 2005-30, Ordinance 

2006-28, Ordinance 2008-05. City of Fernandina Beach, May 4, 2004, 

Future Land Use Element, page 13. Available at www.fbfl.us/index.

aspx?nid=81 (accessed April 19, 2009); Personal communication with 

Shawna E. Beji, Waterfronts Florida Program Coordinator, Division of 

Community Planning, Florida Department of Community Affairs, on 

April 14, 2009.

Endnotes
51SMART GROWTH

22 Personal communication with Kristen Grant, Marine Extension 

Associate, Maine Sea Grant and University of Maine Cooperative 

Extension at the Wells Reserve, and Helen Horn and Louisa Gillespie, 

Marginal Way Committee, Ogunquit Maine, on March 3, 2009.

23 Ogunquit Chamber of Commerce. Ogunquit Beautiful Place 

by the Sea: Questions about the Beach, Marginal Way, and More, 

www.ogunquit.org/faqQuestionsAboutTheBeach.php (accessed 

April 19, 2009).

24 Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and 

Essex National Heritage Commission. Newburyport Reconnaissance 

Report: Essex County Landscape Inventory. Massachusetts Heritage 

Landscape Inventory Program, May 2005, page 10. Available at www.

mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/histland/reconReports/newburyport.pdf

(accessed May 7, 2009). 

25 U.S. EPA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Program. 

Implementing the Aquidneck Island West Side Master Plan. U.S. EPA, 

September 2006, page 11. Available at www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/

aquidneck.pdf (accessed May 7, 2009).

26 City of Panama City. Strategic Revitalization Plan for St. Andrews: A 

Community’s Vision for Its Future. City of Panama City, n.d. Available at 

www.historicstandrews.com/business-district (accessed May 7, 2009); 

Personal communication with Shawna E. Beji, Waterfronts Florida 

Program Coordinator, Division of Community Planning, Florida 

Department of Community Affairs, on April 14, 2009.

27 Smart Growth Network. This Is Smart Growth. International City/

County Management Association (ICMA), 2006, page 21; Minnesota 

Sustainable Communities Network. Mehrhoff. W. Case Study: 

Chattanooga Shapes a Sustainable Future, www.nextstep.state.mn.us/

casestudy.cfm?id=74 (accessed April 9, 2009).

28 Fishtown Preservation Society. Historic Fishtown, www.

preservingfishtown.org/about.html (accessed April 20, 2009).

29 Leland, Michigan, Chamber of Commerce. Visit Historic Leland, 

Leelanau County, Michigan: About Us, www.lelandmi.com/about/ 

(accessed October 23, 2008). Fishtown Preservation Society. Historic 

Fishtown, www.preservingfishtown.org/about.html (accessed October, 

23, 2008).

30 Personal communication with Catherine Cunningham Ballard, 

Michigan Coastal Program Manager, Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality, on May 8, 2009.

31 Walberg, E. Green Infrastructure in Hampton Roads. Hampton Roads 

Planning District Commission, July 2007. Available at www.hrpdcva.

gov/Documents/Phys%20Planning/Green_Infrastructure_in_HR.pdf 

(accessed April 21, 2009).

32 San Juan County Land Bank. About Us: The Land Bank Story, www.

sjclandbank.org/aboutus.html (accessed April 21, 2009); Personal 

communication with Lincoln Bormann, Director, San Juan County Land 

Bank, on April 3, 2009.

33 Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J.P. Palutikof, Eds. Climate 

Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. IPCC Secretariat, 2008, pages 27 to 30, 41. Available 

at www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf

(accessed May 5, 2009).

34 NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration. Glen Cove, New York. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA, April 2002, pages 1 and 2. Available 

at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/103_GlenCove_508.

pdf (accessed May 6, 2009).

35 Project for Public Spaces. Great Public Spaces, Riverwalk and 

Waterplace Park, www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_

place_id=86 (accessed August 5, 2008); Providence Foundation. The 

Providence Foundation, www.providencedowntown.com/providence_

foundation.php (accessed August 5, 2008); Paul, D. “Providence 

Begins to See Its Future around the Corner.” New York Times. The New 

York Times Company, February 27, 2008. Available at www.nytimes.

com/2008/02/27/realestate/commercial/27prov.html?fta=y (accessed 

May 8, 2008); Personal communication with Dave Everett, Principle 

Planner, City of Providence Department of Planning and Development, 

on March 27, 2009. 

36 The linear nature of the shoreline and the physical limits to access 

posed by bodies of water, wetlands, and other sensitive natural areas 

can all contribute to choke points in traffic if not managed properly.

37 A 2001 analysis of system-wide users noted increases in walkon passengers and decreases in vehicle drive-ons. Rosenberg, M. 

“Expanded Passenger-Ferry Service Could Ease Region’s Traffic 

Congestion.” Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company, August 25, 

2002. Available at http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/

?date=20020825&slug=ferries25 (accessed May 8, 2009); Source for ferry 

ridership statistics: Washington State Department of Transportation. 

Washington State Ferries: History, www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/your_wsf/

index.cfm?fuseaction=our_history (accessed April 20, 2009). 

38 Lee, M. “Mike Hlastala: A Developer with Vision and Sense of Civic 

Duty.” South Seattle Beacon. Pacific Publishing Company, April 17, 2009. 

Available at http://southseattlebeacon.com/main.asp?SectionID=40&sub

sectionID=262&articleID=23534 (accessed April 17, 2009).

39 Wentworth, S. “Legg’s Move to Harbor Gives Water Taxi Time for Dry 

Run.” Baltimore Business Journal. American City Business Journals, March 

2, 2007. Available at www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2007/03/05/

story5.html (accessed June 2, 2009).

40 Washington Water Trails Association. Lakes-to-Locks Water Trail, www.

wwta.org/trails/L2L/ (accessed April 21, 2009).

41 Canton Kayak Club. Welcome to the Canton Kayak Club, www.

cantonkayakclub.com (accessed April 16, 2009). See also Thayer, L. “Heat 

Stroke.” Baltimore City Paper. Times-Shamrock Communications, May 26, 

2004. Available at http://classified.citypaper.com/arts/story.asp?id=7472 

(accessed March 5, 2009). 

42 American Association of Port Authorities. Trade and Economic 

Growth, www.aapa-ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1024

(accessed April 21, 2009).

43 Port of Los Angeles. Facilities, Rail and Intermodal Yards, www.

portoflosangeles.org/facilities/rail_intermodal_yards.asp (accessed 

February 5, 2009).

44 New York City Department of Transportation. Ferries & Buses: Ferry 

Information, Facts about the Ferry, www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/

ferrybus/statfery.shtml#facts (accessed April 17, 2009). 

45 Lowenstein, R., Director of the City of New York Independent Budget 

Office, Letter to Council Member Oddo with Attachment, October 

6, 2006. Available at www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/TouristFare.pdf 

(accessed May 8, 2009).
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

52

46 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal 

Resource Management, Coastal Management Division. Applying for a 

Coastal Use Permit (CUP), http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/coastmgt/cup/

cup.asp (accessed July 29, 2008).

47 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Florida 

Environmental Permitting System: Joint Coastal and Environmental 

Resource Permit, Environmental Permitting Section, www.dep.state.

fl.us/beaches/programs/envpermt.htm#JCP (accessed July 29, 2008).

48 Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council. Metro Bay 

SAMP, www.crmc.state.ri.us/samp_mb.html (accessed February 6, 

2009); Personal communication with James Boyd, Coastal Policy 

Analyst, Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, on 

August 14, 2009. 

49 City of Norfolk, VA. Pattern Book for Norfolk Neighborhoods, www.

norfolk.gov/Planning/ComeHome/Pattern_Book.asp (accessed July 

29, 2008).

50 City of Bremerton, Washington. City of Bremerton, www.ci.bremerton.

wa.us (accessed August 6, 2008).

51 Maine Sea Grant College Program. Access to the Waterfront: Issues and 

Solutions across the Nation. Maine Sea Grant College Program at the 

University of Maine, 2007, page 8. Available at www.seagrant.umaine.

edu/files/pdf-global/07access.pdf (accessed April 19, 2009); NOAA 

Coastal Services Center. Public Trust Doctrine: Module 5, Lesson 2, 

www.csc.noaa.gov/ptd/module05/lesson02/0502d.htm (accessed April 

10, 2009).

52 Personal communication with Mike Molnar, Program Manager, Lake 

Michigan Coastal Program, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

on April 8, 2009. 

53 Mississippi Renewal Forum. Current Ideas: Final Team Reports (Pass 

Christian), www.mississippirenewal.com/info/plansReports.html (accessed 

March 19, 2009); Personal communication with Dave Dennis, President, 

Specialty Contractors and Associates Inc., on April 8, 2009, and Tina 

Shumate, Director, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, Office of 

Coastal Management and Planning, on March 8, 2009.

54 Chesapeake NEMO (Network for Education of Municipal 

Officials). Developing a Community Vision – Town of Vienna, www.

chesapeakenemo.net/communitystory.cfm?story=2&level2=Technical&

level3=Create%20Your%20Vision&level3url=yourvision (accessed April 

10, 2009).

55 Land Use Law Center, Pace University School of Law. Beginner’s Guide 

to Land Use Law. Pace Law School, Pace University, n.d., Pages 41 to 54. 

Available at www.pace.edu/lawschool/files/landuse/LandUsePrimer.pdf

(accessed May 29, 2009).

56 Adapted from: American Rivers, About Blue Trails, Guide Files, What 

are Blue Trails, www.bluetrailsguide.org/about/ (accessed June 3, 2009).

57 Adapted from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization, http://epa.gov/brownfields/

(accessed May 29, 2009).

58 Michigan State University. Citizen Planner Online Glossary, http://

cponline.msu.edu/resources/Glossary.php (accessed May 29, 2009).

59 Sierra Club North Star Chapter. Glossary of Planning Terms, 

http://northstar.sierraclub.org/campaigns/open-space/land-use/

planningGlossary.html (accessed May 29, 2009).

60 NOAA, National Ocean Service. Population Trends along the Coastal 

United States: 1980-2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 2004, 

page 2. 

61 National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation. Quick Reference 

Glossary, www.thataway.org/?page_id=499 (accessed May 29, 2009).

62 Institute for Community Economics. Community Land Trusts, www.

iceclt.org/clt/ (accessed May 29, 2009).

63 Adapted from: NOAA, Coastal Services Center (CSC). Vulnerability 

Assessment, www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm/tut.htm (accessed 

May 29, 2009).

64 American Planning Association (APA). Growing Smart Legislative 

Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of 

Change. 2002. Chapter 8, page 8-20. Available at www.planning.org/

growingsmart/guidebook/ (accessed May 29, 2009).

65 Chin, C. “Helium Report Guide to Condo Hotels-Part1.” Halogen 

Guides, April 16, 2007. Available at http://realestate.halogenguides.com/

archives/641-helium-report-guide-to-condo-hotels-part-1 (accessed June 

3, 2009).

66 Stienbarger, D, and P. Ramey. Current Use Taxation. Washington 

State University, Clark County Extension and Clark County, n.d. page 1. 

Available at http://clark.wsu.edu/horticulture/smallAcreageProgram/smac-Current-Use.pdf (accessed May 29, 2009).

67 Crumley, C. Historical Ecology: Cultural knowledge and changing 

landscapes. School of American Research Press, 1994, page 2.

68 Smart Growth Network and ICMA. Getting to Smart Growth: 100 

Policies for Implementation. 2002, page 53. 

69 Adapted from: ESRI. What is GIS? www.gis.com/whatisgis/ (accessed 

June 4, 2009).

70 U.S. EPA. Heat Island Effect Glossary, www.epa.gov/hiri/resources/

glossary.htm (accessed May 29, 2009).

71 Adapted from: Personnel communication with Jack Wiggin, Director, 

Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston, on 

February 4, 2009.

72 Adapted from: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning, www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/

index.shtm (accessed May 29, 2009).

73 Adapted from: CBS Interactive Inc. BNET Business Dictionary, 

http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/hub+and+spoke.html (accessed 

May 29, 2009).

74 Towson University Center for Geographic Information Sciences. What 

is an Impervious Surface? http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/

impervious/what_imp.asp (accessed May 29, 2009).

75 Adapted from: Michigan State University. Citizen Planner Online 

Glossary, http://cponline.msu.edu/resources/Glossary.php (accessed May 

29, 2009).

76 Adapted from: U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 

Federal Highway Administration. Commuter Choice Decision Support 

System, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/PrimerDSS/cc-options/live-near-work.

htm (accessed May 29, 2009).
53SMART GROWTH

77 Adapted from: NOAA Habitat Program. NOAA Restoration Portal: 

Living Shorelines, https://habitat.noaa.gov/restorationtechniques/

public/shoreline_tab1.cfm (accessed May 29, 2009) and NOAA, OCRM. 

Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Methods, http://coastalmanagement.

noaa.gov/initiatives/shoreline_stabilization.html (accessed May 29, 2009).

78 Adapted from: New York Department of State, Division of Coastal 

Resources. Coastal Resources Online: Local Waterfront Revitalization 

Program (LWRP), www.nyswaterfronts.com/aboutus_LWRP.asp (accessed 

May 29, 2009).

79 U.S. EPA. Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Low Impact 

Development, www.epa.gov/nps/lid (accessed May 29, 2009).

80 Adapted from: The Nature Conservancy. Marine Conservation 

Agreements: Practitioner’s Toolkit, www.mcatoolkit.org/ (accessed June 

3, 2009).

81 Adapted from: FEMA. Are you ready? Natural Hazards, www.fema.gov/

areyouready/natural_hazards.shtm (accessed May 29, 2009).

82 Adapted from: Arlington County, VA. Columbia Pike Parking Strategy. 

November 2005, pages 1 to 5. Available at www.arlingtonva.us/

Departments/CPHD/Documents/4087Columbia%20Pike%20Parking%20

Strategy.pdf (accessed May 29, 2009).

83 Adapted from: Smart Growth Leadership Institute. Smart Growth 

Toolkit: Policy Audit, www.smartgrowthtoolkit.net/policy-audit/aboutthe-policy-audit.html (accessed May 29, 2009).

84 Adapted from: Coastal States Organization (CSO). Putting the Public 

Trust Doctrine to Work. The Application of the Public Trust Doctrine to the 

Management of Lands, Waters and Living Resources of the Coastal States. 

Second Edition. CSO, June 1997, page 3. 

85 Adapted from: Ohio State University Extension. Ohio State University 

Fact Sheet, Purchase of Development Rights, http://ohioline.osu.edu/

cd-fact/1263.html (accessed May 15, 2009).

86 Adapted from: Maryland Department of Planning. Maryland Building 

Rehabilitation Code Program Frequently Asked Questions, www.dnr.

state.md.us/education/growfromhere/Lesson15/MDP/SMARTCODE/

REHAB_FAQ.HTM (accessed May 29, 2009).

87 NOAA, CSC. Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RVAT): Glossary, 

www.csc.noaa.gov/rvat/glossary.html (accessed May 29, 2009).

88 Adapted from: NOAA Habitat Program. NOAA Restoration Portal: 

Terms and Definitions, https://habitat.noaa.gov/restorationtechniques/

public/terms.cfm (accessed May 29, 2009).

89 Adapted from: Climate Change Science Program. Coastal Sensitivity 

to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 

2009, Page 248 and NOAA, OCRM. Erosion Control Easements, http://

coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/initiatives/shoreline_ppr_easements.html

(accessed May 29, 2009).

90 Adapted from: Management Sciences for Health and the United 

Nations Children’s Fund. The Guide to Managing for Quality: 

Stakeholder Analysis, http://erc.msh.org/quality/ittools/itstkan.cfm

(accessed May 29, 2009).

91 District of Columbia, Department of Environment. Changes 

to the District’s Stormwater Fee, http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/cwp/

view,a,1209,q,498382.asp (accessed May 29, 2009).

92 Adapted from: United Nations General Assembly. Report of the 

World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common 

Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to 

document A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation: 

Environment. Available at www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm

(accessed June 3, 2009). 

93 Adapted from: Smart Growth Gateway. Smart Growth Solutions, 

www.smartgrowthgateway.org/local_redev_tax.shtml (accessed 

May 29, 2009).

94 U.S. EPA. Using SGI to Evaluate Transit Oriented Development: 

Wilmington Area Metropolitan Planning, www.epa.gov/dced/topics/

tod_case_study1-ES.htm (accessed May 29, 2009).

95 APA. PAS QuickNotes No. 15, Visioning. APA Planning Advisory Service, 

2008, page 1. Available at www.planning.org/pas/quicknotes/pdf/

QN15text.pdf (accessed May 29, 2009).

96 Adapted from: U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration/Federal 

Transit Administration. Public Involvement Techniques, www.planning.

dot.gov/pitool/4c-g.asp (accessed May 29, 2009).

97 Adapted from: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agroforestry 

Center. Visual Simulation, www.unl.edu/nac/simulation/index.htm

(accessed May 29, 2009).

Endnotes
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

54

Photo Credits

Cover: 

From left to right and top to bottom: Ohio 

DNR, Office of Coastal Management; U.S. EPA; 

Ohio DNR, Office of Coastal Management; 

Todd Marsee, Michigan Sea Grant; Ohio DNR, 

Office of Coastal Management; City of Traverse 

City Planning Department; Brad McCrea, San 

Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 

Commission

Acknowledgments page:

Jenny McCormick, New Jersey Sea Grant

Page 2:

New York State Department of State

Page 3:

Right: University of Hawai’i Sea Grant 

College Program 

Page 4:

Partial right: NOAA 

Page 5:

Partial left: NOAA; Middle: University of Hawai’i 

Sea Grant College Program; Left: Jeff Gunderson 

Page 6:

U.S. EPA

Page 7: 

Left: U.S. EPA; Right: Pam Rubinoff

Page 8: 

Left: New York State Department of State; Middle: 

Bill Needelman, AICP, City of Portland Planning 

Division; Partial right: Pam Rubinoff

Page 9:

Top partial left: Pam Rubinoff; Bottom right: 

Bill Needleman, AICP, City of Portland 

Planning Division

Page 10: 

Ohio DNR, Office of Coastal Management

Page 11:

Left: NOAA; Right: J. Coyier Ankrom 

Moisan Architects

Page 12: 

Left and right: Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources

Page 13: 

Town of Barnstable, Growth 

Management Department

Page 14: 

Seattle Housing Authority

Page 15: 

Left: Waterfronts Florida Program; Right: U.S. EPA 

Page 16: 

Partial right: U.S. EPA

Page17: 

Top partial left: U.S. EPA; Top middle: Seattle 

Housing Authority; Top right: U.S. EPA; Bottom 

left and right: Photo and Illustration by Public 

Architecture, courtesy of City of Santa Cruz, CA

Page 18:

Kris Wall

Page 19:

Left: NOAA; Right: U.S. EPA 

Page 20:

Left: Waterfronts Florida Program; Middle: Ohio 

DNR, Office of Coastal Management; Partial right 

U.S. EPA 

Page 21:

Top partial left: U.S. EPA; Bottom right: Enji Park

Page 23:

Right: Todd Marsee, Michigan Sea Grant

Page 24:

Left: Waterfronts Florida Program; Middle: Todd 

Stailey, Tennessee Aquarium

Page 25:

Top middle: Adrienne Lynne Harris; Bottom left: 

Erhardt Peters Collection, Leelanau Historical 

Society; Bottom right: Rick Lahmann

Page 26:

© George Cathcart. Reproduced with permission.

Page 27:

Left: Ohio DNR, Office of Coastal Management; 

Right: Courtesy of Hampton Roads Planning 

District Commission

Page 28:

Partial right: New York State Department of State

Page 29:

Top partial left: New York State Department 

of State; Bottom right: © Harris County Flood 

Control District. Reproduced with permission.

Page 31:

Right: Ohio DNR, Office of Coastal Management

Page 32: 

Left: New York State Department of State; Partial 

right: Jason Martin, Providence Department of 

Planning and Development

Page 33:

Top: Jason Martin, Providence Department 

of Planning and Development; Bottom right: 

Pam Rubinoff

Page 35:

Left: U.S. EPA; Right: City of Traverse City 

Planning Department

Page 36: 

Left: Todd Marsee, Michigan Sea Grant; Partial 

right: Ohio DNR, Office of Coastal Management 

Page 37:

Top partial left and middle: Ohio DNR, Office of 

Coastal Management; Top left: Jeff Gunderson

Page 38:

Jason Martin, Providence Department of 

Planning and Development 

Page 39:

Left and right: NOAA

Page 40:

Left and Middle: Courtesy of Rhode Island Coastal 

Resources Management Council; Partial right: 

A Pattern Book for Norfolk Neighborhoods, 

City of Norfolk

Page 41:

Top partial left and middle: A Pattern Book for 

Norfolk Neighborhoods, City of Norfolk; Top 

right: NOAA; Bottom right: U.S. EPA

Page 42:

Delaware Sea Grant College Program 

Page 43:

Left: University of Hawai’i Sea Grant College 

Program; Right: Louisiana Sea Grant 

Page 44:

Left: JJR Consulting; Partial right: 

Evelina Shmukler

Page 45:

Top partial left: Evelina Shmukler; Top middle: 

NOAA; Top right: Tracey Gordy, Maryland Coastal 

Zone Management Program; Bottom right: The 

Conservation Fund

Inside back cover:

Dave Brenner, Michigan Sea Grant

Back cover:

From left to right and top to bottom: Brad 

McCrea, San Francisco Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission; Kris Wall; Brad 

McCrea, San Francisco Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission; Delaware Sea Grant 

College Program; U.S. EPA; Seattle Housing 

Authority; Kris Wall; University of Hawai’i Sea 

Grant College Program; Ohio DNR, Office of 

Coastal Management; Jeff Gunderson; Todd 

Marsee, Michigan Sea Grant
55SMART GROWTH

To access this report on-line or for more information, 

visit http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov.
SMART GROW TH FOR COASTAL AND WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES

56

EPA-231-K-09-001

September 2009

http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov