Beaufort County 1987 land use plan

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

1987

BE AUFORT COUNTY
1987 LAND USE PLAN

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER
HD
211
B4
B43
1987

B E A U F 0 R T C 0 U N T Y

1 9 8 7 L A N D U S E P L A N

Adopted by the Board of Commissioners November 9, 19e7
Certified by the Coastal Resources Commission December 4, 19e7

Prepared for:

Beaufort County Board of Commissioners

Ledrue Buck, Jr., Chairman
Frank T. Bonner
Cecil V. Cherry
Marion Dilday
Mrs. Arthur L. Moore

Donald L. Davenport, County Manager
John Morgan, County Clerk

Prepared by:

Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory,Committee

Douglas Mercer, Chairman Dr. David McNaught,
Topper Bateman John Morgan
Donald Davenport David Norwood
CA Chris Furlough Henry Riddick
Bo Lewis

Planning assistance provided by:

Mid-East Commission
1 Harding Square
Washington, NC 27eeg
(919) 946-8043

Robert J. Paciacco, Planner-in-Charge
Libby Anderson, Technical Assistant

Preparation financed in part by:

A grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program, through funds pro,vided by the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Managemento National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

BEAUFORT COUNTY

1987 LAND USE PLAN

CONTENTS

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

A. Population .................................. 6
B. Housing ............. ......................... 7
C. Economy ..................................... 9

III. LAND USE

A. Existing Conditions ......................... 12
13. Future Development .......................... 20
C. Land Use Concerns ........................... 23
D. Development Controls ........................ 27
E. Development Constraints ..................... 30

IV. POLICY OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Review of 1981 Policy Effectiveness ......... 45
B. Resource Protection ......................... 47
C. Resource Production and Management .......... 51
D. Economic and Community Development .......... 55
E. Public Participation ........................ 513
F. Storm Hazards ............................... 66

V. LAND CLASSIFICATION

A. Purpose .................................... 69
B. Classification Scheme ...... ............... 69
C. Intergovernmental Coordination ............. 74

Appendix A - Media Releases
Appendix 8 - Public Survey
Appendix C - Results Beaufort County Land Use Plan
Public Survey
Appendix D - State and Federal Regulatory Devices
Appendix E - Beaufort County Transportation Projects
Appendix F - Agencies Coordinating Storm Prepardeness
Appendix G - Beaufort County Planning Program; Schedule of
Meetings
Appendix H - Policy Alternatives, Policy Choices from
Before the Storm in Beaufort County
Bibliography

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

I North Carolina Counties. ...... 11.6
2 Beaufort County Population 1880-1985 ......... 11.7
3 Regional Population@'1960-1%5 ................ 11.8
4 Beaufort County Population Distribution ...... 11.9
5 Per Capita Income 1970-19e4 .................. 11.10
6 Unemployment Rate 1976-1986 .................. 11,11
7 Beaufort County Land Use 1986 ................ 44.12
8 Harvested Cropland ........................... 44.13
9 Permits Issued 1981-1986 ..................... 44.14

Map

I Existing Land Use ............................ 44.15
2 Natural and Cultural Resources ............... 44.16
3 Beaufort County SLOSH Map .................... 6e.12
4 Land Classification.* ......................... 74.2

TABLES

1 Regional Population .............................. 11.1

2 County Population ................................ 11.1
3 Population Age Structure .......................... 11.2
4 Housing Characteristics igeo ..................... 11.2
5 Manufacturing Firms ................................ 11.3
6 Beaufort County Employment 1980 .................. 11.4

7 Retail Sales ...................................... 11.4

8 Labor Force ...................................... 11.5

9 Harvested Cropland ............................... 44.1

10 Beaufort County Building Permits 1981-1986 ....... 44.1

11 CAMA Development Permits .......................... 44.2

12 Land Classification .......... .................... 44.3

13 Major Soil Types ................................. 44.4

14 Surface Water Classification ..................... 44.5

15 Unique Natural Areas ............................. 44.7

16 Structures of Historical or Architectural
Significiance ............................... 44.6

17 Prime Farmland Soils ............................. 44.9

le Future Regional Population ....................... 44.9
19 County Population Age Structure 1985-1995 ........ 44.9

20 School Enrollment ................................ 44.10

21 Municipal Water Systems .......................... 44.11

22 Municipal Wastewater Systems ..................... 44.11
23 Severity of Risk ................................. 69.10
24 Magnitude of Risk; Inventory of Structures in
Hazard Area .................................. 68.10
25 Utilization of Primary Roads ...................... 68.11

1. INTRODUCTION

In the fall of 1986, the County Commissioners appointed an

ad hoc Advisory Committee to update the County's Land Use Plan.

A nine-person committee was specially selected to represent a

wide range of backgrounds, interests, and professions. The

planning process commenced with a workshop session given by

Division of Coastal Management personnel. State officials

introduced Committee members to the planning process and to

several special issues that would be addressed during the

course of the planning program. Beginning in November 1986, the

group began meeting monthly to work on the plan update. A

series of bimonthly meetings were held in the early summer of

1987 as the Committee entered the policy planning stage of the

update process.

Committee members agreed early in the process-that solicit-

ing public input should be made an important part of the planning

program. Notices of all committee meetings were submitted to

four local radio stati'ons for broadcast: WKJA, WWGN, WITN-TV,

and WDLX. Meeting notices were also published in the Washington

Daily News, and articles summarizing the information and issues

discussed at each committee meeting were submitted to the paper

for publication. Copies of all radio public service announce-

ments and articles submitted to or appearing in the Daily News

are included in Appendix A.

The Committee realized that the 1987 Land Use Plan would be

dealing with a number of important development issues. Thus,

the Committee decided to conduct a public survey - to gather

public opinion on development issues as well as to educate the

public as to the nature of important land use issues facing the

County. The group spent a considerable amount of time and

effort in developing and compiling the questionnaire. As shown

in Appendix B, the Committee designed the survey instrument to

address the concerns of a variety of interest groups. The

planning survey was added as an insert to the March 19 edition

of the Washington Daily News. Additional copies were given to

leaders of a number local civic clubs for distribution to their

membership. Committee members estimate the survey was distri-

buted to approximately 9,500 persons. About 940 responses were

received, indicating a 10% response rate. Not all respondents

answered all questions; the question on ideal population received

an especially low response. Given the method of distribution,

compilation, and response rate, the Committee makes no pretense

that the survey was statistically valid. Rather, the survey was

viewed as informative - to respondents and Committee members

alike - and the survey helped the group generate many of the

topics covered by the policy objectives contained in the 1997

Land Use Plan.

The 1987 Land Use Plan Public Survey indicated that most

people like. living in Beaufort County and that residents like

living here primarily for two reasons: they value the river for

the amenities it provides, and they enjoy the rural character of

the area. Thus, the majority of respondents feel it is of utmost

importance to protect the river and to preserve the quality of

life in the area; preserving water quality and preserving natural

resources were named as the two most important issues fac ing the

County.

Only about half of all respondents answered the question on

ideal population. Of those that answered, slightly more than

half indicated that the County had already reached its.optimal

population. However realizing that development is inevitable,

most residents advocated a policy of controlled growth. At the

same time, most respondents expressed a desire for increased

economic development: the need for more jobs was rated as the

third most important issue facing the County. Over half of all

respondents indicated that attracting new jobs and preserving

commercial fishing operations were extremely important issues the

County should be addressing. Over half of all respondents also

rated failing septic systems, pollution of waterways by farming

and forestry activity, pollution of waterways by industrial

activityg and loss of County airspace to military operations as

extremely important land use concerns. But the priority issue

for 75% of all respondents was resource protection: three out

of four persons responding ranked protection of the County's

natural resources as an extremely important land use concern.

Complete survey results are contained in Appendix C.

II. BACKGROUND

Beaufort County occupies an 827 square mile area of central

coastal North Carolina (Figure 1, pg. 11.6). It is the eighth

largest county in the State. Originally called Pamptecough

Precinct when it was formed from Bath County in 1705, the name

was changed to Beaufort in 1712 to honor Henry Somerset, Duke of

Beaufort.

Beaufort County is an area rich in natural and cultural re-

so urces. Early settlers built a strong local economy based

on the County's environmental resources. Prosperous port

communities developed along the County's navigable waterways.

Stately residences, office and commercial buildings were built to

service a wealthy merchant population; many of these remain

today to distinguish the region.

Water resources are a major presence in the County.

Water accounts for about 88)000 acres (14.2%) of the County's

total 618,200 acres. Numerous creeks drain the land. Many empty

into the Pamlico River which bisects the County in a northwest-

southeast direction. The Pungo River forms a portion' of the

County's eastern boundary, and the Pantegog Dismal, and Great

Swamps occupy a large portion of the County's northeastern area.

Precipitation in the County averages about 51 inches per year.

Mean January temperature is 45-F; mean July temperature is 79-F.

The County has seven incorporated areas: Aurora, Bath,

Belhaven, Chocowinity, Pantego, Washington, and Washington Park.

As most of these communities have elected to prepare their own

land use plans, development issues within these localities will

be addressed only as they affect land uses in the unincorporated

areas of the County.

A. Population

Population within the County has increased steadily since

1eeO except for the period 1960-1970 when total population

declined slightly (Figure 29 pg. 11.7). Population grew fairly

rapidly (averaging 1.8% per year) until 1940. Between 1940 and

1970, growth slowed and the County experienced lAttle change in

population. Since 1970 howeverp the County has again experienced

moderate growth. Between 1970 and 1980o the population increased

by 12.2% and between 1980 and 1995 population increased by 7.2%.

Beaufort County is the second most populous county in the

planning region (Figure 3, pg. 11.8).' The state has been divided

into 18 regions for planning purposes. Beaufort County is

included in Region 09 together with Bertie, Hertford, Martin and

Pitt counties. Population growth in the County has consis-

tently been greater than all other counties except Pitt, and the

growth rate between 1980 and 1985 (7.2%) even slightly exceeded

that for the State as a whole (Table lp pg. 11.1).

Current4y, over half of all County residents live in

unincorporated areas. Between 1970 and 1980, most of the

County's total population growth occurred- in rural (unincor-

porated) areas (Table 2, pg. 11.1). Although several of the

County's municipalities have experienced moderate growth in

population since 1980 (notably Chocowinityp Bath, and

Washington), more than two people live in the rural areas of

the County for every one that lives in an urbanized place (Figure

4, pg. 11.9).

Following the national trend, th e population of the County

is aging. Since 19709 the percentage of the population under 17

years has declined from 35 t:o 27% (Table 3p pg. 11.2). At the

same time, the percentage 65 and older has increased slightly

from 11 to 14%.

Unlike some of the coastal counties in the state, Beaufort

County is not greatly affected by seasonal fluctuations in

population. The local County economy did however realize

$9,760,000 in travel-related expenditures in 1984 compared to the

statewide average of $4,192,000. While some migrant workers

find employment in the area, their numbers do not produce

significant seasonal changes in population. According to the

Employment Security Commission, there were approximately 250

migrant workers in the County in 1985, down from 300 in 1984.

B. Housing

The County's 1980 population was housed among 15,800

dwelling units (Table 4, pg. 11.2). Eighty percent of all

dwellings in the County are single-family units; the remainder

are mobile homes and multifamily dwellings. Almost one in four

dwellings in the County are rental units. In 1980, about 10% of

all existing units were vacant. Ten percent all residenc es were

without complete plumbingy about average for the five-county

region. In 1980, single-person households (typically elderly and

young unmarried persons) accounted for over 20% of all house-

holds.

C. Economy

New construction over the past decade in Washington, the

county seat, indicates the wi llingness of the public and private

sector to invest in the area. Donnelley Marketingi a direct mail

enterprise, in 1984 became the County's largest new employer,

offering employment to about 225 persons. Public investments

have had considerable impact within the City of Washington. The

City has realized a new Visitor's Center - a replica of North

Carolina's historic Newbold-White House; a new post office; and

the City's old train station has been thoroughly renovated as a

cultural and civic center and is now the home of the Beaufort

County Arts Council.

Per capita income in the County has increased steadily

since 1970 (Figure 5, pg. 11.10). Local changes in per capita

income have closely paralleled those for the State as a whole,

although historically, per capita income has been less than per

capita income statewide. The median income of families in the

County has increased, though again lagging the increase state-

wide. In 1969 median family income (MFI) in the County was

$69435 compared to $7,774 for the State as a whole. By 1979 (the

latest year for which information is available)p MFI in the

County had more than doubled to $149461; statewide, MFI had

risen to $16,792. As local income has risen, the percentage of

residents with incomes below the poverty line has decreased. In

1969, one in three individualso and one in every seven :families

were considered living below the poverty line. In 1979, this

figure for the County had dropped to 21% of all individuals and

12% of all families. Statewidep 15% of all individuals and 12%

of all families had incomes below the poverty line.

The County has a relatively strong economy. Major employ-

ers include Texasgulf,. located outside Aurora, and National

Spinning and Hamilton Beach in Washington. There are currently

46 manufacturing firms in the. County which employ a total of

anywhere from 5,000 to 129000 persons (Table 59 pg. 11.3). About

one in four employed persons is employed by a manufacturing

enterprises (Table 6, pg. 11.4). Eighteen percent of all

employed residents are involved in wholesale and retail trade,

and about one in ten persons is employed in either agriculture,

forestry, fisheryo and mining operations. Retail sales in the

County in fiscal year 1986 totalled almost $315,0009000 (Table 7,

pg. 11.4) and were well above sales in any other county in the

region except Pitt.

The labor force currently numbers about 19,500 persons

(Table 8, pg. 11.5). Historically, the rate of unemployment in

the County has approximated that for the state as a whole, though

since 19819 the local unemployment rate has been greater than

that statewide (Figure 6, pg. 11.11).

Agriculture plays a major role in the County with over one

quarter of all land being devoted to agricultural uses. Har-

vested cropland accounted for 1285600 acres of County land, up

from 115,900 in 1983. Although the total number of farms has

been declining (from ItO47 in 1970 to e15 in 19E32), the average

size of farms in the County has been increasingo from an average

of 162 acres in 1978 to 194 in 1982. Notably., Beaufort County

ranked number one in the State in 19e4 in the production of

oatsg and second in the produ ction of wheat and soybeans. At

the same time, the value of local farm products has been increas-

ing. Between 1978 and 19829 the average market value of agricul-

tural products per farm increased by over 50% from $41,800@per

farm in 197e to $64,700 per far-m in 1982.

Implications

As the County's population continues to growp the need for

sound land use and services planning increases. As the County's

population increases and local income riseso more people will

find themselves with time and money to spend on leisure acti-

vities. The need for services for the County's older population

will increase. Residential development in outlying areas will

compete with agriculturalf water-related, and open space uses

for use of the land. Development in rural and urban areas will

have impacts on water quality in the County and beyond.

Table 1
REGIONAL POPULATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Change % Change
County 1960 1970 1980 1985 70-80 80-85

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEAUFORT 36,014 35,980 40,355 43,260 12.2% 7.2%
Be.rtie 24,350 20,528 21,024 21,341 2.4% 1.5%
Hertford 22,718 23,529 23,368 23,924 -0.7% 2.4%
Martin 27,139 24,730 25,948 26,653 4.9% 2.7%
Pitt 69,942 73,900 83,651 95,862 13.2% 14.6%
---------------------- 7 ---------------------------------------------------
Region 180,163 178,667 194,346 211,040 8.8% 8.6%

State 4,556,155 5,082,059 5 881,766 6,253,951 15.7% 6.3%

Source: U.S Census; Office of State Budget and Management

Table 2
COUNTY POPULATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Change VChange
1960 1970 1980 1985 70-80 80-85

----- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora 449 620 698 719 12.6% 3.0%
Bath 346 231 207 237 -10.4% 14.5%
Belhaven 2,386 2,259 2,430 2,496 7.6% 2.7%0
Chocowinity 580 566 644 828 13.8% 28.6%.
Pantego 262 218 185 181 -15.1% -2.2%
Washington 9,939 8,961 8,418 9,419 -6.1% 11.9%
Washington Pk NA 517 514 553 -0.6% 7.6%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorp. area 22,052 22,608 27,259 28,827 20.6% 5.8%

Total County 36,014 35,980 40,355 43,260 12.2% 7.2%

NA= not available
Source: Office of State Budget and Management

Table 3
POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970 1980 1985
No. % No. % No. %

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-4 years 2,905 8.1% 3,148 7.8% 3,305 7.6%
5-17 years 9,835 27.3% 8,857 21.9% 8,579 19.8%
18-24 years 3,577 9.9% 4,408 10.9% 4,548 10.5%
125-44 years 7,828 21.8% 10,429 25.8% 12,380 28.6%
45-64 years 8,067 22.4% 8,337 20.7% 8,612 19.9%
65 and older 3,768 10.5% 5,176 12.8% 5,836 13.5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 35,980 100.0% 40,355 100.0% 43,260 100.0%
ISource: U.S. Census; N.C. Statistical Abstract, 1 984; and
Office of State Budget and Management
I
I Table 4
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 1980

--------------------------------------------------------
County Region
--------------------------- #--------%-------- #-------- %
Total Households 14,253 - 67,460 -
Single-person Hshlds 3,021 21.2% 14,083 20.9%
Total Housing Units 15,792 - 73,810 -
Single-family Units 12,501 79.2% 57,853 78.4%
Vacant Units 1,539 9.7% 6,348 8.6%
Renter Occupied 24..0% 23,782 32.2%
Condominium Units 70 0.4% 412 0.6%
Units w/out plumbing 1,544 9.8% 7,722 10.5%
--------------------------------------------------------
Persons/household 2.82 2.97
Median Value unit $31,200 -
Median Rent $101

Source: U.S. Census

11.2

Table 5
MANUFACTURING FIRMS (as o@ 1/1/87)
------------- ----- --- -- -------
Location Firm Name Product Employment Range

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Aurora Packing Co. Crab products 20-49
Aurora Bay City Crab Co. Crab products 20-49
Aurora Carolina Seafood Crab products 20-49
Aurora Daniels Seafood Co. Crab products 20-49
Aurora Henries Fishing Sup. Wire crab pots 10-19
Aurora Texasgulf, Inc. Phosphate prod. 1,000-2,499
Bath Charcoal Services Carbon filters 20-49
Belhaven Blue Channel Crab Seafood prod. 100-249
Belhaven Baker Crab Co. Seafood prod. 50-99
Belhaven Belhaven Feed Mills "Feed & fertilzer 5-9
Belhaven Belhvn Fish & Oyster Seafood prod. 100-249
Belhaven Gwinn Engineering Marine equip. 1-4
Belhaven Harris Furniture Furniture 5-9
Belhaven Sea Safari Seafood prod. 100-249
Belhaven Younce & Ralph Lumber Pine lumber 50-99
Chocowinity Fountain Power Boats Boats 20-49
Chocowinity Osprey Seafood Seafood products 50-99
Chocowinity Outer Banks Indust. Metal fabric. 20-49
Chocowinity Privateer Manufac. Boats 20-49
Chocowinity Singer Co. Furniture 250-499
Chocowinity Tidewater Equip. Logging equip. 20-49
Pantego Pungo Machine Shop Metal Shop 5-9
Pinetown F.C. Howell & Sons Hardwood 20-49
Washington Atwood Morrill Co. Valves 50-99
Washington Bafer, Inc. Plastics 10-19
Washington Carver's Machine Works Machine products 20-49
Washington Coca Cola Bottling Soft drinks 20-49
Washington Donnelley Marketing Direct mail ad. 100-249
.Washington Flanders Filters Filters 50-99
Washington Gregory Pool Equipment 20-49
Washington Hackney & Sons Truck bodies 250-499
Washington Hamilton Beach Applicances 1,000-2,499
Washington Hampton Shirt Co. Shirts 250-499
Washington J.S. Hill Corp. Concrete 10-19
Washington Jackson Bedding Bedding prod. 1-4
Washington Lowe's Inc. Building supp. 20-49
Washington Maola Ice Cream Ice cream 20-49
Washington Mason Lumber Co. Lumber 20-49
Washington Moss Planing Mill Lumber 100-249
Washington National Spinning Co. Yarn 1,000-2,499
Washington Stanadyne, Inc, Auto parts 250-499
Washington Washington Beverage Soft drinks 10-19
Washington Wash. Crab Processing Seafood products 20-49
Washington Washington Garment Clothing 50-99
Washington Washington News Daily newspaper 50-99
Washington Washington Packing Pork prod. 10-19
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: 1985-86 Directory of N.C. Manufacturing Firms;
revised by Land Use Advisory Committee

11.3

Table 6
BEAUFORT COUNTY EMPLOYMENT 1980

------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Number of % Total State
Employment Sector Employees Employment %
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing 4,699 24.0% 32.0%
Wholesale & Retail Trade 3,459 17.6% 18.0%
Agriculture, Forestry, 2,123 10.8% 3.6%
Fisheries, Mining
Educational Services 1,099 5.6% 8.3%
Construction 1,048 5.3% 6.1%
Health Services 876 4.5% 6.0%
Public Administration 645 3.3% 4.0%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, 839 4.3% 6.9%
Business, Repair Services
Transportation, Communications, 675 3.4% 6.0%
Other Public Utilities
Personal, Entertainment, 621 3.2% 3.7%
Recreational Services
Other Professional and 400 2.0%q 3.2%
Related Services
Not reported 3,136 16.0% 2.3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total 19,620 . 100.0% 100.0%

Source: N.C. Statistical Abstract, Fifth Edition, 1984

Table 7
RETAIL SALES ($,000's)

--------------- 7-----------------------------------------
County
Fiscal Year BEAUFORT Bertie Hertford Martin Pitt

------------------------------------------------------
1975 135,562 36,101 76,279 73,027 278,382
1976 159,530 40,880 87,539 82,899 318,493
1977 177,795 43,819 100,540 93,249 349,637
1978 191,566 46,491 102,848 93,359 372,759
1979 219,683 52,440 108,696 97,633 426,912
1980 223,745 50,996 120,747 103,241 462,937
1981 254,858 54,336 123,021 109,607 516,284
1982 258,037 57,818 133,807 114,041 542,045
1983 249,857 59,865 141,145 116,978 578,843
1984 277,511 61,667 162,367 123,998 694,144
1985 289,045 64,487 166,839 125,435 735,826
1986 314,513 62,199 169,259 137,241 831,083
---------------------------------------------------------
Chg. 75-85 113.2% 781.6% 90.6% 71.,8% 164.3%

Source: Office of State Budget and Management (1'975-84)
and N.C. Department of Revenue (1985, 1986)

11.4

Table 8
LABOR FORCE

-----------------------------------------------------
Labor Total Unemployment Rate
Year Force Employment County State

----------------------------------------------------
1976 18,760 17,610 6.1% 6.2%
1977 19,170 18,090 5.6% 5.9%
1978 20,310 19,450 4.2% 4.3%
1979 19,710 18,760 4.8% 4.8%
1980 20,750 19,620 5.4% 6.5%
1981 21,870 20,470 6.4% 6.4%
1982 21,550 19,310 10.4% 9.0%
1983 20,720 18,520 10.6% 8.9%
1984 21,000 19,430 7.5% 6.7%
1985 19,320 18,130 6.2% 5.4%
1986 19,490 17,870 8.3% 5.3%

Source: Office of State Budget and Management;
updated by Employment Security Commission

Figure 1

N. C. Counties

WaShIng

choco-Inily

ASHI LLEGHANY STO.ES ROCK1210HAR CASW9 GRAN @AEECI@ARRLN %O*T. PION
AT,IU A WILKES
TA0.111 ramm. Q-J@0110 A A."GE A A rm..KL,bl
" A."GE
MITCH L cAV AICC A NASH
TAkc ALDWILL IAIDILL DAVI -K9 D0lCCMO
IV ALIZAIEDIR -010. If
. a... A. LM
4114'At. mu"C0.111 .0"ILL AtAWSA *A C.ATHAft 'Lao. "TV
AYW0,0 LEE
t. AftA 111, .904,0040 LlkCOLN C DARRUS .04 7- mmal .... (if AV.,
JACK"k K "Slob G*.Iav
ACO. L9V1LA .
C-lac-al
ECK""" A.50. C..Om "G.1 .0g.t.A.0 PLIN JCNILS

0"Lo.
0
011ECH, SLA090
PtEE09A

COLUEESUS

HA.

RUNSWIC

Figure 2

Beauf ort County
Population 1880-1985
46 -
44 - 43,260

42 -
5

40 -

3B - 3 7, 125 4
36 - 35,026 35,9

34 -
c V)
32 - 30,877
U)
0 3D -
0

28 -
26,4
26 -

24 -

22 - 21,0 5

2D -

16
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 .1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
30,1177
,4 /4

0 5

Year

Source: U.S. Census; office of State Budget and Management

Figure 3

Regional Population
1960-1985
1007
P itt

90 -

so -

0 -0
C
-5 60 -
0
0 -C
CL

50 -

BEAUFORT
40 -

30 -
Martin
Hertford
20 Bertie

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

Year

Source: U.S. Census; Office of State Budget and Management

Figure 4

Beaufort County
Population Distribution
35 -

30 - 66.6%

67.5%

25 -
61.2% 62.8%

20 -
C

0 -c 33.4%
15 - 38.8% 37.2% 32.5%

10 -

0 z

1960 1970 1980 1985

Yea r
Urban Rural

Source: Mid-East Commission computations based on
M M. "fic"f Wote &ggeVWd lWge=t = = M M M M M M '-@

Figure 5
Per Capita Income
1970-1984
14

13 -

12
11 10,852
Q) 10 9,8
E
v V) 9 - 8,655
C -0 P187
C

8 -
8,232
0 7,10 854
-C
7 -

Q)
6 - 5,77 6,355
5 4,860
4,241 5,068

4 - 4,378
3,803
3 -

2
1970 1972 1976 1978. 1980 1982 1984. 1986

Year
0 Beaufort County + State

Source: Office of State Budget and Management

Unemployment Rate
1976-1986
12. 07o'.

9. 0

County

A-
C:
Q) 7.0%
E
0 6.07.
a-
E State
C 5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

0.0%
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19B1 19B2 19B3 1984 19B5 19B6

Year

Source: Office of State Budget and.Manageinent, and
Employment Security Commis-sion

III. LAND USE

A. Exi!fting Conditions

Beaufort County has experienced modest growth over the

last decade. The County's population has increased. Several

industries have located within the County limits. Some commer-

cial enterprises have expanded. Nonetheless, the County remains

rural in nature. Undeveloped land accounts for 92% of all land

in the County. Most of this acreage is forestland (340,500

acres, 64% of total); the remainder is crop and pastureland

(145,000 acres, 2e% of totalf Figure 7, pg. 44.12). Developed

land - incorporated communities, industrial areas and the like -

account for 12,000 acres (2% of total). Rural developed land

- residential areas beyond city and town limits account for

31,300 acres (6% of total).

Much of the forestland in the County is maintained for

commercial forestry. National lumber corporations own over 20%

of all land in the County and one-third of all the County's

forestland. International Paper, Georgia Pacific, and the

Weyerhaeuser Corporation all own land in the County, though

Weyerhaeuser owns the largest share by far. A 1986 report by

the Institute for Southern Studies notes Weyerhaeuser as being

the,County's largest landowner. About one of every five acres

of land in the County is reported to be in Weyerhaeuser owner-

ship.

Agricultural operations utilize the second largest share of

all land uses in the County. Just beyond the limits of any of

the County's incorporated areas, agricultural activities appear

to dominate the landscape. The pattern of agricultural activity

was first e5t ablished based on geologic conditions. The Suffolk

Scarp, which generally parallels N. C. 32, divides the County

into eastern and western halves. Soil conditions on either side

of Scarp differ and effect local growing conditions. The

County's primary agricultural products include corn, oats and

soy beans. A few tobacco farms remain in the western half of

the County in the Washington area and many animal farms have

developed in the eastern half of the Count y based on the avail-

ability of crops for feed. In 1984, Beaufort County ranked

number ten in the state in the production of hogs. Most of these

hog farms are found in the Pantego area of eastern Beaufort

County.

Urban development has effected the pattern of agricultural

activity in recent years as farmland has been converted to

residential uses. Now, more land is devoted to agricultural

uses in the eastern half of the County (the Belhaven/Pantego

area) than in the western half in the Washington region.

Further, more farming activity is noted in the northern half of

the County than in the southern half where much of the commercial

forestry land is found. Though the number of farms has declined

in recent years, many large farming operations remain. According

to the findings of the Institute for Southern Studies, there are

currently four property owners maintaining farms over 3,000

acres and four landowners with farms over 2,000 acres. Together,

these eight landowners own 5% of all land in the County and 17%

of all the County's crop and pastureland.

As shown in Figure e (pg. 44.13), Beaufort County has more

hai'vested cropland than any other county in the region except@

Pitt County. The amount of land harvested for crops has.fluctu-

ated over the years, depending in part on market conditions,

weather, and local reporting. In relation to other counties in

the region, the amount of harvested cropland in Beaufort County

(excluding the period 1982-e3) appears to be increasing gradually

(Figure 8). Beaufort County was the only county in the region to'

have more land harvested for crops in 1984 than in 1978 (Table

9, pg. 44.1). Statewide, harvested cropland decreased by 2.5%

between 1978 and 1984.

Residential construction has increased the amount of

developed land in the County. Between 1981 and 1986, over 1,000

building permits were issued for single-family dwellings (Table

10, pg. 44.1) in Beaufort County excluding the City of

Washington. During this same period, permits for the locatio n of

300 mobile homes were issued. Single-family dwellings and mobile

homes are the predominate type of dwelling in the County and

development between l9el and 1986 followed the building pattern

5et over the years. Permits for multifamily dwellings (two or

more units per structure) accounted for only 5% of all residen-

tial permits, a total of 68 units over a six-year period.

Single-family development has proceeded at a fairly steady

pace in the County over the past six years (Figure 99 pg. 44.14).

On the average, 177 permits were issued for single-family units

between 1981 and 19e6, with a high of 199 issued in 1983 and a

low of 125 issued in 1982.

Most County residents live in urbanized areas surround ing

the County's incorporated communities, however a considerable

number of residents live in outlying regions. As shown on the

Map of Existing Land Use (pg. 44.15)p urbanized areas include the

incorporated areas of all seven cities and towns in the County

and the high density development that adjoins these communities.

Urbanized areas contain a mix of Jand uses - si.ngle and multi-

family residential, commercial, industrialg institutional, and

recreational. Areas of "rural concentration" adjoin the County's

major highways, define "crossroads communities", and as shown on

the Map of Existing Land Use, are found at various locations

along the waterfront.

Rural concentrations are primarily residential in nature,

however limited commercial development also is noted. Commercial

operations are primarily highway or service oriented - gasoline

stations and convenience and small grocery stores.

As noted previously in Table 21 over half the County's

population lives in unincorporated areas outside of cities and

towns. Historically, residential development has occurred at the

intersection of major roads. Beaufort County has a number of

crossroad communities including Bunyan, Pinetown and Yeates-

ville. Most recent residential development has been strip

development along existing roads although some subdivisions have

been constructed. New subdivisions in the County include

Captain's Wa lk, Hillcrest and Slatestone Trails. Over 300 mobile

home permits were issued between 1981 and 1986. New mobile homes

were located on individual lots and within mobile home parks.

The County has several mobile home parks including Ash-Ma-Tau

Mobile Home Park, Mimosa Mobile Manor and River Road Estates.

Waterfront property has attracted residential development

since the County was formed over 200 years ago. Five out of the

seven incorporated communities in the County are located on

navigable waterways. Much residential development has also

occurred along the waterfront beyond city and town limits,

Summer camps (cottages) and increasingly, year-round dwellings

are found on the banks of the County's rivers and creeks.

Bayview, Pamlico Beach, Pungo Shores and Woodstock Point are

several of the older devel,opments found along the County's

waterfronts. Sawmill Landing, River Hills, and Schooner Point

are several of the new waterfront developments that have occurred

in recent years.

Most residential development has been for single-family

dwellings. In the past five years however, two new townhouse-

type projects have been developed. The Weyerhaeuser Corporation

is planning to build E30 townhouse units as part of its Pamlico

Plantation project. In additions another developer has recently

completed eight townhouse units in Bayviews just south of Bath.

Residential construction since 1980 has occurred primarily

in the western half of the County in the Washington area.

According to a county building inspector, most new development

has occurred in the area of Ro ute 264p west to the county line

and east to Broad Creek. River Road from the Washington Park

city limits to Broad Creek, has also experienced growth in the

past five years, following the development pattern established

over the past decade.

As shown on the Map of Existing Land Use, the major

industrial land use in the County is the Texa sgulf operation on

the Pamlico River north of Aurora. The company is one of the

largest producers of phosphate rock in the nation. Phosphate

rock is mined on company landholdings along the riverg'and much

of it is processed into fertilizer at the facilities on-site.

The plant produces more than a million tons of fertilizer a year

and employs about 1,200 people; many of these are local resi-

dents. In 1985, Texasgulf. merged with the North Carolina

Phosphate corporations and increased its landholdings by almost

20,000 acres. Texasgulf now owns approximately 65,000 acres of

land in Beaufort County making it the County's second largest

landowner.

The County's fifth largest landowner is the Pennsylvania-

based FMC Corporation. FMC owns about 4,000 acres of land in

the County on the north side of the river. It is assumed that

the firm purchased the property with the intent of mining the

phosphate that lies deep underground, No plans for i nitiating

mining activity has been put forth in recent years, and company

landholdings remain undeveloped.

In addition to residential and industrial development, the

County has two major public recreation areas noted as "Public

Open and Recreation" on the Map of Existing Land Use. Goose

Creek State Park, owned by the State Department of Natural

Resources and Community Development, occupies 1,300 acres on the

north side of the Pamlico River between Washington and Bath. The

park offers hiking, swimming, picnicking, and a boat launchi ng

facility. The state of North Carolina is in fact, the sixth
la'rgest landowner in the County, with almost 4,000 acres of

County land under its ownership in 1986. In addition to its

large holdings at the state park, the state also holds title to

Goose Creek Wildlife Management Area. This site, part of which

is located in Pamlico County, is located on Goose Creek on the

south side of the Pamlico River. Another large publically-owned

I E3

parcel is found in the northwestern corner of the County as

shown on the Map of Existing Land Use; the Voice of America site

on S. R. 1001, is the County's largest institutional land use.

There are also a number of private recreational camps in the

County. The East Carolina Council of the Boy S couts of America

operates Camp Bonner at two locations in the County. Recreation

and camping facilities have been developed on a 250 acre parcel

on Blounts Bay on the south side of the Pamlico River. A 390

acre tract near Broad Creek on the river's north side remains

undeveloped. The Girl Scout Council of Coastal Carolina operates

Camp Hardee on the Pamlico River south of Chocowinity. The

Roanoke Christian Service Camp is found on the north side of the

Pamlico, east of Washington Park off River Road.

9. Fut"re Development
Development in the County over the next d@cade is likely

to follow the pattern established in the preceding ten years.

Most new development will be residential in nature. New resi-

dential uses are likely to be developed along existing roads

although several new subdivisions are currently under develop-

ment. Completion of the major transportation project in the

County - the widening of Route 264 from Greenville to Washington

- is expected to increase the pressures for development in the

Washington area. Local officials appear to agree that the major

impact of the project will be new residential rather than

industrial development. If the Greenville area of Pitt County

continues to grow as anticipated, western 9eaofort County,

especially the Washington area, may well become a bedroom"

community of Greenville. New commercial development serving the

residential population could then follow residential growth.

The potential for industrial growth might be increased when the

U. S. 264 project a series of bypasses and widening from

Raleigh to Washington is completed.. There are currently no

known plans for industrial expansion in the area. Texasgulf,

the County's largest industrial concern, recently expanded its

operation. At this time, the firm has no announced plans foi-

further expansion.

Two other transportation projects currently underway in

the County are also likely to result in new residential develop-

ment. The widening of N. C. 32 from Washington Park to S. R.

1300, and the widening of U. S. 264 from Washington to N.C. 32,

may increase residential development in the Washington area. it

is unlikely however, that new development in these areas will

have major impacts on the County as these areas are already

fairly well-developed.

Single-family construction is likely to dominate new

residential development, however several projects in recent

years have included townhouse-type development. Two groups of

four attached single-family dwellings have been constructed at

Bayvi.ew, east of Bath. The Pamlico Plantation project, located

on the eastern shore of Broad Creek, will include 80 townhouse

units when completed. One-half of these units had been built as

of December 1986 and the remainder are expected to be completed

by 19ee. In addition to townhouse development, the Pamlico Plan-

tation project includes 200 lots targeted for single-family

homes. In January 19879 about 20% of the lots had been built

upon. Complete buildout of the 280-unit project is expected

within ten years.

The focus of residential development in recent years has

been along waterfront areas. In 1986, Beaufort County ranked

fourth among the twenty coastal counties in the number of

permits issued for major develoments in Areas of Environmental

Concern and first in the number of general development permits

issued (Table 11, pg. 44.2).

The pressures for shoreline development are likely to

increase in the next five years. A number of waterfront develop-

ments are already underway. The Weyerhauser Corporation is

currently developing three projects in addition to Pamlico

Plantation and expects to initiate several others in 1987.

WeVerhauser's River Hills development is a single-family subdivi-

sion of 33 lots on the Pamlico River, approximately six miles

south of Chocowinity. About 25% of the lots had been built

upon as of December 1986. Schooner Point near Belhaven will have

32 single-family units when completed. In January 1987, about

one-half the lots had been developed. Mixon Creek, located west*

of Bath off N. C. 92o is Weyerhaeuser's most recent development.

The project is expected to have 55 sin gle-family residences when

fully. developed.

Many of the residential projects proposed in the next

decade are likely to be for "resort residential" projects. Such

projects provide amenities such as private boat slips, tennis

courts, swimming pools, clubhouses, and when possible, commercial

marinas. It is likely that many of these projects will be geared

toward the retirement and second-home community. Officials at

the State Division of Coastal Management note that as of February

1987 there were six proposals for residential development whichg

because of their waterfront location and proposed amenities,

would require development permits from the state. These pro-

posals include the Harbor Point project - (100 single-family

lots, marina, swimming pool, tennis courts) proposed for develop-

ment on the Pungo River outside Belhaven; and Blounts Landing.

The Blounts Landing project proposes over 1,000 residential units

on Blou nts Creek on the southside of the river. Forty apartment

units are included in the project with about 40% of all dwellings

proposed as townhouse units.

C. Land Use Concerns

Beaufort County is growing. Growth has been slow compared

to some other areas in the stateg but it is likely that the rate

of growth and the pressures for developmentg especially along the

waterfrontg will increase. The effects of development on the

natural environment are an increasing concern. There are

several specific concerns. Firstq development in areas outside

cities
and towns will be served primarily by septic systems.

In-ground systems improperly installed or maintained threaten

public health and the quality of surface and ground water.

Second, as the County develops, the solid waste load will

increase. The County already faces a problem with disposal

of solid waste as officials estimate that the current landfill

will reach capacity by 1989, Where and how to safety dispose of

an increasing solid waste load are questions the County must

resolve within the next five years. In 1986, the County

entered into a study with seven nearby counties to begin investi-

gating landfill alternatives. The studyg funded with assistance

from the state Department of Energy and the Division of Coastal

Managementq will analyze, among other options, the possibility

of constructing one or more resource recovery facilities to

serve the eight-county region. Finally, as land is develop-

ed, impervious surfaces replace open undeveloped land. Recharge

of ground water supplies diminishes and run-off increases. Often

urban run-off contains sediments and hazardous materials which

will enter the County's creeks and rivers. Taken individually,

most development projects expected in the next five years present

only minor land use concerns. It is the cumulative impact of all

projects developed over the next decade that now concerns the

County.

Point-source water pollution has been a land use concern in

the County for a number of years. State and federal programs

have addressed the problem since the early 1970's, however the

effectiveness of water quality regulations - both stringency and

enforcement - has been subject to debate. Given the sensitivity

of the County's estuarine waters, point-source pollution*contin-

ues to be a concern. Industrial discharges and municipal

wastewater treatment plants both contribute to the problem.

Several of the County's major industries have permits to dis-

charge wastewater into the Pamlico River or its tributaries.

Discharge from the Texasgulf operation is of special concern as

some of the wastewater contains the nutrient phosphorusq a

major pollutant of estuarine systems. Municipal waste treatment

systems also contrib ute phosphorus to the County's estuarine

waters. As the County's urbanized areas grow, system demand and

wastewater discharges will increase. In unsewered outlying

areas, large projects are likely to propose use of small package

treatment plants to treat sanitary waste. These small private

systems are of special concern as they discharge nitrogen and

phosphorus as do large public systems. However experience in

other areas has shown that the professional maintenance and

monitoring needed to ensure proper functioning of these systems

is often lacking.

It has only been in recent years that the seriousness of

the non-point pollution problem has been recognized. Non-point

pollution stems from both urban and rural areas. Given the

extent of agricultural and silvicultural activity in the County,

(agricultural and forest land comprise about 92% of all land in

the County), it is likely that farming and forestry operations

are the major non-point pollution sources.

Non-point pollution occurs when sediments run-off from

tilled farmland. The problem is exacerbated when fertilizers

(nutrients) and herbicides become absorbed on sediment material.

Fertilizers and pesticides applied to commercial forestland can

wash off and enter surface waters. InBeau*fort County, animal

farms a*re thought to contribute as much or more to water quality

problems as run-off 'from crop and pasture land. Heavy rains

often result in overflow of animal waste lagoons. Deterioration

or collapse of a poorly-maintained lagoon would pollute nearby

waters and would seriously threaten fish and shellfish as well.

Implications

The Coun ty values its land and water resources. Residents*

and visitors alike enjoy the aesthetic amenities and recreational

opportunities the County holds. Many residents earn their

livelihood from the Coun ty's natural resource base: thirty

percent of the manufacturing firms listed in Table 5 are involved

in resource development; farming and forestry employ many local

citizens; tourist and recreation-related enterprises employ many

others.

in its land use planning, the County should consider the

effects of new development and develop policies and regulations

as necessary to mitigate the negative impacts of growth.

The County should support development and enforcement of regula-

tions which control point-source pollution. The County should

continue to support state efforts to reduce agricultural non-

point pollution by encouraging use of Best Management Practices

and participation in the Agricultural Cost Share Program. In the

summer of 19e6s the state legislature took major actions toward

addressing the problem of agricultural non-point pollution by

increasing funding available in the Agricultural Cost Share

Program.. Under this programf 75% of the costs of projects

designed to reduce the input of agricultural non-point sources

will be reimbursed by the state. Projects eligible for cost-

sharing include conservation tillage, filter stripsi field

borders, water control structuresq and animal waste systems.

According to officials at the Soil Conservation Service, the

agency administering these state monies, the program has gene-

rated considerable interest in the County. Almost $113,000 was

available and encumbered to Beaufort County farmers in program

year 1987 to support projects reducing agricultural non-point

run-off.

D. Development Controls

Land development in the County is controlled by a variety

of local, state and federal regulations, Plans and policies

enacted by the County and var ious state agencies influence local

land use decisions as well.

1. Regulatory Controls

Local ordinances controlling land use decisions are de-

scribed below. The County has not adopted all the land use

regulatory controls within its authority and some of these are

listed below as well. State and federal regulations that control

land uses are listed in Appendix D.

Zoning Ordinance. The County has no comprehensive zoning
ordinance. A zoning strategy for the River Road area was
proposed in 1986 but not adopted.

Subdivision Regulations. A comprehensive subdivision
ordinance for the County was developed in 1990 but has not
been adopted.

Mobile Home Park Ordinance. The County's current Mobile
Home Park Ordinance was adopted in 1975. The regulations
were updated although not adopted in 19e6. Local officials
believe the updated ordinance will be adopted 'by the
County Commissioners in 1987.

Floodplain Regulations. In February 1qe7q County Commis-
sioners voted to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance
Program. Within the 100-year floodplain, new residen-
tial buildings must -now be elevated above the base flood
level; non-residential buildings may be flood-proofed
instead.

Building Regulations. County building inspectors enforce
the County's building code. The County adopted a building
code conforming to the North Carolina Building Code in July
1985.

Noise Ordinance. A ordinance prohibiting loud, disturbing
and unnecessary noise was adopted in 1981.

Housing Code. No local housing code has been adopted.

Septic Tank Regulations. The County Health Department
enforces regulations (Title 10 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code) controlling the construction and
siting of in-ground disposal systems.

Historic District Ordinance. No historic districts have
been established in the unincorporated area of the County.

2. Local Development Policies

Utilities Extension Policy. The County has an unofficial
policy to work'With any municipality to assist in extending
utilities to new development. For project fundingt the
proposal typically must demonstrate that projected tax
revenues will return the County's investment within a
five-year period.

3. Development Plans

Storm Hazard Mitigation Plan. The County's hurricane
evacuation plan Before the Storm in Beaufort County:
Avoiding Harm's Way was prepared in 1984.

Land Use Plan. The County's current land use plan'was
prepared in 1981 according to the guidelines of the state's
Coastal Area Management Act.

Transportation Plans. The County's current transporta tion
plan was prepared in the early 1980's and is being updated
in 1987. the plan coordinates transportation services for
human service organizations including the County Health
Department, the County's developmental centerst the Tideland
Mental Health Center, the Council on Aging and the Depart-
ment of Social Services. Local residents with transporta-
tion needs. - elderlyq infirmed, handicapped or transporta-
tion disadvantaged - are served by this plan.

The state's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
published in December 1986 lists three major transportation
projects in Beaufort County (Appendix E): the widening
of U. S. 264 from two to four lanes between Greenville
and Washington completion expected by the fall of 19B7);
the widening of N. C. 32 from Washington Park to S. R.
1300; and the widening of 5.3 miles of U. S. 264 from S.
R. 1501 in Washington to N. C. 32. Also included in the
state's transportation program is replacement of four
bridges and improvements to automatic warning devices
at four rail crossings.

Capital Improvement Plan. The County's Capital Improvement
Plan was prepared in 1979 and is currently being updated by
the County Manager. It is anticipated that the plan will be
adopted once the update is completed.

Open Space and Recreation Plan. When the 1981 Land,Use
Plan was prepared, the County had a recreation advisory
committee which directed the spending of funds for recrea-
tion improvements. The committee has since been disbanded.
Currently, the County has no open space and recreation plan.

E. Development Constraints

1. Land Suitability

Land development in the County will. be limited by a

number of factors both natural and cultural. These constraints

to development can be classified into one of three categories:

physical limitations, fragile areas, and areas of resource

potential.

Physical Limitations for Development. A variety of factors

determine the suitability of land for development. These

include soils and subsoil conditions, topography, potential for

flooding, and existing land uses in the development area.

The presence of poor soi Is will limit development in many

parts of the County. There is a wide variation of soils in

the County, ranging from highly permeable sands to shallow'

eroded clay areas; well drained to very poorly drained so,ils;

mucks, mucky peat, alluvial landy and fresh water and salt water

marshes. Before land is developed the stability, bearing

capacity, and erodability of the soil should be determined; some

soils have severe construction limitations. Some soil types are

unsuitable for the location of septic tank absorption fields. As

the County is not serviced by public sewers, the suitability of

the land for in-ground systems should be considered. The

percolation rate of certain soils may be too rapid and threaten

groundwater resources with improperly treated waste, or too

slow and failure of septic tank systems may occur. In many

places in the County, the groundwater is close to the soil

surface; some places are actually flooded at certain times

of the year. As sh own in Table 12 (pg. 44.3) , in an unimproved

virgin state, 85% o f all land in the County has severe limita-

tions for development, primarily due to its wetness or seasonal

high watertable.

The County has 43 different soil types. Seventeen of these

soils comprise 78% of all land in the County. Table 13 (pg.

44.4) details the characteristics of the County's major soils.

As noted in Table 13, all seventeen of these soils$ in an

unimproved natural state, have severe limitations for thesiting

of inground sewage treatment systems. In generalo in the eastern

half of the County, limitations for development are more severe

than in the western half. It should be noted however, that great

differences in soil properties can occur within short distances

and on-site investigation is needed to determine the soil

characteristics of a particular parcel.

Steep slopes may limit development in some areas. The

topography of the County is generally flat to gently rolling.

Winton soils, a soil type often found on steep grades, comprise

less than 1% of all land in the County. Howeverg steep slopes

are found along some creeks and there are some steep bluffs along
the southside of the Pamlico River)' particularly in t he Blounts

Bay area. Development on steep slopes is usually more costly

than construction on level terrain. It may be more difficult

to site septic systems on sharp inclines, and soils on steep

slopes are susceptible to increased erosion unles s proper

stabilization methods are undertaken.

Much of the land that borders the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers

and most of its tributary creeks and streams are subject to

periodic flooding. The County participates in the National

Flood Insurance Program and in February 1987, the County adopted

floodplain regulations. The Federal Insurance Administration

(FIA) has defined the Zone A floodplain as those areas which

have a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any year. Regula-

tions now control new building in the Zone A (100-year) flood-

plain: the lowest floor of residential buildings must be elevated'

at or above the base flood level as determined by FIA; non-resi-

dential structures can be flood-proofed instead.

There are few man-made hazards in the unincorporated area

of the County. Except for the Texasgulf operation which has

several chemical plants on-site, most of the local industries

which might utilize, produce or store hazardous materials are

located in incorporated communities. Two landfill sites are

located on the.north side of the r iver. The old County landfill,

now secured according to state regulations, is located just

east of Tranters Creek. The County's current landfill is west of

Bath off S. R. 1334.

A potential hazard facing County residents is the possible

establishment of a Military Operating Area (MOA) over Beaufort

County. In 19869 the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point

proposed to establish a MOA, which included Beaufort County, to

provide an area for performance of military training activities.

Such activities would include air combat maneuvers, aircraft

acrobatics, and air intercepts. As such activities could have

negative impacts on local farming activitesq tourismo and

wildlife, the County has officially expressed its opposition to

this proposal.

Fragile Areas. Beaufort County is rich in both natural and

cultural resources. The extent and location of these resources

should be considered as development decisions are made.

The Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA) established

the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) and specified that the

CRC identify and designate "areas of environmental concern" -

AECs. AECs are areas with natural or cultural resources which

are of statewide concern. State officials have determined that

unregulated development in AECs has a high probability of causing

irreversible damage to public healthq propertyp and the natural

environment. To protect those valuable resources the CRC

developed guidelines for development in AECs. According to the

guidelines established by the CRCI most projects in AECs require

a CAMA permit. Projects in AECs generally must meet speci,flic

development standards@ outlil,ned in Title 15, Subchapter 7H of

the North Carolina Administrative Code. "Minor" development

permits are necessary for projects altering less than 20 acres or

involving structures less th an 609000 square feet. Permits for

minor CAMA developments in the County are issued by the County

Building Inspector (132 Market Street, Washington). "Majorif

development permits are issued by the Division of Coastal

Management (1424 Carolian Avenue, Washington).

Four categories of AECs have been developed: the estuarine

system; the ocean hazard system; public water supplies; and

natural and cultural resource areas. The AEC5 in Beaufort County

are part of the estuarine system. Four types of natural areas

are included in this system: public trust areas, estuarine

waters, estuarine shorelines and coastal wetlands. Public trust'

areas are submerged lands in the coastal region where the public

has traditionally had the right of useq including the right of

navigation. All navigable waterways in Beaufort Cou nty are

considered public trust AECs.

Estuarine waters are brackish waters where the freshwater

from upstream rivers mixes with saline tidal waters. The

high biological productivity of the estuarine system depends on

the unique water circulation patterns of the estuarine waters.

The shoreline of estuarine waters, up to 75 feet from the mean
high water land has also been designated a AEC. E5tuari*ne

shorelines are an important part of the estuarine system because

of their connection to the estuarine waters: improper develop-

ment in these areas can degrade adjacent waters and harm or

destroy adjoining wetlands. Thus, all land within 75 feet of the

County's coastal and joint fishing waters (Table 149 pg. 44.5)

are AECs.

Coastal wetlands are also AECs. CAMA has defined coastal

wetlands as any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or

occasional flooding by tides. Coastal wetlands can be distin-

guished from inland wetlands (which are not considered AEC9)9 by

the plant life that inhabits the area. Coastal wetlands border

the County's estuarine waters in many areas, especially in the

northern half of the region. Mapping such areas is difficult

as the coastal estuarine system is dynamic, being subject to

the action of tides and wind. On-site investigation is necessary

before the exact location and extent of coastal wetlands can be

determined.

Many creeks and streams tribuary to the Pamlico and Pungo

rivers have upstream areas whic-1,.i are important to the lifecycle

development of a number of fish and shellfish species. Maps of

the primary and secondary nursery areas in Beaufort County are

available from the state Division of Marine Fisheries. In these

primary nursery areas, juvenile populations of economically

important seafood species spend the major portion of-their

initial growing season. According to environmental officialsp

these nursery areas are necessary for the early growth and

development of virtually all the area's important seafood

species. Officials note that these areas need to be maintained

as much as possiblep in their natural state and the population

within them must be permitted to develop in a normal manner with

as little interference.from man as possible.

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has identified

five unique natural areas in Beaufort County (see Map of Natural

and Cultural Resourcest pg. 44.16 and Table 159 pg. 44.;7); four

of the five are in the unincorporated area. Seventeen species of

rare birds (including the Bald Eagle) have been observed in the

County. Three species of rare amphibians have been noted and

three types of rare mammals have been observed. Six rare plant'

species including the Venus Fly-Trapq have also been found in

the County.

The County also has a number of structures of historical or

architectural significance (Table 169 pg. 44.8). Eleven of the

twenty-six sites identified by the State Di vision of History and

Archives are within incorporated communities; the remainder are

found in the unincorporated area. Six of the sites have been

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The County

has a number of archaeologically sensitive areas. Much of the

activity of the County's early inhabitants fo cussed on the
V

waterfront. All of the archaeological areas identified are found

along the water: in the area of Trantersq Bear and Broad Creeks;

Blounts Bay; Bath, Durham, St. Clair and South Creeks; and Indian

Island. In addition, seven underwater archaeological sites have

been identified: two in the a rea of Tranters Creek; four in

Bath Creek; and one in St. Clair Creek.

Areas of Resource Potential. About 28% of all land in the

County is currently being used as pasture or cropland. Some of

this land and other areas as we 11 have soils that make them.

areas of prime farmland. Agricultural officials-have observed

that prime farmland will be of major importance in providing the

nation's short and long range needs for food and timber. Thus,

conservation of prime farmland has become a national objective

and an important state agricultural goal as well.

Prime farmland is defined by its current use (urban,

built-up and water areas cannot be considered prime farmland),

and by the soils that comprise it. These soils have properties

that are favorable for the production of sustained high yields

of crops. According to agricultural officials, these soil

produce the highest yields with minimal inputs of energy and

economic resources, and farming these soils results in the least

damage to the environment. Seven of the County's 43 soils are

considered prime farmland soils. As shown in Table 17 (pg.

44.9), areas of prime farmland soils total over 67,500 acres.and

comprise almost 13% of all land in the County.

State forests and wildlife management areas are also

considered areas of resource potential. Beaufort County has two

such areas: Goose Creek Stale Park located on the north side of

the river east of Bath, and the Goose Creek Gameland Area located

on the south side of the river an the Beaufort/Pamlico county

line.

The potential of some of the County's mineral resources is

already being realized. Texasgulf is currently mining a portion

of the County's phosphate reserves on the south side of the

river near Aurora. Deeper phosphate deposits also occur along

the north side of the river near Bath however no mining activ-

ity has been initiated. Phospate is not the County's only

mineral resource. Limestone, suitable for use as crushed rock,

underlies phosphate deposits. Heavy mineral sands are found'

along the Suffolk Scarp. Those sands contain a variety minerals

including ilmenite, pyroxene, rutile, and sillimanite. Scattered

deposits of galucanite, often used as a chemical filter, are also

found. In addition, the County contains some deposits of peat,

a highly organic soil of decomposed vegetable matter, which when

cut out and dried, can be used as fuel. At this time however,

phosphate appears to be the only mineral resource for which

extraction is economically feasible.

2. Facility Limitations

The County is growing. As new residents and business move

into the area, service demands will increase. More police and

fire protection will be needed; additional classrooms or schools

may be necessary. Demand for urban services such as public water

and sewer service will increase. Planning for future service

demands helps avoid shortfalls in provision of public services.

Development can be severely constrained when the demand for

Vital services such as waterp schools and police and fire

protection exceeds supply. When demand for services such as

wastewater treatment exceeds system capacity, public health and

safety could be threatened; environmental degradation could

occur.

According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and

Management, the population of the County is expected to increase

by over 9% between 1985 and 1990; by 1995, the population is

projected to have increased by over 17%. As shown in Table 18

Apg. 44.9), the rate of population growth in Beaufort County is

expected to exceed the growth rate of adjoining Pitt Countyp and

the regional and state rate as well. By 1990, the County is

expected to have over 4,000 new residents to reach a population

of over 47,000. By 19951 the County is forecast to have almost

51,000 residents.

The trends in population change noted in the past decade

will continue through the 1990,5: percentage-wise, the County

will have more older persons and less young persons than it has

in the past. In 1985P 30% of the County's population was under

nineteen years of age. That percentage is expected to decline

slightly to about 28.5% by 1995 (Table 19, pg. 44.9). In con-

trasty the percentage of the population 65 and older is expected

to increase slightly from 13.5% in 1985t to 14.5% by 1995.

Public Schools. There are two public school systems in the

County. The City of Washington School System generally serves

Washington Township while the Beaufort County system serves

the remaining municipalities and the unincorporated area. As

shown in Table 20 (pg. 44.10), enrollment at nine of the area's

fifteen schools is 90% of design capacity. Both Chocowinity High

School and Pinetown Elementary School were using trailers in 1987

to accommodate total enrollment. In 1986 County residents passed

a $12 million bond referendumi which when added to the County's
capital reserve fund begun in 1982, will be used to construct a*

new consolidated high school in Yeatesville, a new high school

facility for Washington City Schools, and renovate several other

County school facilities. The new high school at Yeatesville

will serve students in the Bath, Belhaveno Pantegoo and Pinetown

areas. All construction related to the bonds is targeted for

completion by the winter of 1?89.

Given current trends in population growtho the capacity of

the County's public schools should not pose major constraints to

growth. Enrollment at some local schools exceeds capacity,

however school enrollment is expected to decline slightly over

the next decade.

Water Services. Five of the County's seven incorporated

communities provide water service to their residents. Pantego

and Washington Park do not have a public system. Virtually all

County residents living outside the five communities with water

systems rely on private wells. Total water use by those not on

municipal systems in 1980 was estimated at 2.7 million gallons

per day (gpd). As shown in Table 21 (pg. 44.11), demand on all

municipal systems is currently well below capacity. Given the

moderate growth rate projected for the Countyq water supply will

not limit growth within these municipalities in the next decade.

Sewer Services. Four communities have public sewer systems

(Table 22, pg. 44.11). Pantego and Washington Park have no

public sewer system. Residents of Chocowinity currently rely on

private systems, however the Town is attempting to obtain fu nds

for construction of a public treatment system. Most residents

in outlying areas rely on in-ground septic systems. The Pamlico

Plantation project has a small package treatment plant. All

four communities with public sewer systems are currently involved

in or have recently completed improvements to their treatment

systems. Both Aurora and Belhaven have problems with infiltra-

tion of water from outside the system. Thus, system demand is

weather-dependent; during periods of wet weather, average demand

can more than double, exceeding capacity of the treatment

plants. In 1986, Aurora entered into an agreement with state

officials to make improvements at the plant's discharge point and

to submit a 201 Facilities Plan. Improvements to Belhaven's

system are expected to be finished by late 1988. When completed,

system capacity (currently 500,000 gpd) will double. For a number

of yearsq the Town had a moratorium on sewer hook-ups. As system

improvements are now in progress, the moratorium has been.lifted.

As of April 1987, Bath's system had been in operation less than

one year. The City of Washington began.improvements to its

system in 1985. If infiltration problems are corrected and all

system improvements are completed as anticipated, the capacity of

the County's municipal plants should prove adequate well into the

1990's. However, given the difficulty of siting in-ground

septic systems, it is likely that sewer extensions will be

requested . Before major. extensions can be accommodated in any'

municipal system, it is likely that additional system improve-

ments will be necessary.

Solid Waste. According to estimates by County officials,

the County's current landfill on S. R. 1334 near Bath will reach

capacity by the end of 1988. The County has a permit from the

State of North Carolina to increase the height of the current

permitted landfill by 16 feet. In July 1987 the Texasgulf

Corporation, owner of the 60-acre landfill site, donated the land

as well as a contiguous 35-acre parcel to the County. In June

1987 the County purchased an adjoining 40-acre parcel from the

Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Development plans call for expansion

of the landfill onto these tracts assuming necessary state

permits can be secured.

County officials are also investigating landfill alterna-

tives. In the spring of 1987, North Carolina's Department of

Energy and the Division of Coastal Management funded Beaufort

County, seven other counties and two marine bases, to study

the feasibility of initiating a resource recovery program in the

eight-county region. One or more plants would be constructed to

handle the regional waste load. Recyclable materials would be

incinerated to produce electricity to power the plant; surplus

electricity and steam would be sold.

Roads. Lack of service by a major interstate highway is

often cited as one of the major factors limiting the growth of

eastern North Carolina. U. S. 179 a major north/south route in

the eastern part of the state, widens to four-lanes in urban

areas, but for the most of its length, is a two-lane highway.

U. S. 264 from Raleigh to Washington will eventually be widened

to four-lanes according to state transportation plans. The

Washington-Greenville segment is scheduled for completion in the

fall of 1988.

The County has over 1,000 miles of roadway, totalling road

mileage inside and outside munici palities. The state Primary

Highway System in Beaufort County totals 170 miles; the state

Secondary Highway System totals 680 miles. In 1986, 270 miles

(30%) of the counties state-maintained highways were unpaved.

A number of highway improvements are planned for the

Beaufort County area as described earlier in Section D. 3. In

addition, two bridges are to be replaced and improvements to

automatic warning devices are scheduled at four railroad cross-

ings. Highway improvements are also scheduled within the City

of Washington.

Table 9
HARVESTED CROPLAND

(acres)
---------------------------------------------------
County BEAUFORT Bertie Hertford Martin Pitt
---------------------------------------------------
1978 124,600 90,100 50,800 78,300 156,000
1979 141,100 89,400 52,000 83,300 160,000
1980 136,000 93,000 50,20,0 81,500 159,000
1981 145,000 94,000 54,700 86,000 157,000
1982 150,300 91,900 49,000 87,000 154,000
1983 115,900 76,600 43,800 69,500 132,200
1984 128,600 84,900 47,300 75,600 145,100
---------------------------------------------------
Chg. 78 3.2% -5.8% -6.9% -3.4% -7.0%

Source: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service

Table 10
BEAUFORT COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 1981-1986

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Total
Structure 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 - 1986 81-86

-------------------------------------------------------------------
SF units 190 125 199 198 188 170 1,070
MF units 14 0 0 14 9 33 70
Mobile home 59 36 36 2 78 105 316
Non-residential 80 95 101 83 79 23 461

----- ----------- --- --- --- --- --- --- -----
Total Residential 263 161 235 214 275 308 1,456

Total Permits 343 256 336 297 354 331 1,917

Note: permits are for Beaufort County excluding City of Washington
Source: compiled by Mid-East Commission from County Building
Department records

44.1

Table 11
CAMA DEVELDPMENT PERMITS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6
D e Y e I o p m e n t P e r i t s D e Y e I o p m e n t P e r m i t 5
Major 6eneral Major General
County Approvals Rank Approvals Rank Approvals Rank Approvals Rank
r

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEAUFORT 20 4 150 1 19 4 19"01 1
BErtie 2 16 6 17 1 Is 4 18
Prunswick 11 1 35 8 15 6 34 9
Camden 4 22 9 4 14 19 11
Carteret 45 1 107 3 49 1 1533 1)
Chowan 5 if 5 -ITT 6 9 10 5, 6
Craven 13 5 16 13 7 3, 4 10
Currituck 13 6 87 4 18 5 79 4
Dare ')I T 139 2 ')8 2 196 2
A. U. L
Gates 1 18 2 is 2 17 1 20
Hertford 1 19 0 20 1 1?
Hyde 3 13 17 In
IL 10 9 1 16
New Hanover 45 2 12 15 21 1.1. 15
1
Onslow 7 7 16 14 17
Pamlico 10 8 61 5 1 8 6? 5
Pasqutnk 7 10 n!
Ll- 11 7-5 B
Pender T I -Z
0 14 1 19 7 1. 7 17
Perquimns 7 15 4 2 7 3 15 39 7
0
Tyrrell 1 20 15 14 1 20 14 14
Washingtn 2 17 11)
it 3 16 17 13

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 217 816 -).T- -
note: ranked by permits approved A.0 .3 - 979
Source: N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development;
Division of Coastal Management

44.2

Table IP

J61
LAUND CL"SSIFICATION

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Development Percent
Class Capability Limitations Acreage of Total Comments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few or none 500 0.11%, Needs only good
cultural sanagesent

........ .. ........ ........ 0........ ..
H Moderate to Moderate Moderate conservation
well drained; 569.500 11.0% practices required
erodible; 41200 0.81A,
highly permeable 410,100 0.8%
(subtotal! (67,000) (12.6%)

................................................................................
III Somewhat to Special conservation
poorly drained; Severe 317,800 59.8% measures required
highly erodible 205800 3.?Y1+
(subtotal) (338,600) (63.71%)

.................................... I..............................................
It", V, 1411 Very careful managetent
Poorly drained Very severe 7790,30 14.5141 required

s....................... I ..........................................................
VII Very poorly Use restricted to
drained to Very severe 14slOO 2.71% woodland, grazingi
swarlp-like or wildlife

.......... I...... I ......... I .......................................................
Vill Use restricted to
Marshlands Undevelopable 22s500 4.2% recreations wildlife,
and beaches sometimes water supply
.................................... I...... I....................................
Unclassified
Urban built-up 12,000 2.
areas

Total C431s"100 100.0%

Source: 'Long Range Program and Work Plan', Beaufort Soil & Water
CoRservation District, 1980

44.3

Table 13
MAJOR SOIL TYPES

----------- ----
--------------------------------------- Limitations-for: -----------------------------------------

----------------------
Soil Buildings W/o Septic Runoff Depth to High - % Total
Type Slope Basements Tanks-(1) Potential Water Table (ft) Co. Land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArapihoE fine sandy loam 0-2'A Severe Severe Varies 0.0 - 1.0 4.2%
Augusta fine sandy loam 0-2% Severe Severe Moderate 1.0 - 2.0 3.2%
Bayboro loam 0-@12% Severe Severe High +! - 0.5 5. 914
3.U
Cape Fear fine sandy loam 0-2@ Severe Severe High 0.0 - 1.5 z
Craven fine sandy loam 0-1% Moderate Severe Moderate 2.0 - 3.0 2.4%
Croatan suck 0-2% Severe Severe High +1 - 1.0 2.2%
Goldsboro fine sandy loam 0-2% Moderate Severe Slight 2.0 - 3.0 2.3%
Leaf loam 0% Severe Severe High 0.5 - 1.5 8.2%
Lenior loam 0% Severe Severe High 1.5 - 2.5 6.2%
Lynchburg fine sandy loam 0% Severe Severe Moderate 0.5 - 1.5 3.7%
riuckalee loam 0% Severe Severe High 0.5 - 1.5 4.0%
Pantego loam 0-2% Severe Severe Varies 0.5 - 1.5 2.7%
Ponzer muU 0-1% Severe Severe High 0.0 - 1.0 2.8@
Portsmouth loam 0-2% Severe Severe Varies 0.0 - 1.0 6.2%
Rains fine sandy loam 0% Severe Severe Moderate 0.0 - 1.0 3.5%
Roanoke fine sandy loam 0-2% Severe Severe High 010 - 1.0 8.4%
Torhunta sandy loam 0-2% Severe Severe Moderate 0.5 - 1.5 9.2%

Total 18.1%

(1) water table ) 4 ft. severe limitations
note- 'major" soils comprise 2% of more of 111 land;
limitations are for soil in virgin state with no improvements
Source: Soil Survey Maps & Interpretations Beaufort County N.C., U.S.D.A., S.C.S., J uly 1984

44.4

Table 14
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watercourse Classification

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pamlico-Tar River Inland Waters above railroad bridge at Washington;
Coastal Water below
Barris Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Bath Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Blounts Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Broad Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Calf Tree Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Chocowinity Bay Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Duck Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Durham Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Herring Run Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Hills Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Hudies Gut Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Lower Goose Creek Coastal Waters: Eustrine Waters AEC
Campbell Creek Inland Waters above Smith Creek;
Coastal Waters below
Smith Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Hunting Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Lower Spring Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Peterson Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Snode Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Mallard Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Mixon Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Nevil Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
North Creek Joint Waters:,, Eustrine Waters AEC
South Creek Inland Waters above Deephole Point;
Coastal Waters below
Bond Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Davis Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Drinkwater Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Jacobs Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Little Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Long Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Muddy Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Short Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC.
Tooleys Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Whitehurst Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Strawhorn Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
St. Clair Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Upper Goose Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC

44.5

Table 14 (cont.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 7------
Watercourse Classification

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pungo River Inland Waters above US 264 bridge at Leechville;
Joint Water's below bridge to Smith Creek;
Coastal Waters below Smith Creek
Flax Pond Bay Coastal Waters: Eustrine Waters AEC
George Best Creek Coastal Waters: Eustrine Waters AEC
Jordan Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Lower Dowery Creek Inland Waters, Public Trust Waters AEC
Pantego Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Pungo Creek Inland Water above NC 99 bridge;
Coastal Waters below
Scotts Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Smith Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Vale Creek Coastal Waters below
Satterwaite Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Toms Creek Coastal Waters: Eustrine Waters AEC
Upper Dowery Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Woodstock Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC
Wright Creek Inland Waters: Public Trust Waters AEC

Note 1: Indentation indicates the watercourse named is tribu-
tary to the next preceding watercourse named and not
so indented

Source: "North Carolina Fisheries Regulations for Coastal
-Waters.", 1qe7

Note 2: For management purposes, all water in the state has
been classified into one of three categories: inland
fishing waters, where fishing is regulated by the
Wildlife Resources Commission; coastal fishing waters,
where fishing activity is under the jurisdiction of
the Marine Fisheries Commission; and joint fishing
waters, where regulations developed by agreement of
both agencies are in effect. Under CAMA, joint
fishing waters are regulated as estuarine waters.

44.6

Table 14 Addendum

NURSERY AREAS AND WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION

WATER QUALITY CLASSJFICATIONS

The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) has the
responsibility of assigning the surface waters of the state
specific water quality classifications. These classifications
in turn determine what uses will be permitted in any specific
surface waterbody. A description of water quality classifica-
tions and very generally, the areas where these classifications
are found in the County, are noted below:

Freshwater Classifications

Class WS-11: water protected as drinking water supplies
which are in low to moderately developed watersheds; discharges
are restricted to primarily domestic wastewater or industrial
non-process waters specifically approved by the EMC. Locations:
Cherry Run and Tranters Creek.

Class C: suitable for secondary recreation (e.g. boating)
and fish propagation. Locations: Tar River from Beaufort
County line to U. S. 17 bridge.

Tidal Salt Water Classifications

Class SA: suitable for commercial shellfishing and all
other tidal salt water uses. Locations: Pamlico River south of
line drawn approximately from Hickory Point to west side of
North Creek; Pungo River south of Woodstock Point.

Class SB: suitable for swimming and primary recreation and
all Class SC uses. Locations: Pamlico River east of Washington
Park to start of Class SA waters; Pungo River north of Class SA
waters to shallow headwaters.

Class SC: suitable for secondary recreation and fish
propagation. Locations: Paml'.ica River south of U. S. 17 bridge
to start of Class SB waters at east end of Washington Park.

44.61

NURSERY AREAS

Maps of the Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas in Beaufort
County are on file with the Division of Marine Fisheries. In
comparison to adjoining Hyde Countyv Beaufort County has few
nursery areas. These lie in the eastern end of the County.
Very generallyq the Primary Nursery Areas in Beaufort County are
located in:

the shallow water areas of North Creek
East Fork
Frying Pan Creek
Little East Creek

A Secondary Nursery Area is., located in North Creek at its
confluence with East Fork.

Note: See "N. C. Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters ige7"
for specific delineations.

44.62

Table 15
UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS

---------------------------------------- 7 -----------------------------------
Site Number Site Name Description
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1N Beaufort Sweetgum Tract of surviving sweetgum-mixed hardwoods,
Swamp Forest swamp forest, and transition zones to pond
Remnant pine pocosin and pine savannah. Abundant
wildlife including bear.

...... . .. ..... ..... . .. .. ..... ..... ..... .. ..
2N Chocowinity Creek Transition to fresh water marsh which
widens into esturary of Pamlico River.

..... ..... ...... . ... .... .. .. .... .. . ... ....
3N Goose Creek Broad, tidal section of Pamlico River. Most
Natural Area significant for large low-5alinity marshes.
Swamp forest, shrub thickets, upland pine
thickets, upland pine forest also present.
Many waterfowl, herons, and other bird
species.

... .. ...... ....... .... .. .. w.... .......... .....
IN Indian Island Eastern portion largely freshwater marsh
with scattered pine, bay, myrtle. Abundant
herons, waterfowl. Osprey nests. Western
upland portion primarily sweetgum and live
oak forest.

................................................................... I .......
5N Suffolk Escarpment Area along escarpment primarily in bay
forest. At one time area along and below
escarpment had seeps (springs) with
utricularia geminiscapa.

note: number cooresponds to map location
3ource: North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development

44.7

Table 16
STRUCTURES OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

---------------------------------------------
---- Site-Name ------- -------- Site Number Location Comment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Archbell House 1 S.R 1339
Athens Chapel Church 2 S.R. 1343
of Christ
Bath Historic District 3 Bath National Registei
Belfont Plantation 4 S.R. 1411 National Register
Belhaven City Hall 5 Belhaven National Register
Bonner House 6 Edward
Colonel James Reading 7 S.R. 1143
Grist House
Cutter House 8 S.R. 1332
Hardison House 9 S.R. 1411
House 10 Washington area
Lucas-Taylor House 11 Washington area
Mayo House 12 Washington area
Mills House 13 N.C. 33
North Carolina Phosphate 14 S.R. 1946
Corporation
Pantego Academy 15 Pantego National Register
Pantego Jail 16 Pantego Study List
Pantego Historic District 16 Pantego Study List
Respess House 17 S.R. 1325
River Forest Manor 18 Belhaven
Rosedale 19 S.R. 1407 National Rergister
Rutledge House 20 Aurora Study List
Smaw House 21 U.S. 264
St. John's Church 22 S.R. 1932
Trinity Episcopal Church 23 Chocowinity
Washington Historic District 24 Washington National Register
Zion Episcopal Church 25 U.S. 264

Note: number references map location; locations approximate;
"Study List" refers to properties for which preliminary
findings of National Register eligiblity have been made
but which have not formally been nominated to the Regis-
ter; ommission of property from Study List does not imply
that property is not eligible for inclusion on list.

Source: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archieves and History

Please note: two structures appearing on previous listings of historic
structures in Beaufort County- the Bright House in Chocowinity
.and the Bonner House off S.R. 1331- have been destroyed.

44.8

Table 17
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS

------------------------------------------------
Soil Type Acres Percent Total
County Land

-----------------------------------------------
Altavista fine sandy loam 7,977 1.5%
Augusta fine sandy loam 17,082 3.2%
Craven fine sandy loams 26,162 4.9%
Dogue fine sandy loam 1,472 0.3%
Goldsboro sandy loam 11,970 2.3%
State sandy loam 2,705 0.5%
Yeopim loam 277 0.1%

-----------------------------------------------
Total 67,645 12.8%

Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service

Table 18
FUTURE REGIONAL POPULATION

----------------------------------------------------------------
% Change % Change
County 1985 1990 1995 85-90 90-95

----------------------------------------------------------------
BEAUFORT 43,260 47,314 50,702 9.4%. 7.2%
Bertie 21,341 21,760 21,895 2.0% 0.6%
Hertford 23,924 24,833 25,280 3.8% 1.8%
Martin 26,653 26,463 26,406 -0.7% -0.2%
Pitt 95,862 101,823 107,409 6.2% 5.5%

----------------------------------------------------------------
Region 211,040 222,193 231,692 5.3% 4.3%

State 6,253,951 6,597,922 6,930,994 5.5% 5.0%

Source: N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, 1986

Table 19
COUNTY POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE 1985-1995

---- ---- ----
1985 1990 1995
No. % No. % No. %

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-4 years 3,305 7.6% 3,646 7.7% 3,733 7.4%
5-19 years 9,814 22.7% 10,478 22.1% 10,768 21.2%
20-44 years 15,693 36.3% 16,977 35.9% 17,947 35.4%
45-64 years 8,612 19.9% 9,474 20.0% 10,946 21.6%
65 and older 5,836 13.5% 6,739 14..2% @ 7,308 14.4%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 43,260 100.0% 47,314 100.0% 50,702 100.0%

Source: N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, 1986

44.9

Table 20
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT

------------------------------------------------------------
Community School Grades Enrollment Capacity Enrllmnt
86-87 as % Cap.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Aurora High School 9-12 235 350 67%
S.W. Snowden Elem. K-8 595 650 92%

Bath Bath High School K-12 780 950 82%

Belhaven Belhaven Elem. Sch. K-6 495 525 94%
Wilkinson High Sch. 9-12 440 475 93%

Chocowinity Choco. High School 5-12 705 675 104%
Choc. Primary Sch. K-4 430 460 93%

Pantego Beaufort County Sch. K-6 220 350 63%
Pantego Jr. High Sch. 7-8 225 400 56%

Pinetown Pinetown Elem. K-8 205 180 114%

Washington Eastern Elem. K-2 965 935 103%
John Small Elem. 5-6 580 650 89%
Jones Jr. High Sch. 7-9 925 1,050 88%
Tayloe Elem. 3-4 615 560 110%
Washington High Sch. -10-12 840 1,072 78%
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
Total 8,255 9,282 89%

Source: Land Use Plans- Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, Washington; I
updated by City of Washington and County School Departments

44.10

Table 21
MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS

------------ ------ ----- --------- ------ -- -
Municipality Supply Total Estimated Demand as%
Source Capacity Demand (gpd) Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora 2 wells 288,000 100,000 35%
Bath 2 wells 216,000 30,350 14%
Belhaven 2 wells 504,000 365,000 72%
Chocowinity 2 wells 375,000 157,000 42%
Washington I well and 2,920,000 1,500,000 51%
surface supply

------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Land Use Plans- Aurora, Bath, Belhaven,
Table 22 Washington; Town of Chocowinity
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

------------------------------------------ 7 -----------
Estimated Demand as %
Municipality Total
Capacity Demand (gpd) Capacity
------------------------------------------------------
Aurora 120,000 90,300 75%
Bath 40,000 30,350 76%
Belhaven 1,000,000 350POOO 35%
Washington 2,250,000 1,810,000 80%

------------------------------------------------------

Source: Land Use Plans- Aurora, Bath, Belhaven,
Washington

44.11

Figure 7

Beaufort County

Land Use 1986

Crop/pasture (27.5%)

Urban (2.3%)

Rural developed (5.9%) Forest (64.3%)

Source: Office of State Budget and Management

Figure 8

Harvested Cropland
1978-1984
170 -

160 -

150 -
Pitt

140 -

130 - BEAUFORT
I
120 -

0
X1. -a
U) C: 110 -
Q)0
Lj L- U)
<0 100 -

90 -
Bertie

80 -
Mortin

50 Hertford

40 -
1978 .1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

Yea r

SOUrce: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service

Figure 9

Permits Issued

400

350 -

Total Permits

300

w
:3
250

U)
E
L_ 200 13 B

Single-family
C
v 150

100 Mobile homes

50
Multifamily

0
1981 19812 1983 1984 1985 1986

Ye a r

Source: Mid-East Commission computations based on
County Building Department

LOCATIONAL KEY

Land Use Category Site Number Name

Municipal Planning
Jurisdiction I Washington
2 Washington Park
3 Chocowinity
4 Bath
5 Pantego
6 Belhaven
7 Aurora

Industrial 8 Texasgulf

Institutional 9 Voice of America

Public Open and 10 Goose Creek State
Park
Recreation 11 Goose Creek Wildlife
Management Area

Private Open and 12 Camp Bonner
Recreation 13 Camp Hardee
14 Roanoke Christian
Service Camp
15 Whichard Beach

44.15

C 10,U ti

w A

S w A

Th's praparatloo of this "P was fl.-d 1.
through ant Provid d by the North
t.1
C:.,., man M:L.t prog-.
through funds rro@td*d by the Coastal loos,
N,
na mg@t Act of 1972. a. -d*d, wh_.*h
is ft, by th. Mi.. of 0-am -4 -7;
C.t. t
0-SLI and A
4 C

I P

sual.

Industrial
wr

Institutional

Urbanized Area

Rural Concentration

Public Open & Recreation

a w
Private Open & Recreation.

Municipal Planning Jurisdiction

C U
A 3--m

--A

Ji-
- t
J

S W

taaw

S W A M P

-M

TO-

-Q,
5

5F.

oa.

The pr*"r;ttIm,,ot'thi., ;d I
'a t p
"rt 1hrl, :id.:"b,"l'h. th
Carolina Coastal Malagement P1.6rem,
thr-Sh f..d. p-idad b, the C ... t.I I...
Man:geme ttAct of lh9726ffll.- d*d.
b t i. .; I. h!,-h p a C 0 S I
1. d.1. e ad
is I'd Laage,seat. Nallons
Coastal Re "rc Z 1
Oce@Le and At=wric AdmialstralLi-

4. A I

-a@

Historic Structure

Unique Natural Area 5 N,;
41 41

Archaeological ly Sensitive Area

44 16 7

IV. POLICY OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Review of 1981 Policy Effectiveness

In 1981 the County adopted a number of policy objectives in

the areas of resource protection, resource production and

management, and economic and community development to guide land

development in the unincorporated areas of the County for the

following five years. As a first step in updating the County's.

19el land use plans the Land Use Advisory Committee evaluated how

far the. County had come in achieving the goals set in 1981. By,

evaluating the objectives and implementation actions of the 19B1

programg Committee members hoped to make the County's 1987 land

use plan a more effective document.

On a scale of A to Fv the effectiveness of the County's

1981 plan could be ra,ted about a B+. Most of the implementation

strategies outlined for specific policy.. objectives have been

acted-on. The County haso as specified in its 1981 plang

enforced development standards for minor projects in AECs,

designated several sites for new industrial development; and

entered into the regular phase of the Federal Flood Insurance

Program. As recommended in the 1981 plan, the County applied

for, and has received, funds for housing rehabilitation. In the

fall of 19879 the County was awarded a $600,000 Community

Development Block Grant for improvements for about 40 houses in

the Blounts Creek area.

Two of the items not carried-out as part of the 198 1

planning program have been incorporated in the 1987 plan. in an

effort'to protect historic resources, the plan recommends that

the County reinstate the Historic Properties Commis'sion and

recommended that this Commission revise the County's inventory

of historic structures. The 1987 plan also recommends that the

County update its water system plang and that a County-wide

water system be advocated if such plan proves feasible.

Several of the policies adopted as part of the 1981 plan

have been restated in the County's 1987 land use plan. The

County will continue to protect its natural and cultural re-

sourcesq arid to plan for industrial development and community

improvements. Howeve'rq due to changing conditions. in Bea ufort

County and in eastern North Carolinay the Town's 1987 plan

recommends several new action-items for consideration. A

complete listing of the policy objectives and implementation

strategies the County had adopted to guide development in

Beaufort County through 1992 follow.

B. Resource Protection

Beaufort County is rich in natural resources. Wetlands,

woodlands, croplands9 and fresh and estuarine waters provide

habitat for a vast array of fish and wildlife. The Pamlico River

is the keystone of th e County's development future. Tourism,

residential development,. and commercial and recreational fishing

are contingent upon maintaining the integrity of its waters.

The quality of life in every city and town in the County, in

every crossroads community, and throughout the unincorpo rated

areat hinges on protecting the County's abundant natural re-

sources. The results of the County's public survey set out a

clear agenda for the next five years: give top priority to

preserving the County's natural resources, especially its fresh.

and estuarine waters.,

Many of the County's resources are exhibitfng symptoms of

stress and degradation. The County acknowledges this gradual

deterioration and has adopted the following, policy objectives in

an effort to reverse this trend.

Resource Protection Policy Objectives and Implementation

protect and enhance water quality in the Pamlico River and its
tributaries

a. support innovative wastewater treatment systems that
eliminate discharges of domestic wastewater into the
surface waters of the state; support use of package
treatment plants only if other alternatives are not
available; oppose issuance of permits to discharge
domestic wastewater into the Pamlico River.

b. support expansion of the Agricultural Cost Share
Program to include the counties of the' upper Tar
drainage area.

C. support control of urban stormwater runoff by local
communities.

d. consider adopting subdivision regulations that set
maximum runoff standards and encourage use of innova-
tive stormwater controls.

e. encourage regulatory, administrative@ and educational
efforts in upstream communities (e.g. improvements to
wastewater treatment facilities, adoption. of land use
Controls, in,stituting stormwater controls, etc.) that
will help improve water quality in downstream areas.

2. preserve a rid protect Areas of Environmental Concern

a. support development in AECs only if such development
meets the management objectives in 15 NCAC 7H.020-3 and
the use standards in 15 NCAC 7H.0208 and .0209.

b. support construction of :'-marinas according to the
following standards:

marinas not to be located in Primary or Secondary
1 Nursery Areas;
!marinas in Class SA or WS-1, WS-II,' or WS-.III
waters to be provided with pump-outs;
timing of marina construction involving dredging
to be determined.by Division of Marine Fisheries.

C. consider adopting subdivision regulations which use
incentives to preserve land adjoining AECs.

Imarina boat basin with capacity to moor ten (10) or more
vessels

3. protect the County's present and future water su pply

a. support establishment of a state fund to assist
communities in removing leaking underground storage
tanks (USTs) and in cleaning up affected water
supplies.

b. support regulations which control the siting, construc-
tiony and maintenance of USTs; support projects in
which no USTs will be placed within 100 ft. of surface
waters.

C. support Capacity Use groundwater monitoring by the
Department of Environmental Management (DEM). Should
si@nificant declines in groundwater levels be noted,
urge DEM to limit withdrawals, giving municipal uses
priority over industrial uses.

d. request that the Coastal Resources Commis.sion designate
Tranters Creek a publdc water supply AEC should the
creek ever be used to. supply a County water system.

4. protect the County's historic and,,cultural resources

a. support local Historic Commissions in area communities;
encourage strict -enforcement of Historic District
ordinances.,

b. consider reinstating the County's Historic Properties
Commission; review and revise the inventory of historic
properties in the County. Consider giving properties
of special importance a local historic property
designation.

C. support proposals which will have no negative impacts
on historic or archaeologic resources.

5. provide for safe, environmentally sound development

a. support a demonstration program for septic alterna-
tives.

b. support expansion of municipal water and sewer systems;
support wastewater rojects proposing alternatives to
surface water. discharge systems.

C. study the feasibility of a County water and sewer
system; develop strategy to generate public support for
such systems if projects appear feasible.

d. consider adopting performance-based subdivision
regulations where Lot size is determined in part by
soil suitability.

6. protect wildlife habitat and preserve scenic resour ces

,a. actively oppose the take-over. of County air-space by
military operations.

b. consider the establishment of a land conservation fund
which would protect areas of environmental, recreation-'
al or aesthetic importance by in-fee aquisition or
purchase-in-lessthan fee techniques.

C. consider adopting subdivision regulations which offer
incentives for preserving environmentally sensitive
areas and scenic landscapes.

d. review development of inland wetlands protection
programs by state,and federal agencies so that inland
wetlands are afforded protection similar to that now
afforded coastal wetlands under CAMA.

C. Resource Production and Management

The economic future of the County hinges on protecting the

County's productive natural resources. Many of the County's

manufacturing, retail, and service enterprises are directly or

indirectly involved with.resou rce development. Many re sidents

work the land: in 1984 the County ranked seventh in the state

for total harvested cropland. Other residents rely on the water

for their livelihood: in 1985 the County ranked sixth out of

the twenty coastal counties in seafood landings and seventh in

the number of commercial licenses issued.

Many diverse activities are affecting the quality and

quantity of the County's productive resources. Farmland is

being lost to- residential development; commercial seafood
landings are declini'ng; recreational catches are diminishing.

The County recognizes the importance of preserving its productive

natural resources and has adopted the following policies to

protect and enhance these resources.

Resource Production and Management

Policy Objectives and Implementation

1. preser-ve and enhance agricultural uses in Beaufort County

a. promote and expand the Farmers Market in do 'wntown
Washington. Enlist the assistance and support of the
Agricultural Extension Service and the Chamber of
Commerce and work with other area communities to
develop markets in which all County farmers could
participate.

b. support municipalities in designing programs for public
improvements so that financing avoids imposition of
costs on agricultural property whose agricultural use
will not benefit from those improvements.

C. encourage farmers owning parcels of 10 acres or more
to apply for use-value assessment.

d. consider adopting subdivision regulations to ensure
that land is used efficiently when agricultural
properties are subdivided.

2. protect commercial forest lands

a. encourage owners of parcels 20 or more acres in size
to apply for use-value assessment.

b. encourage operators to leave vegetative buffer between
cleared areas and major (i.e. paved) roadways.

C. support a program administered by state or federal
agencies to minimize drainage of wetlands for silva-
cultural activities.

d. encourage immediate 'replanting of areas! cleared for
timber.

3. 'protect and enhance commercial and recreational fishing
activities in the Pamlico River and its tributaries

a. consider adopting criteria for siting of marinas which
protects important nursery areas.

b. support state efforts to reduce nutrient loading in
the County's surface waters

(i) encourage more stringent restrictions on nitrogen
discharges;
(ii) support regulations controlling the disposal of
animal wastes.

C. consider adopting subdivision regulations which use
incentives to preserve areas adjoining Primary and
Secondary Nursery Areas.

d. review the need for additional public river access
sites - a minimum of one on each side of the river,
Apply for funding to 'conduct a Beach Access Study;
based on study results, apply for a Beach Access Grant
from the Division of Coastal Management and apply for
assistance from the Office of Water Resources under the
Civil Works Project Program.

e. support development of a fisheries management program
and regulations for both commercial and sports fisher-
man; support expansion of local operations serving
both commercial and recreational users; request that
the Division of Marine Fisheries investigate the
possibility of. closing the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers to
commercial trawling and hauling.

f. encourage activites such as "catch and release`
programs which attempt to preserve declining species.

9. request that the Division of Marine Fisheries investi-
gate culling practices at local fish processing plants
to assure that significant numbers of undersize and
"tVash" fish are not being wasted to the detriment of
future stocks.

4. preserve areas of prime farmland

a. consider adopting a policy to preserve prime agricult-
ural land. Submit proposals for public projects to the
SCS for review. Carefully review projects which in the
,opinion of the SCS, will have adverse impacts on
Important areas of prime agricultural land.

b. support development of a comprehensivT state program
for farmland preservation. Support legislation that
proposes to study programs existing in other areas and
to develop appropriate programs and techniques for use
in North Carolina.

5. ensure efficienty environmentally sound agricultural produc-
tion

a. support use of Best Management Practices for agricul-
tural land use and production.

b. work with the SCS to encourage participation in the
state's Agricultural Cost Share Program.

C. support @the Conservation Provisions of the 19E35 Farm
.Bill:

conservation reserve
conservation compliance
sodbuster
swampbuster

6. provide for development that preserves the area's productive
natural resources

a. support additional mini.ng activity only if in the
opinion of appropriate officials at the Department of
Natural Resources and .Community Development, the
project will have no long term significant impacts on
land, airo or water resources; support development of
special review criteria for mining activities involving
rivers and creeks.

b. support only t hose proposals for industrial development
that demonstrate that their implementation will lead to
no significant adverse impacts on traditional and/or
current uses of land and water resources.

C. support development in accordance with the Land
Classification Map. High density development should
generally adjoin developed areas, however the County
will support projects which involve conversi .on of farm
and/or forest land if the benefits of the project
clearly outweigh any negative impacts which might
result. In all cases, the County supports preservation
of areas of prime farmland.

D. Economic and Community Development

In 1987 the County had 45,400 residents scattered among

seven incorporated placesp many crossroad communities, and a

number of waterfront developments. The County is growing: by

1995, the County is expected to have over 50,000 people residing

within its boundaries.

Many of these who live in the County also work there. Many

earn th.eir livelihood from the County's abundant natural re-

sources: farming, fishing, forestry, And mining enterprises

employ a considerable number of area residents. The County has

over 45 manufacturing firms; one-third of these are directly

involved in local resource development.

The County recognizes the importance of providing for a

strong local economy,,ensuring a mix of local emp.loyment oppor-

tunitiesq and for preserving and enhancing the quality of life

for area residents. To that end, the County has adopted the

following policies to provide for the growth and economic

development of the County.

Economic and Community Development

Policy Objectives and Implementation

provide for commercial and industrial growth and expansion
which meets the objectives of the County's Land Use Plan

a. support the Committee of 100 and the Chamber of
Commerce in their efforts to market the County's
designated industrial sites.

b. support groups such as the Mid-East Commissiong the
Regional Development Institute, and the Small Business
Institute at East Carolina University,-which provide
assi@stance to new and small businesses and to economic
development projects.

C. assist the Committee of 100 in developing a County
Industrial Park and in constructing a building on
speculation to house future industrial tenants.

d. support the Economic Development Task Force in its
efforts to identify solutions to regional problems
through public/private partnerships.

e. work with municipalities to extend water and/or sewer
services to industrial and commercial firms locating
outside municipal service areas in accordance with the
Land Classification Map; for residential projects in
the unincorporated areap water and sewer service is to
be the responsibility of the devel oper.

f. advocate a County water and sewer system should studies
prove feasibility of such projects.

2. provide for the orderly growth of the County

i
a. consider adopting subdivision regulations; link
density requirements to the County's L@nd Classi-
fication Map.

b. consider adopting the revised Mobile Home Park Ordin-
ance.

C. adopt a system for land classification which sets out
an explicit development scheme for the County; adopt a
i I
land classification map which clearly delineates this
development scheme.

3. increase access to public trust waters

a. develop additional sites for public access an both
sides of the Pamlico River; contact the'state Division
of Coastal Management and Office of Water Resources for
assistance in funding land acquisition and site
development.

b.. encourage developers of waterfront projects to contri-
bute to a land conservation fund; target contributions
to public access projects.

4. promote and enhance tourism opportunities in the County

a. develop an annual calendar of all special events to be
held throughout the County; publicize monthly listing
of events in appropriate local, regional, and national
publications.

b. support the development of a museum to commemorate
the life and works of Cecil B. deMille.

C. support regional proposals to promote tourism: support
the concept of initiating a paddlewheel showboat to
tour the North Carolina coast; work with proponents to
ensure that Beaufort County communities are included
as stopping,points.

5. preserve and enhance the quality of life in the County

a. continue to apply for funding for housing improvements'
under the Community Development Block Grant program.

b. support the development and enhancement of urban
waterfront areas; be prepared to address problems
related to waterfront areas (overcrowdi.ng, sanitation
problems, floating homes, etc.) should such concerns
arise.

c. consider adopting subdivision regulations to preserve
the rural character of outlying areas.

E. Public Participation

The 1987 Beauf6rt County Land Use Plan reflects the input

and interests of the County's diverse citizenry. The public

participation component of the planning program is documented in

Chapter 1. As noted previouslyp the Advisory Committee conducted

a public survey - to generate interest in the planning program

as well as to serve as a gu Iide for policy decisions. All

Advisory Committee meetings were advertised via radio and

newspaper as being open to interested persons. Committee

meetings were characterized Dy light citizen attendanceg.but

those citizens who did attend were encouraged to express their

concerns and comments. A listing of all meetings held as part

of the planning program is contained in Appendix G.

The Advisory Committee and the Commissioners recognize the

importance of keeping the citizenry informed of current planning

concerns and of receiving the 'comments and concerns of local

residents. Thus% the County has adopted the following policy

objectives.

Public Participation

Policy Obiectives and Implementation

1. solicit citizen input in all planning decisions

a. advertise all special Board of Commissioners meetings
in the Daily News; periodically advertise the Board's
regular meeting date; emphasize that citizens are
invited and encouraged to attend all meetings dealing
with planning issues.

b. appoint ad hoc committees to-address special planning
issues; ensure composition of committees represents
diversity of interest groups; advertise committee
meetings and encourage citizen participation.

2. apprise.the public of planning issues as they develop

a. report important planning and community development
issuesp decisionsq and developments to the Daily News;
provide information and assistance in preparing
feature art,icles addr essing land use and development
issues.

F.. Storm Hazards

North Carolina is well-known for the hurricanes and tropical

storms that batter its coastline and the tornados 'that ravage

inland areas. Typically, the bulk of hurricane storm damage

occurs in coastal areas. Hurricanes and tropical storms have

howeverp caused severe damage in estuarine and inland areas

in the past. The storm of 1913 raised the water level of the
Paml'ico River to a height of 10 feet in the City pf Washington,

inundating the community and surrounding area. Similar storms

in 1933 and 193e caused considerable damage to waterfront

communitiesq and major storms occurred in 1954, 1955, 1960,

and 1970. In 1984 the County adopted a storm hazard mitigation

plan5 Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's

Way. The plan provides information on areas at risk from storm

damage, outlines policies on storm hazard mitigationg presents a
detailed plan for evacuation of the County should a storm event

occur, and includes a reconstruction plan to guide rebuilding

after the storm. The County's storm hazard mitigation plan was

the source of the following information on storm hazards,

reconstruction policies, and evacuation procedures. A complete

copy of this plan is available for review at the Beaufort County

Department of Emergency Managementv 112 W. Second Street in

Washington.

1. Hazard Areas

The flooding, wave action, and erosion associated with

hurricanes and other major storms severely threaten three

categories of land in the County: Areas of Environmental

Concerng areas subject to flooding, and areas with hi.ghly

erodible soils. The AECs in Beaufort County as described in

Chapter III, are public trust areas, estuarine waters and

estuarine shorelineso and coastal wetlands. Floodprone areas in

the County have been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency; generally, flood-prone areas adjoin the County's AECs

and the County's many small creeks and streams. The County's

official floodplain maps are on file at the Office of Emergency

Management.

Ar eas with highly erodible soils are shown in Exhibit I

(pg. 6B.1). Nine shoreline areas where the threat of erosion is

especially severe have been identified based an a 1975 study by

the Soil Conservation Service. As shown in Exhibit 2 (pg. 68.2),

these are reaches 29 4, 6, 149 15, 16, 17) 18, and 19. A com-

posite map of mappable storm hazard areas in Beaufort County is

presented in Exhibit.3 (pg. 68.4).

The.Beaufort County SLOSH Map (pg. 68.12) delineates areas

at risk from various severi,ties of storms. SLOSH (Seaq Lake and

Overland Surge From Hurricanes), simulates the height of storm

surges from hurricanes of a predicted severity. The National

Weather Service ranks hurricanes into categories 1 through 5

based on their wind speed. SLOSH analyzes each hurricane

category scenario and provides a boundary where flooding is

expected to occur. For example, Category 1 and 2 hurricanes,

with wind speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph), wou.ld produce
a storm surge o-f between 4 to 8 feet, flooding areas closest to

the shoreline. Category 3 storms, defined by wind speeds of

.between Ill and 130 mph, would produce a storm surge of between 9

and 12 feet and extend flooding further inland. Category 4 and

5 storms are the storms of greatest intensity. These storms

have wind speeds of over 130 mph and could produce storm surges

of over 19 feet and effect areas well away from the waterfront.

As shown on the Beaufort County SLOSH map, the east half of the

County is more severely threatened by damage from hurricanes of

all severities then the western half.

Haz ards from flooding, wave action, and erosion are limited

primarily to waterfront areas, however the entire County is

threatened by high winds associated with a major storm event.

As notedlin the County's hurricane plan, the -County is suscept-

ible to annual extreme fastest wind speeds of between 120 and 130
miles per hour. (The annu al extreme designation means that there

is an one percent or greater chance of that speed being equalled

in any one year.)

2. Vulnerability to Storm' Damage

Table 23 (pg. 68.10) ranks the severity of risk in each of

Beaufort County's hazard areas according to the damaging, forces
likely to o@cur there. Shoreline areas will bear the full force

of a hurricane since they lie directly on the land-water inter-

face and are among the most dynamic features of the coastal

landscape. Shoreline erosion poses day-to-day hazards for

coastal development; hurricanes and other major storms accelerate

these processes so that drastic-changes in the local landscape

can occur in a few hours. During a hurricanep estuarine shore-

line areas will be subject to severe erosion and scouringo direct

wave action, battering by debris, inundation by the storm s..urge,

and high winds. Coastal wetlands will be subject to wave action,

flooding, and high winds, but are less susceptible to erosion. In

flood-prone areas, there is some risk of structures being

undermined as floodwaters rise and recede. All other sections

of the County will be subject to high winds but should remain

relatively safe from the damaging water forces of a hurricane.

Of course, a catastrophic hurricane in the form of a Beaufort

County landfall can unleash the full complement of damaging

forces beyond the boundaries of any hazard area.@

The County's hurricane plan notes that most of the developed

or urbanized areas of the County are within the hazard area aE@

delineated in Exhibit 3. Moreover, as noted in Chapter III. B.,

the focus of development over the next five years will be at the

waterfront in the storm hazard area. Table 24 (pg. 68.10)

estim ates the number and value of structures threatened by storm

damage in the County. As noted, over 6,000 residential dwell-

ings,,180 commercial structures, and 50 institutional structures

are threatened by storm hazards. These structures are estimated

to have a total value of almost $300 million dollars (1982

estimates).

3. Evacuation Plans

Exhibit 4 (pg. 68.5) outlines the evacuation routes that

County residents, workers, and visitors would utilize in the

event of a storm disaster. Capac'ity analyses indicate that these

routes are adequate for evacuation purposes (Table 25, pg.

68.11), unless the routes are inhibited at critical "surge

inundation points" as described in Exhibit 5 (pg. 68.8).

Preliminary evacuation times at selected inundation points appear

in the County's 1984 evacuation plan. Subsequent to adoptidn of

the County's plang emergency management officials began working

to develop more precise estimates. Revised estimates of evacua-

tion times are expected to be issued in August 1987 and will be

available through the County's Departme nt of Emergency Manage-

ment.

4. Reconstruction

Rebuilding after a major storm occurrence will be guided by

the Beaufort County Disaster Relief 'and Assistance Plan which

was adopted in September of 1982. Those sections of the plan

most pertinent to post-disaster reconstruction are Annex F

Beaufort County Damage Assessment Plan; Annex G Disaster

Assistance Center Plan; Annex H - Disaster Assistance Program

Summary; and Annex J Beaufort County Plan for Temporary

Housing. The County's storm hazard mitigation plan notes that

the damage assessment procedures outlined in Annex F purpose@

organization, concept of operation and articulation of responsi-

bilities - appear adequate to serve local needs after a storm

disaster.

The County advocates the following schedule for staging and

permitting repairs following a major storm event:

repair and rebuild essential service facilities such
as electricity, water and sewer - first.

repair other . public facilities as necessary for
shelter.

use a triage (or worst damage last) approach td
staging the reconstruction effort. Those properties
with little damage should be permitted immediately, if
they comply with permit requirements already. Nextq
those with moderate damage meeting permit requirements,
followed by those with moderate damage requiring
permit decisions. Those with extensive damage requir-
ing permit decisions or demolition decisions should
receive treatment last since their work would more
likely interfere with the reconstruction of essential
publicutilities and facilities'.

be prepared to adopt a temporary moratorium on all
new development ,for a specified period of time. This
would allow the County to deal with more pressing
community recovery and reconstruction permitting
.problems without "devoting its resources to reviewing@
new development propo sals.

The County's Recovery Task Force will oversee the recon-

struction process and address any policy questions that might

arise. The Task Force will work with state and federal represen-

tatives such as the Interagency Regional'Hazard Mitigation Team

and the Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Survey and Planning Teams.

The local Recovery Task Force will provide information and

guidance to state and federal recov ery efforts and play an

advocacy role in decisions regarding state and federal disaster

assistance. Members of the County's Recovery Task Force include

the County Commissionersq the County Engineer and Building

Inspectorsq the County Manager, the managers and engineers of

each municipalitys the County Emergency Management Coordinator,

and the Director of the County Health Department.

All repairs and new development done as part of reconstruc-

tion efforts will be done in accordance with applicable st ate and

local development controls. The Board of County Commissioners
will be the local legislativ Ibody directing implementation of
e

the policies and procedures outlined in the reconstruction plan.

5. Coordinating Agencies

The state and federal agencies involved in coordinating

local storm hazard mitigation and hurricane preparedness activi-

ties are listed in Appendix F.

The County acknowledges that certain areas of the community

are threatened by severe damage from hurricanes and,tropical

storms. Much of the County's residential, commercial, and

industrial development - extant and potential - lies within the

area most severely, threatened by storm damage. To protect

present and future residents from the threats of severe stormsi

the County has adopted the following policy objectives.

Storm Hazard Policy Objectives and Miticiation

(note: the policy alternatives considered and ultimately
adopted as part of the County's Hurricane Plan are contained in
Appendix H.)

1. utilize regulatory controls to reduce the -risk of hurricane
damage

a. enforce the state building code for all new construc-
tion within the County.,

b. enforce the County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
C. consider' adopting subdivision regulations that include
special provisions for development. within the storm
hazard area.

2. increase public awareness of the need for hurricane prepara-

a. support the I'preparedness" program state and local
emergency management officials conduct in local
schools.

b. work with state officials to plan and conduct an
area-wide hurricane evacuation exercise.

6E3

Exhibit I

IfW

7-11

Key Areas with
particularly erodible
soils and.water table
between 18" & 24"..
SOUrce: E. H. Kar'nowski,
District ASCA

Exhib i t 2

LEGEND
REACH BEAUFORT
Source: Before the Storm, in Beaufort County-: NORTH CAR
Avoiding Harm's Way, June 1984

Exhibit 2 (cant.)

REACH 1140. 1 REACH No. 11
Av. width lost to erosion 46.7 feet Av. wiath lost to erosion 5S.1 feet
Av. height of bank 2.4 feet Av. height of bank 4.7 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 29.4 miles Length of shoreline eroding 4.1 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 39.0 miles Total length of shoreline 4.4 miles

REACH NO. 2 REACH NO. 12
Av. width lost to erosion 77.6 feet Av. widt t to erosion 31.9 feet
Av. height of bank 4.6 feet Av. height of bank 5.6 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 4.9 miles Length of shoreline eroding 5.1 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 5.S miles Total length of.shoreline 5.8 miles

REACH 1140. 3 REACH M. 13
Av. W-idth-lost to erosion 42.6 feet. Av. width lost to erosion SS.5 feet
Av. height of bank 3.6 feet Av. height of bank 3.7 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 1.9 miles Length of shoreline eroding 4.8 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 2.3 miles Total length of shoreline 8.0 miles

REACH NO. REACH NO. 14
Av. width lost to erosion S9.7 feet Av. widt t to erosion 69.6 feet
Av. height of bank 3.1 feet Av. height of bank 3.3 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 6.2 miles Length of.shoreline eroding 16.1 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0miles Length of shoreline aCCTeting 0 'miles
Total length of shoreline 7.0 miles Total length of shoreline 18.7 miles

REACH NO. S REAM NO. IS
Av. width lost to erosion ZS.2 feet Av. width lo'st to erosion 76.6 feet
Av. height of bank 3.7 feet Av. height of bank 2.9 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 10.1 miles Length of shoreline eroding 2.2 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 12.2 miles Total length of shoreline Z.3 miles

REACH NO. 6 REACH No. 16
Av. width lost to erosion S9.8 feet Av. widt t to erosion 116.5 feet
Av. height of bank 7.6 feet Av. height of bank 2.4 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 2.1 miles Length of shoreline eroding 1.7 miles
Length of shoreline accreting -0 miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 2.2 miles Total length of shoreline- 1.8 miles

REACH NO. 7" REACH 140. 17
Av. width lost to erosion 23.S, feet Av. width TFst to erosion 58.3 feet
Av. height of bank Z.8 feet Av. height of bank 1.5 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 10.7 miles Length of shoreline eroding -10.8 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 11.9 miles Total length of shoreline 17.1 miles

REACH NO. 8 REACH NO. 18
Av. width lost to erosion S3.8 feet Av. widt t to erosion 82.S feet
Av. height of bank 2.0 feet Av. height of bank 1.5 feet
Length of shoreline eroding 1.0 miles Length of shoreline eroding 1.0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 1.0 miles Total length of shoreline 1.0 miles

REACH INO. 9 REACH NO. 19
Av. width lost to erosion S7.8 feet Av. width Ios't to erosion 102.1 feet.
Av. height of bank 1.6 feet Av. height of bank 3.5. feet
Length of shoreline eroding 6.3 miles Length of shoreline eroding 2.1 miles
Length of shoreline accretin& . 0miles Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline 8*2 miles Total length of shoreline 2.1 miles

REACH .40. 10
.Av. width lost to erosion S2.5 feet
Av. height of bank 13.9 feet
Lcngth of shoreline eroding 60 miles 68.3
Length of shoreline accreting 0miles
Total'Iength of shoreline 6.0 miles

Fxhibit 3
BE

NOR

HURRI QA1,E HAZARDS MAP

Source: Before the Storm in Beaufort County:
Avoiding lla='s Way, June

Exhibit 4

PaCrOWN 13,v AJCM
541612

44
32 TEGO
264 4-
7 8
264
-WASdI 92
33
N
X 264
(,CHOCO 92 Yo
L 5
FO
N

33
92
@44q,,o
17 sl

HCKORY
T

TH tie
EEWL
HURRICANE EVACUATION 33
ROUTES AND SHELTERS
33 0 CRE
BEAUFORT. COUNTY AURORA
NORTH CAROLINA

Source: Before the Storm in Beaufort Count
kv-OIUU@- . Mel

EXHIBIT 4 (cont.)

BEAUFORT COUNTY
HURRICANE EVACUATION ROUTES AND SHELTERS

AREA ROUTES SHELTER

I West end of Washington take nearest route to Eastern Elementary
15th Streetq then east on 15th Street. East Schoolq 264 East
end of Washington take nearest route to and Hudnell Street
Charlotte Streetp north on Charlotte to 264, (shelters also noted
east,on 264. at 7 and 8)

2 Washington Park and east of Washington Park Beaufort County-
to Broad Creekq take, Brick Kiln Road to 2649 Community College
west on,264. Bunyan

Upper Goose Creekq Duck Creekq west Side of Beaufort County
Bath Creek take nearest route'to 264 then Community College
west on 264. Bunyan

3 East side Bath Creeko St. Clair Creek, North Bath High School
Creek, Pamlico Beach, Wright Creek$ Jordan
Creek, take 92 to Bath.

Pungo Creek nearest route to 264, 264 east Pantego Jr. High
to Pantego. Leechvilleg*Belhaven take 264 School
west to Pantego.

5 Whichards Beach S. R. 1166 to U. S. 17, Chocowinity High
U. S. 17 south to Chocowinity. Chocowinity School
Bay to Blounts Creek Bayt nearest route to 33,
then 33 west to Chocowinity.

6 Hickory Point S. R. 1946 to 1942, 1942 to Aurora High School
1940, 1940 to Aurora. South Creekq Spring
Creek 1912 to Aurora, Campbell Creek west
on 33.

Township 4 (Goose Creek Island),Pamlico Aurora High School
Countyq take State Road 33 to Aurora. If
Aurora shelter is filled then continue on
33 to Chocowinity.

7 Take nearest route to Pinetown. Pinetown Elementary
School

a Residents from eastern area of County Chocowinity Primary
(southside of river) take neare:t route School
S
to 33 then west to Chocowinity.

68.6

EXHIBIT 4 (cont.)

AREA ROUTES SHELTERS

9 Overflow Pantego/Belhaven area. Beaufort County
Elementary School

10 These shelters will not be utilized Wilkinson High
in a hurricane threat to Beaufort School and Belhaven
County due to rising water. May be Elementary School
used as needed for other disasters.

68.7

EXHIBIT 5

SURGE INUNDATION POINTS

Evacuation Area Major Evacuation Routes Critical Points

Belhaven U. S. 264 By-Pass Stretch of 264 .25 miles on
either side of lower Dowery
Creek culvert near intersection
of SR 1709.

Portion I mile east of the
intersection with'N. C. 99 in
Belhaven, to that intersection.

Business 264 Port ion inside Belhaven.

U. S. 264 By-Pass Portion 1.5 miles on either
side of Cuckolds Creek Bridge
toward Pantego.

N. C. 99 From intersection with 264 in
Belhaven to Sidney Crossroads,
over the Pantego Creek Bridge,
the Pungo Creek-Br-idge.

Ransomville N. C. 99 Portion from Pungo Creek
Bridge to Sidney Crossroads,
over the Jack Creek Bridge.

Portion from the St. Clair
Creek Bridge to a point
approximately I mile east of
SR 1734 (to Bayview).

The Back and Bath Creek
Bridges at Bath.

Bunyan/River S. R. 1300 Portion of State Road 1300
Road area that feeds 264t and all State
Roads that feed SR 1300, from
Broad Creek to Washington
(through Washington Park)
across Runyons Creek Bridge on
Park Drive in Washington.

U. S. 264 Portion .25 miles on either
side of Runyons Creek Bridge.

68.8

EXHIBIT 5 (cont.)

Evacuation Area Major Evacuation Routes Critical Points

Washington U. S. 264 Area inside the flood hazard
area inside Washington (that
is, the area from an imaginary
line drawn from the intersec
tion of Oak Drive & Hillcrest
Drive due west to where it
would intersect U. S. 17, south
to and including the Pamlico
River Bridge (lower half of
city).

South Creek N. C. 33 From the Pamlico County line
to Campbell Crossroads,
including crossing the Smith
Creek Bridge and the Campbell
Creek Bridge.
Chocowinity N. C. 33 From the Chocowinity,city
limits to the Pamlico River
Bridge.

S. R. 1166 Entire road from Oak Point to
U. S. 17 intersection, and all
feeder roads.

68.9

Table 23
SEVERITY OF RISK

----------------------------------------------------------------- 7
Severity Storm Hazard
Hazard Area Rank Erosion Wave Action Flooding-High Wind
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Estuarine Shoreline AEC 1
Coastal Wetland AEC 2 +
Zone A Floodplain 3
Remainder of County 4

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure level: high (*), moderate (+), low

Source: "Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way",
June 1984

Table 24
MAGNITUDE OF RISK: INVENTORY OF STRUCTURES IN HAZARD AREA*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Structures
Area Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional,Utility
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Aurora 151 0 0 0 1
Bath 24 6 0 1 1
Belhaven 961 71 0 16 2
Chocowinity 0 0 0 0 1
Pantego 33 11 0 5 1
Washington 1,698 0 0 0 1
Washington Park 142 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated area
north side of river 2,169, 44 2 25. 2
Unincorporated area
south side of river 1,287 49 1 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 --------
Total Structures 6,465 181 3 51 9
Total $ Value (millions) 227.9 23.3 40.1 47.0 40.2,

see Exhibit 3, Hurricane Hazards' Map
note: value is for buildings only
Source: "Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way",
June, 1984

68". 10

Table 25
UTILIZATION OF PRIMARY ROADS 1980

-------- ------ --------- -- ---- -------
7 ---- Pavement ------ Design-Capacity* ------- 24-hour ---- Percefit--
Road Width (ft) 35 mph 45 mph 55 mph average Utilization

----------------------------
----- ----- ----- ---
US 17 24 10,920,' 7,500 3,000 7,981 73%
US 264 24 10,920 - 7,500 3,000 5,564 51%
NC 32 24 10,920 7,500 3,000 11%
NC 33 24 10,920 7,500 3,000 2,455 23%
NC 99 16 7,150 4,500 3,000 1,250 17%
NC 92 16 7,150 4,500 1,800 1,337 18%
NC 306 22 9,060 6,200 2,400 1,398 15%

----- ----- ----- ----- ---

in vehicles
ferry can handle a maximum of 380 automobiles per day
Source: "Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way"
June, 1984

68.11

I S M

S IV A

do
7@

MY
7

Areas Flooded by Category
1 & 2 Storms

Additional Areas Flooded 7
By Category 3 Storms

Additional Areas Flooded
68.12
By Category 4 & 5 Storms

V. LAND CLASSIFICATION

A. Purpose

The County has a dopted a system of land classification and@

an official Land Classification Map to assist local officials in

attaining policy objectives in the areas of resource protection

and productiong and economic and community development. Five

broad categories of land classification have been developed and

are delineated on the County's Map of Land Classificat ion. The

map sets out a p roposed development pattern for the e27 square

miles that comprise Beaufort County. Based on this classifica-

tion scheme, the County has designated areas it believes are

appropriate to accommodate additional growth and development, and

areas it believes would be better left in a rural condition. The

classifications reflect existing and proposed future land uses

and attempt to link land usep policy objectives, and implementa-

tion actions. The Map of Land Classification is similar to that

adopted by the County in 1981, however several minor modifica-

tions have been made to the 1981 classification scheme to

reflect land use changes that have occurred over the past five

years.

B. Classification Scheme

The County"s land classification scheme is based. on the

guidelines for land classification outlined in the Coastal Area.

Management Act's Land Use Planning Guidelines. The general

characteristics of each class are outlined in Exhibit 6 (pg.

74.1).

1. Developed

The Developed classification has been applied to all land

within the municipal planning' jurisdictions of the. CoUnty7S

incorporated communities. The Town of Pantego has not adopted an

extraterritorial area and so the Developed classification in

that area extents only to the Town limits.

As shown 'on the Map of Land Classification (pg. 74.2), the

six Developed areas are scat tered throughout the County. These

are the most urbanized areas in the County. Public water service

has been provided in all developed areas except Washington Park

and the Pantego area. Public sewer has been provided in all

areas except Washington Park, Pantego and Chocowinity, however

Chocowinity is currently applying for funding to eonstruct a

wastewater treatment system. At this time, no Developed area is

completely serviced with water or sewer and the County supports

the expansion of public services within these areas. Other urban

services such as polic e and fire protection are available in

Developed areas and the County encourages projects requiring

these types of services to locate in Developed areas.

2. Transition

As shown on the Map of Land Classification, Transition areas

adjoin the Developed areas of Washington and Chocowinity in the

western part of the County, border N. C. 33 in the Developed

Aurora area, and are scattered along waterfront areas on either

side of the Pamlico River and on the Beaufort County side of the

Pungo River.

Transition areas identify areas of fairly intense.develop 1@

ment outside of municipal planning jurisdictions. The County's

1976 and 1981 land use plans had the Transition class-divided
into two subclasses: Tra ns.ition and Secondary Transition.

Transition areas covered only 201 Wastewater Facilities Planning

Areas; Secondary Transition Areas delineated all other areas of

existing and future intensive development. An amendment to the

Plan in 1982 basically obliterated the original dist inction

between the two subclasses and so the 1987 Map notes only one

Transition class.

Transition areas have been designated to reflect existing

intensive development.and areas the County believes are appropri-

ate to accommodate future development of fairly high density.

At this timeo public water and sewer service is not available in

any Transition area. As the County currently has no plans for

providing such services in these areas, urban services for new

development projects in Transition areas would be provided by

project proponents.

3. Community

Much of the developed land in outlying area5.has been

classified Community. The County has a number of unincorporated

crossroad communities, most of which are shown on the Map of

Land Classification in Community designation. Considerable

residential and commercial development has occurred along the

County's major roadways - U. S. 17, N. C. 33 - and Community

areas delineated along these highways reflect that development.

Both residential and commercial development currently occur in

Community areas and are considered appropriate future uses of

Community areasp however the intensity o f future development

should not be such that public or private wastewater treatment

systems are necessary. Public or private water service would be

considered appropriate in a Community area if such a system would
enhance the quality and/or quantity of water available to area

development. Services should not act as a catalyst for further

high-density development in a Community area.

As a result of the 1987 planning effort, nine areas we re

reclassified from Rural to Community. About half of these

changes were made to reflect.the existing level of development

in these are as; the remainder, acknowledge development projects

currently underway. One exception to the general restriction on

wastewater service in areas designated Community occurs in the

Whichard's Beach area. Should a non-river discharging public

treatment system be constructed -to serve the Chocowinity area,

the County would support propo.sals to extend that system to serve

existing development in the Whichard's Beach area.

72.

4. Rural

As shown on the Map of Land Classification, most of the

County has been classified Rural. Agricultural,-silvacultural,

and low density residential uses predominate in Rural areas.

The results of the 1987 public survey indicate that many resi-

dents appreciate the rural character of the Beaufort County

area. The County supports continued use of its Rural lands for

farming and forestry activities that meet the policy objectives

outlined in its Land Use Plan. Residential development is also

deemed an appropriate use of Rural lands, however the density of

that development should not necessitate public or private water

or sewer service. Large lots would characterize residential

development in Rural areas, and project density would be low,

generally less than or.equal to one unit per acre.

5. Conservation

The Conservation Class designates areas the County believes

should be kept in a natural condition or if developed, done so

only under very controlled conditions. As shown on the Map of

Land Classification, Conservation areas include Goose Creek

State Park on the north side of the river, and Goose Creek

Gameland on'the south side of the river. Public trust areas,

estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, and estuarine shorelines up

to 75 feet from the mean high water line are included'in the

Conservation class by reference.

C. Intergover nmental Coordination

Beaufort County's Land Classification Map has been designed

to guide the actions of private developers and of public agencies

at all levels of governmentf in activities affecting land

development in the County. Many of the planning objectives set

forth in the County's Land Use Plan will enhance the land use

goals of ifs incorporated communities, neighboring counties, and

the coastal region as a whole. The County will work with the

various agencies noted in this plan in an attempt to ensure that

the policy objectives and actions adopted as part of this
planning effort'will be implemented as the County develops over

the next five years.

Exhibit 6

LAND CLASSIFICATION

Developed Purpose - provide for continued intensive develop-,.
Class ment
Land Uses - mixed: residential, commercial, indus-
trial
Services - usually all urban services provided:
water, sewerv police, fire, etc.-
Density - 3 o ;rl more dwelling units(du)/acre
Lot Sizes - usu ;ally small, in some areas averaging
as Jittle as 15fOOO sq. ft.

Transition Purpose - provide for future intensive development
Class Land Uses - mixed
Services - water and sewer both usually present or
anticipated; police and fire protection
usually provided
Density - usually 3 or more du/acre
Lot Sizes - usually small, many times averaging
20,000 sq. ft.
Comment' - usually adjoins Developed Class

Community Purpose - provide for clusteredg low density
Class arrangement (crossroads community)
Land Uses - mixed
Services - sometimes water; no sewer
Density - usually 2 du/acre or less
Lot Sizes - generally 20,000-30,000 sq. ft.

Rural Purpose agriculture and very low density residen-
Class tial
Land Uses - farming, forestry, residential
Services - none
Density - generally greater than 1 du/acre
Lot Sizes - not applicable.

Conservation Purpose - resource protection
Class Land Uses - AECs and other sensitive natural areas
Services - none
Comment - land basically to remain undeveloped or
developed only under controlled condi-
tions
74.1

C
W A 3

0 1 $ M A L

3 W A M P

Th. Vrvqa,atioA of this -V was financed In
P@t theoUth & Arrant provided by the Somb
C.- ins Coastal manan-t Pyograo. .1
through funds Pr-idd by the C."tal Zen.
2. an anendad. which
t Act of 197 ftc. of
is administered by the Of 0.. and
co,st'a &SOQSCS ft-senaZt, national
Oces'"a and AUWSPbATLC Adainistmtion.
s W A M P

Rural

G .. .....
Transition a s I -Y

I A a A
Community
Z@7 -

Conservation*

Municipal Pl.anning Jurisdiction

public t t rsas. Coastal wetlands. and estuarine shorelines
75 ft. f ron high water line, included by reference. W`E-

74 2

Appendix A

Media Releases

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8,1986 - PAGE 9B
Land Use Plan Group,
Begins@ Project Re*view
A committee selected by the Natural Resources and Com-
Beaufort County Board of Com- munity Development spoke ab--
missioners to study the current out the various part of the plan
Land Use Plan and to recom- and about the guidelines that will
mend an update of that docu- need to be followed in the plan-
ment began its task recently.. ning process.
The update is required by Technical expertise for the
guidelihes set forth by the Coas- project will be given by the staff
tal Area Management Act. of the Mid-East Commission in
The committee is comprised of conjunction with NRCD person-
Douglas Mercer, chairman, 'rep- nel. The project will review land
resenting Texasgulf; David
McNaught, vice chairman, repre- uses as they relate to such issues
senting the Pamlico7Tar River at water quality, resource protec-
Foundation; Henry Riddick, tion, resource management,
coastal water excess and storm
Agricultural Extension; Chris hazard mitigation and recovery.
Furlough, Furlough Consttuc-
tion and Realty; Joe McCotter Public participation will be en-'
Jr., McCotter's Marina; Topper couraged and sought throughout
Bateman, Sea Safari Ltd.; Frank the planning process, says the
B. "Bo" Lewis, Chamber of Com- committee. All meetings will be
rrWrce and John Morgan, register advertised and open to the pub-
of deeds. lic. Meetings have been set for
At the initial meeting, the com- the second Monday of each
mittee recommended an orienta- month, beginning Oct. 13. The
tion to the planning process for first meeting will begin at 7 p.m.
updating the Land Use Plan. A in the Beaufort County Court-
speciali st for the N.C. Division of house, Room 105.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Libby Anderson 946-8044

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Update Committee will meet

or) Monday, December 15, to continue its work in revising the

County's 1981 Land.Use Pl-an. Monday's meeting will include a

discussion of current socioeconomic conditions and formulation

of a plan for public participation in the process.

Meetings are open to the public.ayid all interested citizens

are encouraged to attend. Monday's meeting will be held at 7:00

pm in the Commissioners' Board Room in the Courthouse.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15,1986 - PAGE 5

Committee Reviewing
Land Use Plan Data

Beaufort County's Land Use mittee will also begin preparing a
Plan Advisory Committee met public survey questionnaire.
recently to review current statis- Meetings are open to the public.
tics concerning the county's
population and enconomy.
The meeting was the third in a
series of meetings the committee
will hold to update the county's
current Land Use Plan.
The updated plan will serve as
a guide to direct growth and de-
velopment in the county over the
next five years.
Planners noted that the coun-
ty's population had increased by
over 7% between 1980 and 1985,
indicating that population
growth during the 1980s will ex-
ceed that seen during the 1970s.
Figures issued by the Office of
State Budget and Management
indicate a current county popula-
tion of over 43,000 persons. It was
also noted that over 65% if the
county's population lives in un-
icorporated areas of the county,
giving special importance to the
committee's role as land plan-
ners.
The committee will discuss ex-
isting land uses in the county at
its next meeting set for Jan. 12,
1987 at the courthouse. The com-

WASMNGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7,1987 - PAGE 5

Land Use Meeting
Planned Monday
The Beaufort County Land
Use Plan Advisory Committee
wW meet on Monday to continue
its work in revising the county's
land use plan.
The eight-member committee
was appointed by the county
commi 'ssioners to update the
plan, which was prepared over
five years ago.
Monday's meeting will include
a review of current land uses in
the county and a discussion of
conflicts in uses. The meeting is
scheduled for 7 p.m. in the Court-
house. All interested citizens are
encouraged to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNE-SDAY, JANUARY 14,1987 - PAGE 9

Changes Foreseen In Growth
Construction of single-family family homes in Beaufort Coun- six years, -committee members
homes, strip development along ty (excluding the City of agreed that multifamily develop-
roads and construction of water- Washington) between 1981 and ment, especially townhouse de-
front homes locations have char- 1986. Most construction has velopment, may increase in the
acterized development in occurred along existing roads, next dacade.
Beaufort County over the last 25 but committee members noted The eight-person committee
years. But members of the coun- that subdivision development -was appointed by the County
ty's Land Use Plan Advisory appears to be increasing. Board of Commissioners to up-
Committee agreed at their meet- During this same period, over date the current land useplan,
ing Monday that development 300 permits were issued for the prepared in 1981. Monday's
trends in the county may be location of mobile homes. meeting was the fourth in a series
changing. Although multifamily unit-- the committee will hold to up-
More than 1,000 permits were accounted for only 5 percent of date the plan in accordance with
issued for construction of single- all building permits over the last the guidelines of the state's Coas-
tal Area Management Act
(CAMA).
The updated plan will guide
growth and development in the
county over the next five years.
Monday's meeting included a
review of existing land uses in
the county. The type, location
and nature of major forest, agri-
cultural and residential uses was
discussed.
The review will continue at the
committee'g next meeting. The
advisory group will review pro-
jects proposed for development
in the county over the next five
years and discuss -conflicts in
land use. The meeting will be
'Monday, Feb. 9, at 7 p.m. in the
county courthouse. The public is
invited.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27889

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR'MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will

meet on Monday, February 9 to continue its work in updating the

County's Land Use Plan. The agenda for Monday's meeting includes

a review of current land uses in the county and a discussion of

conflicts in land use. Th,e meeting will be held at 7 pm in the

County Cou@thouse. The pub lic is invited and encouraged to

attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MARCH 7,1987 - PAGE 5

Committee Resumes
Work. On Land Plan
Work on an update of the ment is that most land along the
Beaufort County Land Use Plan county's rivers and creeks are
will continue Monday at a meet- regulated by the state as an area
ing of the county's Land Use of environmental concern.
Advisory Committee. Also on the agenda is discus-
The meeting is scheduled for 7 sion of the county's historic and
p.m. in the commissioners'board archeological resources and an
room of the Beaufort County inventory of resource potential
Courthouse. areas.
The committee will review cur-
rent development trends in the The Advisory Committee was
county, discuss land-use con- appointed by the county com-
cerns and review constraints to missioners to update the land use
local land development. plan.
Development is limited by All Advisory Committee meet-
poor soils and flood-prone areas, ings are open to the public, and
according to planners. interested citizens are encour-
Another constraint to develop- aged to attend.

MID-EAST COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1787
WASHINGTON, NC 27889

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Libby Anderson 946-8034

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet on
Monday, March 9 to continue its work in updating the County's
land use plan. Monday's meeting will be held in the County
Courthouse at 7:00 p.m. All interested citizens are encouraged
to attend.

WASMGMN DAILY NEWS. TUESDAY. K ARCH 17.1997 - PAGE 6

County Will Conduct
Survey On La*nd Use
Beaufort County's Land Use ing constraints to land develop-
Advisory Committee will con- ment. Poor soils. the presence of
duct a survey of county resi- natural hazards such as flood-
dents, seeking their thoughts on plains and areas of environmen-
growth and development. tal concerns and steep slopes
The committee is updating the *along water courses, limit de.
county's Land Use Plan as re-@ velopment in much of the coun-
quired by the Coastal'Area Man- ty, said planners.
agement Act. The county has over 25 sites or
Some of the questions on the areas of historical importance.
Planners also observed that
survey will be: m .any shoreline areas have been
-Would Beaufort County b.e identified as being archaeologi-
better off it it had as many resi- cally sensitive and that six
dents as Pitt County or Wake underwater archaeological sites
County? have been developed.
Would residents like The planners said that
Washington to grow to, be the size although land development Will
of Greenville?
be constrained in some areas by
A variety of other issues will be natural or cultural factors, much
explored, said the planners. land remains available for de-
The survey will appear in the velopment. At the same time,
Washington Daily News and will said planners, the pressures for
be distributed to civic groups development appear to in.
over the next few weeks. Persons creasing.
not receiving a survey by April I' The committee will discuss the
are asked to contact the Mid-East results of the survey at its next
Commission in Washington for a meeting Monday, -April,.-12 @at 7
copy@* p.m'. in the Beaufort County
At the committee's last meet- Courthouse. The public is in-
ing planners focused on identify- vited to attend.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 1787
Washingtono NC 277889

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMTION - Libby Anderson 946-8043

PUBLIC SE RVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will'meet

on Mondayq April 13 to continue its work in updating the County's

land use plan.. Monday's, meeting will be held in the County

Courthouse at 7:00 pm. All interested citizens are encouraged

to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1987- PAGE 5

LAND USE PLAN
The Beaufort County Land
Use Plan Advisory Committee
will meet Monday at 7 p.m. at tge
county courthouse to continue
its work on the Beaufort County
Land Use Plan. The nie-
member committee is updatiing
the county's plan this year in
accordance with the guidelines
of the state's Coastal Area Man-
agement Act. The public is in-
vited.

PAGE 12 - WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, APRIL 30,1987
Poor Soils Hindrance
To Growth: Planners-
w
Poor soils pose the greatest rapidly than Pitt County in the
limitation to development in the next decade. Between 1985 and
outlying areas of Beaufort Coun- 1990 the population of Beaufort
ty, said the county's Land Use County is expected to increase
Plan Advisory Committee at a re- by over nine percent, they said.
cent meeting. In contrast, Pitt County's
Of the 17 major soils found in population is expected to in-
the county, alll 17 have severe crease by just over six percent.
limitations for the siting of septic By 1995, Beaufort County is ex-
tanks, said the planners. In de- pected to have over 50,000 resi-
veloped areas the capacity of the dents, a 17 percent increase from
municipal wastewater treatment its 1985 population of 43,260
plants may pose some limitation . people.
to growth within the next de- Given such growth forecasts,
cade, said planners. and given the sensitivity of the
The four communities with county's natural resources.
treatment systems have recently understanding the affects of new
completed or are currently mak- development and planning for
ing sewage system improve- growth is important, said the
ments. Although the expanded planners.
capacity of municipal systems The committee was appointed
appears adequate in the short- by the county commissioners to
run, should majof extensions of update the Land Use Plan.
municipal systems be proposed, Guidelines of the Coastal Area
further system improvements Management Act require an up-
may be needed, said planners. date every five years.
Population projections were The committee meets again at
reviewed by the nine-member the county courthouse May 11 at
committee and they said that the 7 p.m. The meeting is open to the
courfty is expected to grow more, public.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27egg

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Land Use Policy Planning Begins

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee met
Monday, May 11, to begin formulating policy objectives for the
County's 1987 Land Use Plan. The committee will ultimately
develop policy statements in five areas: resource protection,
resource production and management, economic and community
development, continuing public participation, and storm hazard
mitigation. Monday's meeting focused on developing policy
objectives for protecting the County's natural resources and
devising implementation actions to achieve those,objectives over,
the next five years.

Top priority will be given to protecting the County's
natural-resources planners agreed, especially the quality of its.
fresh and estuarine waters. Public support for this directive is
evidenced in the results of the committee's public -survPy.
Seventy-five percent of survey respondents said that protecting
the County's natural resources was of extreme importance. More
.over, preserving water quality and protecting natural resources
were identified as the two most important issues currently
facing the County.

The committee will continue its work on policy development
at its next meeting on Monday, May 19. All interested persons
are encouraged to attend committee meetings, held at 7:00 pm in
the County courthouse.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27eeg

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

The Beaufort" County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee wil'l
meet on Monday, May 11 at 7:00 pm in the County Courthouse.
Their agenda includes discussion of the Committee's public
survey and a discussion of policy sta tement's on resource protec-
tion. All interested persons are encouraged to attend.

Mid-Ea5t Commission
P. 0. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Resource Protection Policies ta be Discussed

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will
meet on Monday, May 11 to continue its work on the County's land
use plan. At Monday's meeting planners will begin developing
policy statements on land development issues. Five policy areas
will ultimately be addressed. Three policy areas will be
discussed at the group's May 11 meeting: resource protection,
resource production and management, and economic and community
development. Committee members will also review the results of
the group's public su 'rvey. Survey results will help committee
members develop policy statements that reflect the public's view
on land development issues in the County.

The Advisory Committee meets at 7:00 in the County Court-
house. All interested persons are invited and encouraged to
attend.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 17B7
Washington, NC 27389

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Public Service Announcement

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will
meet on Monday, May 1B. Their agenda will include a discussion
of policies for resource protection. Interested persons are
invited to attend. Meeting will begin at 7:00 at the County
courthouse.

WASHINGTON DA1LY.NEWS, SATURDAY, MAY 16,1987 - PAGE 5

LAND USE COMMITrEE
The Beaufort County Land
Use Plan Advisory Committee
will meet Monday at 7 p.m. at the
county courthouse. The commit-
tee will discuss policy objectives
on natural resource protection
and resource production and
management. All interested per-
sons are encouraged to attend.

PAGE 2 - WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MAY 16,1987

Land Use Plan Com''mittee
Developing Policy Objectivelis
The Beaufort County Land tinuing public participation and
Use Plan Advisory Committee storm hazards.
has begun developing objectives The committee will give top
for the county's natural re- priority to protecting fresh
sources and policy to achieve estuarine waters.
those objectives over the next The committee will continue
five years. its work a meeting Monday at 7
The committee will develop p.m. in the courthouse.
policy statements on resource
protection, resource production
and management, economic and
community development, con-

PAGE 2 - WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MAY 23,1987

.Pamlico Water Qualit y- A Top Land-Use Priority
The protection and enhance- The Land Use Plan will serve tion on land not physically suited Monday, June 1, at 7 p.m. in the
ment of the water quality in the as a guide for local growth and to development, and protecting Beaufort County Courthouse to
Pamlico River and its tributaries development over the next five wildlife habitat and preservation discuss policies on resource pro-
is a priority objective of the years. of scenic resources. duction and management. The
Beaufort County Land Use Plan, The committee thus far has The committee will meet again public is encouraged to attend.
which is being updated. agreed that the county should
At a meeting of the county's implement six policies aimed at
Land Use Planning Committee protecting its natural resources.
this week, members outlined In addition to the water quality
several strategies they deemed proposal, the proposed policies
important in achieving clean wa- concern the following:
ter. Among them were the sup-
port of domestic wastewater Preservation and protection of
treatment systems which do riot areas of environmental concern;
discharge into surface waters protecting the county's present
and support of expansion of the and future water supply; protect-
state's Agricultural Cost-Sharc- ing historical and cultural re-
program. sources; discouraging construc-

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Drawer 1787
Washinqton, NC 27BE39
May 27, 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946--8043

Public Service Announcement

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will meet
on Monday, June I to discuss policy statements for inclusion
in the County's Land Use Plan. The Committee meets at 7:00 pm
in the Courthouse. Interested persons are encouraged to
attend.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27889
May 27, 1987

FnR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Land Use Advisory Committee to Meet

The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will meet
on Monday, June 1 at 7:00 pm at the County Courthouse. The
Committee will discuss policy objectives on resource production
and management and economic and community development. All
interested persons are encouraged to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, MAY 28,1987 - PAGE 5

Adr Space, Pollution
Top Study Concerns
A survey conducted by"the portant. Preserving commercial
Beaufort County Land Use Plan fishing operations and attracting
Advisory Committee indicated new jobs were rated by more
that the county's biggest en- than 55 percent as important con-
vironmental concerns are septic cems as well.
systems, water pollution and About 45 percent of those re-
airspace. 'turning the survey felt the coun-
The survey, distributed in the ty has reached its optimum
March 19 issue of the Washington population and that continued
Daily News, sought responses on growth would not increase the
issues concerning land develop- quality of life in the area.
ment in the county. Of the appro- Preservation of water quality
ximately 9,500 surveys distri- and natural resources were rank-
buted, about 950, or 10 percent, ed as the two top concerns by re-
were returned. spondents. They were followed
More than half of the respon- by the need for more jobs and
dents felt failing septic systems, better educational opportunities
water pollution and the loss of and the need for a policy on con-
county airspace to military op- trolled growth in the county.
erations were serious environ- The committee will use the re-
mental concerns. - sults of its survey to assist in de-
Three of four people answering veloping policies to guide
indicated that protecting the growth in Beaufort County over
county's natural resources is im- the next five years.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, FRIDAY, MAY 29,1987 - PAGE 5

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Beaufort County Land
Use Plan Advisory Committee
will meet Monday at 7 p.m. at the
courthouse. The committee will
discus's policy objectives on re-
source production and manage-
ment and economic and com-
munity development. All in-
terested persons are encouraged
to attend.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27089
June 3, 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson 946-8043

Public Service nnouncement

The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet on
Monday, June 8 to review policies on land development. The
Committee meets at 7:00 pm in the Courthouse. All interested
persons are encouraged to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JUNE 6,1987 - PAGE 5

BC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. in the
courthouse. The committee will
continue work on the county's
Land Use Plan. Monday's meet-
ing will include a final discussion
of policies on resource protec-
tion, production and economic
and community development.
Time permitting, the current
Land Classification Map will also
be rr!viewed. All interested per-
sont are invited.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JUNE 13,1987 - PAGE 5

Committee Enters Final Phase
Of Updating. Land Use Plan'
The Beaufort County Land issuing permits for wastewater
Use Advisory Committee discus- disposal into the Pamlico River
sed policy objectives in several -and the development of new
areas as it continued its work on public access sites along the
updating the@ county's land use waterfront.
plan at a recent meeting. The committee will begin re-
The committee, renewing the viewing the county's land classi-
plan in accordance with the fication map and discussing
Coastal Area Management Act, what changes, if any, should be
reviewed its aims concerning re- made.
source protection, resource pro-
duction and economic and com- The map is intended to provide
munity development. a scheme for land development
Among the proposals for im- over the next five years.
plementation are the adoption of The committee will meet Mon-
subdivision regulations, revision day,June,22 in the countycourt-,_
af* the county'water system house at 7:30 pm'.- The Ymblic is
study, continued objection to encouraged to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1987 - PAGE 5

Panel Adopts Policies
On County's Land Use

The Beaufort County Land of the plan is nearing completion.
Use Advisory Committee agreed The committee recommended
on four resource managament that the farmers market in down-
policies, completing a major part town Washington be expanded
of its work on the county's Land and that other local communities
Use Plan, at a recent meeting. look into starting farmers mar-
The committee identified the kets as a way of beginning the
policies as preserving and en- new policy objectives.
chancing agricultural uses in the In the area of economic and
county, commercial and re- community development, the
creational fishing in the river, committee's objectives are to
protecting commercial forest
lands and preserving areas of provide for more commercial
prime farmland. and industrial development and
To achieve these objectives, fbr orderly residential growth.
planners su .ggested that the The committee also suggested a
county water system study be mother objective be to promote
updated and that a county-wide a-nd enhance tourism opportuni-
system be supported if practical. ties.
The committee also suggested The committee will meet again
the county consider adopting Monday, June 22, at 7 p.m. in the
sub-division regulations to guide courthouseto discuss final poh-
residential building. .. I cy objective revisions and to re-
These policies will be used to view the current Land Classifica-
-guide county development over tion Map. Interested persons are
the next five years. The first draft invited.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 17e7
Washington, NC 27SE39
June 18, 1qe7

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson -946-8043

Public Service Announcement

The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet
on Monday, June 22 to review the County's Land Classification
Map. The Committee meets at 7:00 pm in the Courthouse. All
interested persons are encouraged to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JUNE 20,1987 - PAGE 5

BC ADVISORY
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. in the
county courthouse to finish poli-
cy objectives to be included in
the county's 1987 Land Use Plan.
The committee also will review
the county's land classification
map and determine what
changes, if any, need to be made.
All interested persons are in-
vited.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, TUESDAY, JUNE 23,1987 - PAGE 5

Committee- Denies Proposal
On Construction Of Marinas
By MICHAEL ADAMS who wanted to build marinas and a committee member, said
Staff Writer could be consistent with the that developers should have to
The Beaufort County Land county's land use plan, Daven- pay extra because when they buy
Use Advisory Committee de- port said. land, it makes the rest more ex-
cided Monday night'not to let Under the proposed sub-class, pensive. He said that the county
people to build marinas on land developers who wanted to build cannot afford to buy land for
classified as rural without ap- more than one house per acre public access because the price is
plying for reclassification. would have to set aside some so high
The committee rejected a prop- land in the development for pub- Chair`man Doug Mercer said he
osal to crea 'te a sub-class in the lic access or would have to pay to opposed the sub-class because it
rural land use class. The sub- it county public access fund a cer- would not do what was intended
class, called marina-residential, tain amount for each house they - allow developers to build
had been proposed by Libby built. marinas without applying for a
Anderson of the Mid-East Re- Chris Furlough, a developer land classification change. He
gional Commission. who is a member of the commit- said that developers would apply
, The proposal also would have tee, opposed the proposal. He for the change rather than give
allowed developers to build said it placed an unfair burden on up part of their land or their
more than one house per acre - developers, who would have to money for public access.
something that is not allowed in pay for public access for every- The Land Use Committee,
the rural class - if they contri- one. He said most developers appointed by the county com-
buted to providing public access would rather go before the coun- missioners, is developing a pat-
to the Pamlico or Tar rivers. ty commissioners and apply for a tern for the use of land in
County Manager Donald land classification change than Beaufort County. The committee
Davenport, a member of the give up part of their land for pub- will submit the plan to the com-
Land Use Committee, said that lic access. missioners for approval. The
state regulations require that any Furlough said that instead of plan is required under the Coas-
building that requires a state per- creating a sub-class and asking tal Area Management Act.
mit, such as a marina, must com- developers to pay for public ac- Committee members David
ply with the county's land use cess to the waterfront, the county Norwood, Topper Bateman and
plan. should apply for federal and state Henry Riddick were absent. In
The marina-residential sub- grants to buy land. addition to Davenport, Mercer
class would have created a classi- David McNaught, head of the and Furlough, Frank Lewis and
fication within which developers Pamlico-Tar River Foundation John Morgan were present.

Mid-E4st Commission
P. 0. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
July 6, 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Public Service Announcement

The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee wiil meet
on Monday, July 13 to review the County's Land Classification
Map. The Committee meets at 7:00 pm in the Courthouse. All
interested persons are encouraged to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1987 - PAGE 5

LAND USE ADVISORY
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. at the
courthouse in Washington to pre-
pare a county land classification
map. It will begin the process by
reviewing the county's current
map to determine what changes
need to be made.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS

WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA. TUESDAY AFrERNOON. JULY 14.1987 (USPS 667-500)
Land Use Plan To Reflect Current'Situation
By MICKA-EL ADkMS for agriculture or sparse. unplanned develop- seem the county was encouraging sewage treat-
Staff Writer ment. The next class, community, is suitable for ment systems that discharge treated waste in the
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory such development as subdivisions. but the homes Pamlico River. The PTRF recently filed a petition
Committee decided Monday night not to make must have wells and septic tanks. In the transition of judicial review against the state department
the new plan a preparation for future develop- class, development is planned and there is a water that issues such permits to block the use of one
ment but to reflect development that has taken and sewer system. granted to the Coastal Carolina Girl Scouts for a
place since the last plan went into effect. The areas the committee debated were classi- sewage system at Camp Hardee.
The committee debated changing the classifica- fied as rural in the last plan, which came out in Chris Furlough, a developer an4 committee
tion of several areas where development was not 1981, but many have experienced development member, said that a change to transition classi-
yet taken place. That would obviate the need for which places them mori logically in the commun- fication would be appropriate only when a de-
developers to apply for a land use classification ity class. None, however, have water and sewer veloper begins to seek permits to install a water.
change later. But the panel decided against such systems, whichwould place them in the transition and sewer system.
changes. class. He said that before an area should be classified
Most of the areas discussed would have been I David McNaught, head of the Pamlico-Tar Riv- as transition, a developer should have presented a
.changed from rural classification to transition er Foundation and a committee member, opposed
classification. Land classified as rural is suitable changing the areas to transition. He said it might (See PLAN, Back Page)

Plan From Page 1

plan for water and sewage treatment Whichard's Beach to transition because it needs a
County Manager Donald Davenport, a commit- sewer system and may have the opportunity to
tee member, said that the committee needed to hook into the Chocowinity system as it expands.
make categories more exclusive and more defini- Changes in the classification of land around
tive if it intended to make the land use plan a Blount's Creek were debated, but none were
planning document, made because no development has begun there.
The committee decided not to change the areas The committee also discussed changing a large
to transition, but to classify them as communitv to area southeast df Aurora from rural to conserva-
reflect existing development. These areas in- tion classification. In conservation class, almost
clude: nothing can be done to the land.
- Sawmill Landing, a development on Bath
Creek north of Bath. The committee decided against the change be-
- Blackbdard's View, a development on the cause it did not know who owned the land orwhat
Pamlico River just west of Bath Creek. plans the owners had for it. Furlough said that it
- Mi on Creek, a development on the Pamlico would be difficult to change the land back to rural
Ix
River near Bayview. later ifthe committee changed it to transition and
- Banjo Shores, a development on Pungo then decided it had made a mistake.
Creek between Bath and Belhaven. The land use committee will meet Monday at 7
- Woodstock Point, adevelopment onthe Pun- p.m. for a final review of the plan. The Beaufort
go River south of Belhaven. County Board ofCommissi6ners will meeta week
- Jordon Creek, a development on the Pungo from today to begin discussing the plan. Thecom-
River south or Belhaven. missioners make the final decision it.
- Beach Grove, a development south of Au- Fourcommittee members wereabsent Monday.
rora. They are Chairman Doug Mercer. Topper Bate-
-The Mount Olive area, a development on man, Henry Riddick and John Morgan. In addi-
Goose Creek. tion to Davenport, McNaught and Furlough,
- And Whichard's Beach, a developing area on Frank Lewis and David Norwood attended. Libby
the south side of the Pamlico near Chocowinity. Anderson, the representative of the Mid-East
The committee decided to change one portion 'of Commission, was also present.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 17e7
Washington, NC 27eeg
July 16, 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Public Service Announcement

The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet on
Monday, July 20, to review the County's draft Land Use Plan.
Interested persons are invited to attend. The Advisory Council
meets at 7:00 pm'in the County Courthouse.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDA Y, JULY 18,1987 - PAGE 5

LAND USE ADVISORY
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. in the
county courthouse to review the
county's preliminary Land Use
Plan. The plan will be presented
to the Board of Commissioners
Tuesday. Interested persons are
invited.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 17E37
Washington, NC 27889
July 20, 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Commissioners to Review Land Use Plan

The Board of County Commissioners will hold a special
meeting Tuesday, July 21 to review the County's preliminary land
use plan. The County's Land Use Advisory Committee, ad hoc
group appointed by the Commissioners, has been working since
November to update the County's land use plan in accordance with
the guidelines of the state's Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).

The land use plan contains policy statements on resource
protectiong resource production, and economic and community
development, and a list of.recommended actions the County could
take to achieve policy objectives. The plan has classified all
land in the County according to a system set out in state land
(Ise planning guidelines. The proposed classification map is
similar to that adopted in 1981, however the Advisory Committee
has recommended several minor changes. The Commissioners will
meet at 7:30 pm in the County-Courthouse. All interested persons
are encouraged to attend.

Mid-East Commission
P. 0. Box 187
Washington, NC 27889
July 20, 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION Libby Anderson 946-8043

Committee Recommends Approval of Land Use Plan

The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee ended seven
months of work last night.by approving final revisions to the'
County's Preliminary 1987 Land Use Plan. The Committee has been
working since November to update the County's 1981 Land Use
Plan. The group has now issued a Preliminary Land Use Plan and
has recommended that the County Commissioner5 approve this
document as the County's official preliminary land use plan.

The County 5 1987 Land Use Plan is designed to guide the
growth and development of the County for the next five years.
The plan sets out policy statements in the areas of resource
protection, resource production, and economic and community
development. The Committee has recommended a number of actions
the County should take to achieve policy objectives. Among
these "Implementation Strategies" are:

adoption of subdivision regulations;
adoption of criteria for siting marinas;
developing additional sites for publicacces5 to the
river;
opposing issuance of permits to discharge domestic
wastewater into the Pamlico River;
and updating the plan for a County-wide water system.

To formulate land use planning objectives, the Committee
reviewed socioeconomic dataq economic indicatorso population
orecasts, and land use information. The group discussed how
certain physical factors such as wetland and flood-prone areas
f

and soils unsuitable for traditional septic systems pose special
development considerations. The Committee also conducted a
public survey in March to gather public opinion on development
issues. Survey results indicate that protecting the County's
natural re'sourcesp especially its water resources - rivers,
creeksq and streams - should be a priority co.ncern of the 1987
Land Us,e Plan.

The Committee has proposed a land development plan forthe
County that reflects both the public sector's concern over
resource protection and the private sector's concern over land
use regulation. Copies of the County's proposed preliminary Land
Use Plan are available for public review at the Beaufort County
Courthouse.

-WASY-FINGTOTv D TVEWS
AX

ESTABLIS11FI) 1909 NO. 172 THIRTY-TWO PAGES WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 22,1987

Panel Proposes' RIAllo-Igulations
On Subdivisions And. Fishing
By MICHAEL ADAMS orderly and environmentally Resources Commission.
Staff Writer sound. Mercer said that under the
Subdivision regulation and To protect local waters, the committee's proposal, lot
stricter controls on commer- committee's proposal sug- sizes would be'determined at
cial fishing were discussed gested that the ordinance limit least partly by the suitability
Tuesday as the Land Use the amount of run-off, con- of the soil for a septic tank
Advisory Committee pre- taining fertilizers afid other system.
sented its plan to the Beaufort pollutants, allowed from sub- Commissioner Arthur Lee
County Board of Commis- divisions. Moore said a subdivision ordi-
sioners. Mercer said the ordinance nance could create problems.
Chairman Doug Mercer said should also offer incentives to She said that a farmer who had
the committee thought the developers to leave un- -five acres of land might-gWe
couniy needed a subdivision touched buffers beside areas an acre to two children for
ordinance to ensure that de- identified as areas of environ-
velopment in the county is mental concern by the Coastal (See COAWISSION, Page 5)

lei
E@
U2
Land Use
0

Z
>4 Plan Gets

Z
irs
F* t Okay
Z
@A By MICHAEL ADAMS
0 Staff Writer
The Beaufort County Board of
Commissioners approved a pre-
liminary land use plan Tuesday.
The plan, intended to help
order future growth and develop-
ment in the county, wiU be sent
to the state Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Community
Development for review before systems, provide some sort of
Z returning to the county for a pub- public river access and encour-
age tourism through supporting
rn lic hearing and adoption.
The plan lists several policy a museum honoring Cecil B. de-
objectives to help ensure orderly Mille and encouraging invest-
growth. Among them is the sug- ment in a paddlewheel showboat
gestion that the commissioners for the Pamlico.
consider an ordinance to reg- The plan includes a land classi-
ulate subdivisions. fication map. The map reflects
The ordinance proposed by the development which has already
plan would include regulation of taken place or is under way. It is
not a predictor or planner of fuT
run-off, containing fertilizers and
a4 other domestic pollutants, ture development.
allowed from subdivisions. Ledrue Buck, chairman of the
commissioners, said that the fact
It would also offer developers that the commissioners have
incentives to leave untouched approved a land use plan which
buffers beside areas identified by calls for consideration of a subdi-
the Coastal Resources Commis- vision ordinance does not mean
sion as areas of environmental that the.board will pass such an
concern. Lot size under the prop- ordinance.
osed ordinance would be deter-
cc mined at least partly by the suita- The plan was compiled by a
C5 bility of the soil for a septic tank land use advisory committee
system. with assistance from the Mideast
The plan also contains recom- Commission.
mendations that the county sup-
port innovative waste treatment

(See COMMISSION, Back Page)

them to build houses on, only wide water system, something
to find that in doing so he was the committee thinks would
creating a subdivision subject enhance development in the
to the county regulation. She county.
said such a situation would be -A suggestion that the
unfair. county should provide some
County Manager Donald sort of public access to the
Davenport said that this type Pamlico River. Mercer said
of situation should perhaps be the committee was recom-
regulated by the ordinance to mending that the county seek
protect future buyers. Future to provide such access in the
buyers of the land in Mrs. form of beaches and boat
Moore's. example would be ramps.
shortchanged if their land was -The recommendation
not subject to an ordinance re- that the county help develop a
quiring certain minimum museum commemorating the
standards of safety and effi- life and works of Cecil B. de-
ciency, h e said. Mille and encourage invest-
Commissioner Marion Dil- ment in a paddlewheel show-
day agreed with the necessity boat for the Pamlico as a
of some kind of ordinance. "It means of promoting tourism.
seems to me that we should The county commissioners
have some guidance for a per- made no decision about the
son who is going to develop a plan, but decided to examine
piece of property," he said. it until their next meeting,
Chairman Ledrue Buck Aug. 4, at which time they will
agreed, saying of future de- approve a preliminary land
velopment, "I believe we need use plan.
to give it some direction if we The preliminary plan will be
can." sent to the state Department
Mercer said that the land use of Natural Resources and
committee proposed protect- Community Development.
ing fish and imposing stricter After that agency approves
controls on commercial and the plan, there will be a public
sports fishermen to improve hearing and the commission-
fishing in the county. ers will adopt a final plan.
The committee proposed In other business:
regulating the placement of - The commissioners pas-
marinas to ensure that they sed a resolution agreeing to
would not be in an area where pay a $21,000 bill owed by the
they can harm young fish. The county Board of Educition for
committee the forming of a preliminary work on the new
fisheries management prog- high school planned for the
ram to regulate the harvesting county system.
offish. The commissioners au-
Dilday proposed even stric- thorized Melba C. Cooper, an
ter controls. He proposed a assistant to Register of Deeds
ban on all haul-netting and John Morgan, to sign checks
trawling in the Pamlico and in his absence.
Pungo rivers. He said such - The commissioners au-
practices did not allow thorized contracts between
enough fish to grow to matur- the county and Washington to
ity and destroyed plant life on provide rescue service and to
river bottoms. combine the communications
He said that by such fishing center.
practices, local fishermen Commissioner Cecil Cherry
were so depleting the supply Jr. was absent. All other com-
of fish that "they're going to missioners were present. In
catch the last one one day." In addition to Buck, Mrs. Moore
harvesting so intensively, and Dilday, Frank Bonner
fishermen are "drinking their attended.
own blood," he said.
The committee's proposal
recommended several other
policies to the commissioners,
including:
-The recommendation
that the county support in-
novative waste treatment sys-
tems and oppose river dis-
harge waste treatment sys-
tems as a means of preserving
water quality.
-A proposal that the com-
missioners update and con-
tinue to consider a county-

PAGE 14 - WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8,1987

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS
J`he Beaufort County Commissioners will re-
@eive public comment on the County's 1987
Land Use Plan Update on Monday,
November 9,1987, at 7:00 prn in the SUE enor
Courtroom at the Beaufort County ourt-
house. The Plan oudines policies on land use
and development that the County will follow
.over the next five years, and classifies land in
the unincorporated area of the County
according to the guidelines of the State's Coas-
tal Area Management Act JCAMA). Copies of
" e plan ore available or review at the
Beaufort County Courthouse between 8:30
a.m. and 5:00 Monday through Friday.
Le&ue Buck, CUgan
Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
10-8,22 2tc

-moo

b"HING" "'N AILY EWS
TUESDAY AFrERNOON, NOVEMBER 10,'1987

Growth Guidehnes
OKd, Sent To State

By MICHAEL ADAMS
Staff Writer mended by Chairman Doug Mer-
cer of the Land Use Advisory
The Beaufort County Board of Board,
Commissioners approved a d7aft I The plan, intended to help
of a land use plan for the county guide growth and development
Monday at a sparsely attended in the county, wil I be in effect for
public hearing. the next five years.
The hearing was attended only The plan lists several policy
by people who were directly in- objectives to help ensure orderly
volved. In addition to the com- growth. A prominent one is the
missioners and county manager, suggestion that the county com-
only the chairman and technical missioners consider adopting an
advisor of the Land Use Advis- ordinance to regulate subdivi-
ory Board, which developed the sions.
plan, attended. @ The ordinance would include
The commissioners approved regulation of run-off, containing
the plan minutes after the meet- fertilizers and other pollutants,
ing opened after agreeing to
WA D

make a wording change recom- (See LAND USE, Page 12)

PAGE 12 - WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987
Land Use. From Page 1

allowed from subdivisions.. In. other business:
It would'also offer'develdpers The cominissioners decided
incentives to leave untouched- to, make Beaufort County a ser-
buffers beside areas identified by vice delivery area for federal j ob-
the Coastal Resources Commis- training money, meaning that
sion as areas of environmental the county, along with other
concern. Lot size under the prop- members of Region Q, will be
osed ordinance would be'd6t6r- able to'c61ntrol the money.
mined at least partly by the suita- For,the past two years,
bility of the soil for a septic tank Beaufort and the rest of the Re-
system gion Q counties - Hertford, Pitt,
The plan also contains recom- Martin and Hyde - have been
mendations that the county sup- part of a rural service delivery
port innovative waste treatment at6iin Which the state controlled
systems and work toward a coun- the disbursement of job-training
tywide water and sewap,treat- money.,,
ment system. Bob Paciocco, director of the
The plan includes a land classi- Mid-East Commission, told the
fication map, which reflects de- commissioners last week that a
velopment which has already county or group of counties must
taken place or is under way. have a population of 100,000 to
The commissioners approved form a service delivery area.
the draftofthe plan unanimously Bonner, who moved that
on a motion by Frank Bonner Beaufort County become a ser-
and a second by Cecil Cherry Jr. vice delivery area, said he did so
Monday night was the second knowing that at least some of the
'time the commissioners had seen other counties in the region must
the plan. They -approved an ear- join in order to have the popula-
lier draft Aug. 5.. It was sent to the tion necessary to form the ser-
state Department of *Natural Re- vice delivery area. He said he
sources and Community De- hoped that other counties in the
velopment for revision. The draft region would follow Beaufort's
adopted Monday included the lead.
NRCD revisions. -The commissioners, agreed
County Manager Don Daven- to pay two bills for the county
port said that the new draft Will school system's building pro-
be sent to the Coastal Resources jects. The bills, totaling
Commission for review. The $56,529.50, were from the
CRC, which meets in Nags Head architect who designed the new
Dec. 3 and 4, can adopt the plan high school and -the firm over-
or send it back to the county for seeing the construction.
revision. - The board rescheduled the
After gaining CRC approval, next-regular meeting, moving
the final plan will be adopted by the starting time from 9 a.m. to 2
the commissioners. pan-on Dec. 8. The board will
meet with the board of Beaufort
County Hospital following' the
regular meeting.
The commissioners also
scheduled a public hearing on re-
approving the state half-cent
sales tax increase for their Dec. 8
meeting. The re-approval in-
volves no additional taxation.
Commissioner Arthur@Lee
Moore was not at the meeiing
due to illness. All other members
attended. In addition to Bonner
and 'Cherry, Marion Dilday and
Ledrue Buck attended.

Appendix B

PUBLIC SURVEY
Beaufort County Land Use Plan Update 1987

Beaufort County Is growing. The rate of new development is slow now, but
it is likely that development pressures will increase in the future,

In many ways, growth can be beneficial. It can bring new Jobs and new
opportunities- cultural, educational, and social.

Growth can sometimesihave negative impacts. It can occur too rapidly and
services may not keep up with demand. Rapid growth is often unplanned:
development sprawls into the countryside and natural resources are
wasted.

More people may mean more jobs; more services; more opportunities. More
people can also mean more traffic, less open space, and fewer opportuni-
ties to enJoy clean air, clean water and a rural landscape.

The County is currently updating its land use plan and is seeking the
guidance of local resident6.,

Population
----------
BEAUFORT COUNTY 43,260 PITT COUNTY 95,862
Washington 9,419 Greenville 40,297

HYDE COUNTY 5,571 WAKE COUNTY 353,801
- Raleigh 194,229

What population would be "Just right" for Beaufort County?

--------------------

___T-hb-f-o1"1-owing4;_,@i been identified as some current land use concerns in the
i@@th ' '
dount'y-.' Please- r@ e seriousness of these concerns in Beaufort County.
1= extremely 2= moderately 3= somewhat 4= unimportant

1. Failing septic.syptems.
2..:--. Disposal@-of-solid waste (trash).
3. Pollution of waterways by:
f.irming and forestry activity.
industrial activity.
4. Marina development along waterways.
5. Loss of agricultural land.
6. Mobile home parks.
7. Loss of County airspace.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please rate each item as to its importance to the County.
1= extremely 2= moderately 3= somewhat 4= unimportant

1. Attracting new Jobs.
2. Attracting new residents.
3. Providing water and sewer service in unserviced areas.
4. Increasing tourism.
5. Preserving local farming operations.
6. Preserving commercial fishing operations.
7. Controlling residential development along the river.
8. Developing subdivision regulations.
9. Developing zoning controls.
10. Protection of natural resources.

In your opinion, what are the two most important issues now facing
Beadfort County?

Do you 1ive in Beaufort County?
If yes, do you live W.-ithin a city or town?
If so, which one?

Please return this survey by April 1 to the Mid-East Commission, P.O.
Box 1787, Washington, NC 27889.

Thank you for your help.

Appendix.C

Beaufort Co Results
unty Land Use Plan Public Survey
March 1987

Distributdon: Approximately 99500.
Responses: Approximately 940
Response Rate: 10%

Respondent Background - Residency

Unincorporated area of Beaufort County: 61%
Bath: 2%
City of Washington: 25%
Belhaven: 4%
Washington Park: 3%
Chocowinity: 2%
Non-Beaufort County: 1%
Pantego: 1%
Aurora: 1%

Ideal Population

Inote: only about.50% of respondents answ ered this questi6nI

less than 409000 persons: 9%
40,000 - 509000 persons: 44%
50,006 - 70,000 persons: 24%
70,000 - 100,000 persons. 21%
over 100,000 persons: 2%

Seriousness of Land Use Concer s

Extremely Moderately Somewhat
Question Serious -Serious Serious, Unimportant

1. septic systems 51% 29% 17% .3%1
2. solid waste 48% 36% 15% 1%
3. agricultural pollution 54% 27% 16% 3%
industrial pollution 64% 22% 11% 3%.
4. marinas 30% 30% 28% 12%
5. loss of farmland 30% 29% 28% 13%
6. mobile home parks 26% 32% 28% 14%
7. loss of airspace 50% 22% 17% 11%

Important Issues

Extremely Moderately Somewhat
Question Important Important Important UniTpoiltant

1. new jobs 63% 21% 11% 5%
2. new residents 32% 2e% 20% 20%
3. public services 40% @30% 19% 11%
4. tourism 25@. 37% 23% 15%
5. preserving farming 47% 35% 15% 3%
6. preserving fishing 57% 29% 11% 3%
7. waterfront development 4e% 31% 15% 6%
9. subdivision regulations 42% .35% 17% 6%
9. zoning ordinance 44% 31% 18% 7*/.@@-
10. resource protection 75% 19% 5% 1%

Two Most Important Issues

Number of Respondents
Issue Naming Issue

Preserving water quality 200
Preserving natural resources IB4
Need for more jobs 181
Better schools 144
Need for controlled growth 141
Need for services - water, sewer 118
Loss of airspace 104
Need for more industry 104
Concern over agricultural
conditions 80
Problem of Texasgulf 3e
Overfishing by commerical
operations 37
Need for better roads .28
Need for increasing tourism 23
Mobile home parks 21
Too many regulations on citizens 17
Need for aggressive leadership 17

Note: only issues receiving 15 or more responses included

Appendix D

STATE REGULATORY DEVICES

--------------- --------------------------------------------------
Agency Licenses and Permits

----------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Natural Resources Permits to discharge to
and Community Development surface waters or operate
Division of Environmental wastewater treatment
Management plants or oil discharge
permits; NPDES Permits,
(G. S. 143-215).

Permits for septic tanks
to be used for industrial
purposes (G. S. 143-215.
3).

Permits for withdrawal
of surface or ground
waters in capacity use
areas (G. S. 143-215.15).

Permits for air pollution
abatement facilities and
sources (G. S. 143-215.)
108) .

Permits for construction
of complex sources ; e. g.
parking lots, subdivis-
ionso stadiums, etc.
(G.S. 143-215.109).

Permits for construction
of a well over 100,000
gallons/day (G. S.
87-E38)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Natural Resources Permits to dredge and/or
and Community Development fill in estuarine waters,
Division of Parks and Recreation tidelands, etc. (G. S.
113-229).

------------------ ------------------------------------------------
Department of Natural Resources Permits to undertake
and Community Development development in Areas of
Division of Coastal Management Environmental Concern
(G. S. 113A-lie).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Licenses and Permits

------------------------------------------------------ -------------

NOTE: Minor development
permits are issued by
local government.

Department of Natural Resources Permits to alter or to
and Community Development const ruct a dam (G. S.
Division of Land Resources 143-215.66).

Permits to mine (G. S.
74-51).

Permits to drill an
explanatory oil or gas
well (G. S.,113-391).

Permits to, conduct
geographical exploratibn
(G. S. 113-391).

Sedimentation erosion
control plans for any
land disturbing activity
of over one 6ontiguous
acre (G. S. 113A-54).

Department of Natural Resources Permits to construct an
and Community Development oil refinery.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Administration Easements to fill where
lands are proposed to be
raised above the normal
high water mark of
navigable waters by
filling (G. S. 146..6
(c)).

------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Human Resources Approval to operate a
solid waste disposal
site or facility (G. S.
130-166.16),.

Approval for construction
of any public water
facility that furnishes
water to ten or more
residences (G. S.
130-160.1)

FEDERAL REGULATORY DEVICES

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Licenses and Permits

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Corps of Engineers Permits required under
(Department of Defense) Section 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors of 1899;
permits to construct in
navigable waters.

Permits required under
Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and
Act of 1972.

Permits required under
Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972; permits to undertake
dredging and/or filling
activities.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Permits for bridges, cause-
(Department of ways, pipelines over navigable
Transportation) waters; required under the
General Bridge Act of 1946
and the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.

Geological Survey Permits required for off-shore
Bureau of Land Management drilling.
(Department of Interior) Approvals of OCS pipeline
corridor rights-of-ways.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licenses for siting, construc-
tion and operation of nuclear
power plants; required under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
and Title Il of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Energy Regulatory Permits for construction7
Commission operation and maintenance of
interstate pipeline facilities
required under the Natural
Gas Act of 1938.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Licenses and Permits

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Energy Regulatory- Orders of Interconnection of
Commission electric transmission facili-
ties under Section 202 (b) of
the Federal Power Act.

Permission required for
abandonment of natural gas
pipeline and associated
facilities under Section 7C
(b) of the Natural Gas Act of
1938.

Appendix E

Beaufort County Transportation Projects,

FJ
R-1014
TAR Un

jJ23
12 pd'!' 32
19
64 Z@.' I
1143 Cm. 1-d.
1.0 !'43 7
tm Ito
% NUTO
1 "4 WIA HI P 64
IAIK"-.
33 Zk"

1131
2.8
CHOCO -IT J13
lop 61.
-0

2.1 BEAUFORT
b
COUNTY
JV

LLHI
33 14
1123

Klk
Ai@L_A
_I 31

NC 32, WASHINGTON PARK CITY LIMITS TO SR 1300 (PART TO SR 1309),
BEAUFORT COUNTY.-
WIDEN EXISTIIIG ROADWAY TO A FOUR LANE CURB AND GUTTER FACILITY.
(R-1 0 14

W.4. W."
rR-2021 Lay Inc LuuI 4'o

UM Lut
119

L
wt it"
ot
LUZ
WASHI 0 W
POO' BEAUFORT COUNTY im

1.9

C'... R-d. V Lf"
.41 iw
WA HINGTO
rARK LIN

Ilb

Lin
I-Lu

2pop
Lin
WN'.P..

US 264, SR 1501 IN WASHINGTON TO NC 32, BEAUFORT COUNTY.
WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY TO A MULTI-LANE FACILITY.

r
R-21 6 BEAUFORT
PITT COUNTY COUNTY

Lai A.
@o
_4

1AL.

.10
-A. A

H@N
TAR

1441
!Icy
Ch,
0 33 , ., -r
GAIMMAND
POP. 'S3
For

US 264, SR 1537 EAST OF GREENVILLE TO WASHINGTON, PITT-BEAUFORT
COUNTIES.
WIDEN EXISTING TWO LANE ROADWAY TO FOUR LANE DIVIDED FACILITY.

Source: "Highway'Improvement Program Maps 1987-1995",
North Carolina Department of Transportation
fl 216

Appendix F

AGENCIES COORDINATING STORM PREPAREDNESS

N. C. Division of Coastal Management
Slate Office: Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-2293

Field Office: Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
1424 Carolina Avenue
P. 0. Box 1507
Washingtong NC 27889
(919) 946-6481

N. C. Division of Emergency Management
(now includes National Flood Insurance Program Information)

State'Office: Divisionof Emergency Management
Department of Crime Control and Public
Safety
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-3867

Regional Office: Area Emergency Management Coordinator
N. C. Division,of Emergency Management
Beaufort County Courthouse
Washington@ NC 27889
(919) 946-2773

Federal Emergency Management Agency

National Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Streetv S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20472

Public Information - (202) 287-0300
Publications - (202) 287-0689

Regional Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1375 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Public Information - (404) 13EJI-2000
Disaster Assistance
Program (404) eei-3641

Flood Insurance
Program (404) eel-2391

APPENDIX G

Beaufort County Planning Program
Schedule of Meetings

September 29, 1986 Introductory Workshop, Land Use Plan
Advisory Committee

October 13, 1qe6 Advisory Committee

December 149 1986 Advisory Committee

January 12, 1987 Advisory Committee

February 9, 1987 Advisory Committee

March 9, 1987 Advisory Committee

April 13, 1997 Advisory Committee

May 11,-19E37 Advisory Committee

May 18, 1987 Advisory Committee

June 1, 1987 Advisory Committee

June e, 19B7 Advisory Committee

June 22, 19e7 Advisory. Committee

July 13, 1987 Advisory Committee
July 21, 1987 Advisory Committee'j 60ard of County
Commissioners

August 4, 19e7 Board of County Commissionersq adoption
of preliminary land use plan

Note: All meetings were advertised as being open to the public.

Appendix H

Policy Alternatives, Policy Choices from
BeFore the Storm in Beaufort County

As recom., iended in Before the Storn, "to ov ercome the shortcomings in

Coverage or enforcement of existing policies, a community should review other

,techniques that could be used effectively and efficiently to eeduce the risk

of future hurricane damages. Different techniques are suited to different

development and redevelopment problems; certain techniques will be more

practical and more effective than others in addressing the community's

particular hazard mitigation needs" (13TS, page 5.19).

Consistent with this analytical approach, the following list of choices amon.c
policies and measure@s is presented. It is from this list and oche rs

-enerated by consideration of it, that the selection of workable hazzard

reduction measures is to be selected.

(1@ Objective: To maintain or strengthen existin-
policies known to decrease the risk of
hurricane damage.

The County now administers parts of the state build.inlg-code with an

inspections program. This program has recently expanded attention into
,. I
construction standards for footings, framing, PILIMbing (inclUding well and

septic), and insulation, as well as electrical.

.he commissioners could choose to adopt the complete state building code

and administer it councy-wide, so as to upgrade the quality of construction

and the e.-tenc to which it is hurricane vorthy.

The construction standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency are

required for areas that are participating in the regular.phase of the flood

insurance program.. Only Washington, Wash ington Park, Belhaven and Aurora

are participating in the regular phase, with the remainder of the

unincorporated county, Pantegot Bath, and Chocowinity participating in the

emergency phase.

The option facing the commissioners is one of using the best available 100

year flood level from the emergency phase (10 ft.) and requiring the

elevation of the first floor of buildings in the hurricane hazard area

(Exhibit (D)) now, with.refinement after the regular phase is official.

The state's Sedimendation Control Act (15 NCAC 04A) requires an erosion

and sedimentation control plan to be prepared and filed with the

Environmental Management Commission or the County Commissioners prior to

the commencement of any land disturbing activity of more than one acre.

This policy allows two important types of development to no untended in the

flood hazard area, agriculture and small lot residential development.

The commissioners have the choice of (1) decreasing the land area to

one-half acre, thereby locally requiring residential development on

waterfront lots (of at least this size) to take adequate precautions

against erosion, and (2) including agriculture and forestry as land uses

that in fact cause "a change in the natural cover or topography tha t may

cause or contribute to sedimentation".

CAIIA includes a buffer of 75 feet in the Estaurine Shoreline AEC (15 VCAC

711, 0209 (b) and (d) in which developed is monitored and regulated in terms

of siting. So;ae types of development may be prohibited depending on the

specific site carrying capabilities.

Since the tightening of these stan dards could be beyond the adni'nistrative

capacity of the county, the choice facing the commissioners is likely one

of changing the "buffer" provision to a "setback" provision, which would

require that uses which could otherwise be built more than 75 feet from the

shoreline must be; otherwise the regulations of CAILA would operate as-now

written.

(2) Objective:, To create policies which REDUCE risk.

As indicated in the 1932 CAIMA Land Use Plan, the commissioners have no
subdivision'regulations which govern the design @f developments or the

quality of construction of roads in:subdivisions. Subdivision of land is

traditionally regulated because it transforms large acreage s from a rural

character to a suburban/urban one.

The county commissioners have an option to adopt subdivision regulations
Ito

(without zoning). Into these, provisions of floodplain management,

adequate lot size, and drainage could be written. These regulations would

require plats which show the first floor elevated above the best

information available regarding the 100 year flood.

The County has a detailed soils analysis underway through the District SCS

t11r. E. H. Karnowski's office). This information could be used to develop

soils overlav districts within which to set density standards based upon

soil characteristics and their carrying capacities in terms of abilities to
accept septic effluent, and load bearing capabilities to'bear development

(see Exhibits G, H, I, and J).

Since natural solutions are often the best, the commissioners could

consider establishing a vegetation or landscaping ordinance for

shorefront property that requires careful development, recognizing the

value of retaining vegetation, retaining trees as a buffer on the s@,.oreline

between the wind and water of a storm and buildin,-s. This would include

retaining the wind-clipped trees closest to the water, which protect the

rest of the shorefront lot (Caring for the Land, Environmental Principles for

Since much of the area within the hazard area (Exhibit E) is in

agricultural use, the commissioners could establish an Exclusive Farm Use

Zone in a Development Options Ordinance. This approach was used as part

of the Land Resource Management Program, Oregon State University Extension

Service. It guarantees continued agricultural uses and.also contains and

restricts urban uses in areas which are high in erosion and which have low.

tolerance for high densities and impervious surfaces, and which otherwise

have sensitive environments.

Since the taxation of land is a fundamental influence in development

patterns, the Commissioners could implement one of the 1982-83 objectives

of the North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Land Use Planning Committee. The Association recommended that plans, such

as this Storm Mitigation Plan should make provisions for consideration of

equitable assessments of land us*e for agricultural, wildlife, recreational

aesthetic, or other uses which are significant (hurricane risk reducin.-)

interest and importance to the general public. (Source: U-C Association,

Soil and Uater Conservation Districts, Raleigh, NIC, June, 1932, page 7)..

Taxation could be strategically designed to guide development away from

hurricane risk areas (or perhaps,the higher risk areas w-ithin the flood

zone), by placing a "hazards premium" on development'placed in areas of

excessive risk, or conversely, allowing a preferential assessment

("hazard-avoidance discount") on property back away from the shoreline or

otherwise outside areas of extreme risk. This could minimize present and

future unnecessary public expenses to serve such areas (e.g. fire and

sheriff services) and also prevent unnecessary public expenses to "clean tip

the mess" following a major storm. While not exactly transferable, the

recent March 1984 tornado disasters in neighboring counties emphasize the

public costs involved in clean up and reconstruction.

Tile Commissioners could consider establishing an erosion and runoff

ordinance.for only the most sensitive areas. This would involve the

development of a drainage overlay district which would locate criticai

drainage channels, particularly those which often become overwashed and

inundated during moderate storms. (Such areas are known as I. weak spots",

and are a type of hurricane risk hazard included in the county's hazard

area (Exhibit (D)).

This overlay district would assist in the preservation and protection of

the natural environment by: regulating the alteration of land and

topography; regulating the removal of vegetation; specifying standards-for

drainage system construction; requiring,erosion and sedimentation control;

assuring the continued, efficient operation oi the drainage system; (and)

protecting county streams and floodplains from substantial alteration of

their natural functions. (Source: Thurow et al., p. 104.)

(3) Objective: To amend or avoid actions known to
increase risks.

Exhibit Y indicates that there is clear responsibility taken in 1972 by the

County Commissioners to "adopt,and maintain in force for areas having special

flood hazards, adequate land use and cont rol measures..." This sto rm

mitigation, Post Reconstruction and Evacuation Plan is an additional step in

that di rection.

Avoiding actions known to increase risks is an objective the Commissioners

can address through education of the.publi,c about the risks 'of locating in

the hazard area. It is the intention of the Commissioners to.provide that

informcation through this planning effort and its Office of Emergency

Management.

Since the County has traditionally resisted county-wide land use zoning in

any'form, the commissioners may consider: (1) developing a flood-hazard

area ordinance which would incorporate many of the aforementioned

provisions that could otherwise be put into separate ordinances or (2)

zoning a smaller portion of the county where development is intense but

subject to'no guiding influence. This targeted approach directed at the

priority risk areas in the County could become the foundation piece of a

thoughtful-way of supportively directing development without stifling it.

In many cases, developers are more likely to bring their investments to a

county which offers them proper protection.through ordinances. A selecti%,,e

zoning ordinance could indicate that the commissioners are working to

protect whoever's investment goes into the hazard hurricane hazard area,

and is doing all it can to lessen the costs to developers, the federal

insurance agency, and most importantly, the tax payers for they foot the

bill to "clean up the mess."

and reconstruction. All policies whicli g ide development and reconstruction
u@
recognize the different levels of risk that exist in different parts of the

county and in different types of structures.

b. Selected Policies and Melasures.

1. Continue to enforce the State building1code.'

2. Adopt the regular phase of the FMIA f1 od insurance program at.the

appropriate time (when.the final mapping is completed).

3. .,Conduct a risk-avoidance education proiram through the Office of

Emergency Management to advise current and prospective developers and
buyers of the hurricane risks in Beauf@rt County.

4. Establish a proc'edure in the Inspections Department of deter-mining, at

the time that building permits are requested, whether the permit is for

construction within the Hurricane Haza. d Area shown in Exhibit E. If so,

advise the applicant of the potential urricane hazards. discuss

recommended construction techniques fo such areas, and suggest that he

contact the Federal Emergency Managetie t Agency (through local financial

institutions providing construction lo ns) for information on reduced

insurance premiums-under the FEMA prog am for construction with the first

floor above the 100 year flood (10 fee

Implementation and Monitoring

a. Rationale

At this point in the hurricane planning process, Beaufort County has several

products. First is a list of hurricane hazard mitigation need@ or

development characteristics the community needs to control. Second is a

compilation of measures which are currently in.place to mitigate the

hurricane hazard. Third is a compilation of measures which the community can

adopt to cover any needs that current measures fail to address. The ne"t

step in the process involves blending these into a coo.-dinated local program

.'or reducing the risk of hurricane damages.

Implementation of local policies is the final step in formulatinC a hazird-

mitigation program, as it is with any good planning effort. But beyond that

work and after local pol icies are implemented and hazard reduction measure-s

are being carried out, the County will need to monitor developmenc to ensure

that prescribed measures are being followed.

In this case, implementation involves adopting policies and ordinances

selected bv The Board of County Commissioners as necessary to ptic hazard

mitilsation measures into effect.

Some of the policy choices would put hazard mitigation measures into

continuous operation as a means of managing development in the community,

such as subdivision requirements or construction standards. 'Other policies

would put hazard mitigation measures into effect only in response to

disaster, such as relocation programs and temporary moratoria on development

c tionitorinc, Consistency and Effectiveness Over Tire

It is the intent of the County Commissioners that local hurricane hazard

mitigation be inte8rated with other local plans, polici s, and rogr ms which
C, I..' e
cover other aspects of development in the county.

Through the Office of the Emergency Management Coordinator, the County will

continuously observe how development is proceeding in the community once

these hazard mitigation measures are adopted and implemented. Keeping trac@@.

of development will help the.County see if hazard mitigation policies are

being followed and if hazard mitigation policies need to be modified in any

way to make them more workable and effective. Such monitorinS can identify

further problems in coverage and enforcement that need to be resolved. @uch

monitoring efforts may involve less formal, continuous observations or more

formal, periodic evaluations. In these forms, monitoring efforts will pay

attention to where development is locating (relative to different hazard

areas) and how development is being built (relative to the forces expected in

each hazard area).

@17it@ the recent 11arch, 1984 tornado disasters in neighboring counties, the

county should be highly alerted as to possible and pending dar-age uhen a

hurricane strikes. An areawide assessment of the "institittional. abilit',,!- of

@ocal Eovernment to deal with these natural disasters might be made.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beaufort Soil and Water Conservation District, "Long Range
Program and Work Plan." Washington, NC 1980.

Institute for Southern Studieso "Who Owns North Carolina?"
Durham, 1986.

Mid-East Commission, "Aurora Land Use Plan Update." September
1986.

Mid-East C6mmissionp "Belhaven Land Use Plan 'Up date." April
1987.

Mid-East Commission, "Overall Economic Development Program
Update." August 19E36.

North Carolina Crop and Livestock' Reporting Service, North
Carolina Agriculture Statistics 1985. Raleigh, October
19B5.

North Carolina Deportment of Commerceg 1985-86 Directory Manu@
facturing Firms. Raleighs 1984.

North Carolina Department of Commerceg Division of Travel and
Tourism, "1984 North Carolina Travel Study." Raleigh,
May 1984.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh. Correspondence, 28 January
1987.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina,
Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters. Raleighq 1987.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh.
Correspondence, 1 December 1986.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation
Improvement 1987-1995. Raleigh, December 1986.

North Carolina Department of Transportation) Highway and Road
Mileage. Ralefghq January 1987.

Office of State Budget and Managemento "North Carolina Municipal
Population 1985." Raleigh, September 1986.

Office of State Budget and Management, Profile No@th Carolina
Counties. Raleigh, Seventh Edition 1986.

Office of State Budget and Management, Profile North Carolina
Counties. Raleighq Sixth Edition 19E31.

Office of State Budget and Management, Statistical Abstract
North Carolina State Government. Raleigh, Fifth Edition
1964.

Planning and Design Associates, Before the Storm in Beaufort
County: AVOIDING HARM'S WAY. Raleigh, June 1984.

Planning-and Design Associates, "Land Use Plan of Historic Bath:
19B6-1996." Raleigh@ May 1986.

Planning-and Design Associates, "The Washington Land Use Plan:
ige5-1995." Raleigh, 1985.

U. S. -Department of Agriculture, Sail Conservation Service,
Beaufort County North Carolina Soil Survey Ma ps and Inter-
pretations. July, 1984.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil
Survey of Hertford County North Carolina. July 19e4.

U. S. Department of Commercep Bureau of the Census, 19E32 Census
of Agriculture'3 North Carolina State and County Data.
Washington, D. C. Government Printing Office, May.19e4.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census
of Population. Washington, D. C. Government Printing
Office, March 1973.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 19E30 Census
of Population. Washington, D. C. Government Printing
Office, October 1983.

US Department of Commerce

NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER LIBRARY
3 6668 14101 8970