[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
REVIEW COPY ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS AND ZONING ISSUES 4! Nap 0 2 I'll, - - - - - - - - - -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA AUGUST 1988 HD 211 .V8 man E PLRNNING A53 MRNRGEMENT 1988 RSSOCIRTES 10227 Warwick Blvd, IYO-P-11 No-s. Va. 23601 ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS AND ZONING ISSUES NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA AUGUST 1988 PLANNING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, LTD NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA A. JACK STODGHILL, PRESIDENT cv JOY A. CIPRIANO, VICE PRESIDENT ELAINE F. KILLAM, RESEARCH ASSISTANT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 11. GROWTH OF THE COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. HISTORY OF COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Population Trends and Projections . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Population Distribution Within the County . . . . . . . 5 3. Future Population Potential . . . . . . . . . o . . 7 C. ECONOMY I - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Agricu'l;ureo : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. Other Private Sector Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Real Estate Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 D. TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. ANALYSIS OF GENERAL LAND USE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A. GENERAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Groundwater Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 B. EXISTING LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C. SUBDIVISION GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 IV. PLANNING ANALYSIS AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A. OCCOHANNOCK CREEK BASIN AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B. NASSAWADOX CREEK AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 C. HUNGARS CREEK/MATTAWOMAN CREEK/THE GULF @REA . . . . . . . 33 D. CHERRYSTONE INLET AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 E. OLD PLANTATION CREEK AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 37 F. CENTRAL CORRIDOR AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 G. SEASIDE CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 H. BARRIER ISLANDS & WETLANDS CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 V. LAND USE ISSUES AND GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS RELATED TO LAND USE . . . . . . . . 47 B. SUMMARY OF ISSUES GENERATED BY REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 C. ISSUES, GOALS AND STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 APPENDIX A . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ILLUSTRATIONS Page MAP I Major Population Centers 6 MAP 2 Erosion Rates 14 MAP 3 Major Subdivisions 24 MAP 4 Planning Analysis Areas 27 MAP 5 Central Corridor 40 MAP 6 Seaside Corridor 43 MAP 7 Wetlands 46 TABLE I Population Trends and Projections 1960-2000 4 TABLE 2 School Enrollments, 1980-1985 4 TABLE 3 Housing Units Authorized, 1980-1986 5 TABLE 4 Year-Round Housing Units,1970-1980 7 TABLE 5 Agricultural Trends, 1978-1982 8 TABLE 6 Private Sector Employer Establishments, Employment and Average Change, 1983-1987 9 TABLE 7 Average Weekly Wage Earnings, 1980 and 1987 9 TABLE 8 Real Estate Valuation, 1984-85 and 1985-86 10 TABLE 9 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Average Daily Traffic, 1980-1987 11 TABLE 10 Wetland Acreage 13 TABLE 11 Shoreline Erosion Rates 15 TABLE 12 Municipal Water Systems in Northampton County 19 TABLE 13 Residential Wastewater Disposal, 1970-1980 20, TABLE 14 Potential Septic Tank Problem Areas 20 TABLE 15 Existing Land Use 21 TABLE 16 Size and Location of Large Parcels, 1988 22 TABLE 17 Land Use of Large Parcels, 1988 22 TABLE 18 Summary of Subdivisions, Past 50 Years 23 TABLE 19 Land Use Issues, Goals and Strategies 50 ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS AND ZONING ISSUES NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA I. INT90DUCTION This report provides a general framework of physical information about Northampton County which serves as the basis for analyzing the conditions that will influence required zoning regulations. Northampton County has- been the subject of various state and local studies on a variety of land use topics. These studies have been reviewed and con- solidated in this study along with some original research, observations and interviews with staff and other county officials. . Section two reviews the general County growth, in population and economy as primarily found in the report, Socio-Economic Data: Comprehensive Plan Background which provides a thorough analysis of all points of interest. Section two of this report highlights and updates some of the key findings of the comprehensive plan background report. The County has been experiencing such a tremendous change in land use conditions over the past two to three years that the most recent demographic and economic statistics do not yet reflect these changes. Section three reviews existing land use conditions, topography, erosion and water resources. Planning Management Associates produced a land use conditions inventory of all parcels of land over 25 acres. The summary of this data base is found in this section. The fourth section is a delineation and analysis of the Planning Analysis Areas as determined by Planning Management Associates. These study areas Were identified as a means of evaluating the conditions. particular to a specific region in the county as well as those conditions commonly experienced by the county as a whole. Issues were identified for each of the planning areas. The final section is a summary of the issues observed in the analysis of Northampton County as well as the goals and courses of action suggested by the Comprehensive Plan Update. To these issues and goals are added some preliminary notes as to appropriate zoning ordinance related recommendations. II. GROWTH OF THE COUNTY The purpose of this section is not to duplicate the extensive analysis found in the report, Socio-Economic Data: Comprehensive Plan Background. Instead, this section will highlight upon and update the historic, socio-economic, and land use information which impact on decisions important to the development of the Zoning ordinance. A. HISTORY OF COUNTY The Eastern Shore "...is a country that may have prerogative over the most pleasant places of Europe, Asia, Africa and America ... Heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation." From Captain John Smith's notes and maps of Eastern Shore, 1612. The history of the development of the Eastern Shore begins with a branch of the Algonquin Indian Tribe who called the area Accomack which means " on- tPe-other-side-of -the- water P, ace". These original inhabitants numbered about 2,000 at COUNTY LOCATION the time of the first European landings. The first recorded landing was in 1603 by Captain Bartholomew Gilbert, a nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh. The landing was unsuccessful in that all of the landing party, including Captain Gilbert, were killed by the Indians. In June, 1608, Captain John Smith from Jamestown made a successful landing on the Eastern Shore, traded with the Indians and made the first known map of the mainland and, major islands; the earliest copy of this map found was published in 1612. June, 1614 brought the first purchase of land from the Indians to be used as an outpost for the Virginia Company and the first permanent habita- tion of the area occurred in the fall of 1620. By 1635 there were approxi-- mately 396 people. The Eastern Shore began the process of dividing into two counties as early as 1663 with an Act of the General Assembly. The taxable population at that time was 707. . The newly formed county of Northampton quickly built the first courthouse on the Eastern Shore in 1664- at Town Fields on the northern side of King's Creek. However, by, 1670 the Shore was once again united and then redivide'd in 1674. Continued political maneuverings prevented a permanent fixation of the boundary line between Northampton County and Accomack County until 1688. 2 By the 1703 Census, Northampton County had a population of 2081 and 99,384 acres of land patented. This represented 90 percent of its total land area. By this same time U.S. Route 13 had a major portion of its foundation established by a major roadway system that ran through the length of the Eastern Shore. Following restoration of the county (after the Civil War) to self rule in 1870, the county was divided into three "townships": Franktown, Eastville and Capeville. Although the name "town-ship" has been altered to Magisterial District, the boundaries concepts remain today as they were established over a hundred years ago. Agriculture and fishing have been the major industries in Northampton County since its first habitation. Other industries have prospered in their time, including cloth.making in the.1700's, coach assembling and castor oil manufacturing in the early 1800's and commercial ice plants in the early 1900's. The area was seen as a great recreational spot throughout the 1800's and 1900's and supported numerous resort hotels. But it is the land and water that has been the main force of the local economy. Protection of these important industries led to legislation as early as the 1840's for conservation of fishing areas. in 1891 legislation called for the surveying and protecting of oyster beds so that they would not become depleted by over harvesting. The County grew from a population of 707 in 1663 to 17,300 in 1950 to a population of over 14,625 by 1980. The development of the County has come from a richness of natural resources in the land and in the sea and from an appreciation by its people of a unique quality of life. B. DEMOGRAPHICS 1. Population Trends and Projectio ns Until recently, indicators suggest that Northampton County is experiencing slow change in total population. The change is so gradual that the two official state agencies that provide estimates or projec- tions do not agree on whether the population is slowly growing or slowly declining since the 1980 Census. The University of Virginia Center for Public Service (formerly Tayloe Murphy Institute). shows a gradual decline in its yearly estimates of the population through year 1985. In 1986 the Center's estimate increased slightly to the level of the 1981 estimate. The State Department of Planning and Budget proj ects slow growth for the county through years 1990 and 2000. .The following table gives the figures from both of these agencies as well as historical census data, showing the substan- tial decline (of about 2,500 people) from 1960-1970 and the growth (of about 200 people) from 1970-1980. 3 TABLE 1 POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Year Census U. Va. State Planning & Data Estimates Budget Projections 1960 16,966 1970 14,442 1980 14,666 1981 14,500 1982 14,400 1983 14,400 1984 14,300 1985 14,300 1986 14,500 1990 14,800 2000 14,910 Sources: U.S. Census, 1960, 1970, 1980; University of Virginia, Center for Public Service; Virginia Department of Planning and Budget An examination of recent school enrollment shows that from 1980 through 1982 both elementary and. high schools were losing enrollment. From 1982 through 1985 the elementary schools have been gaining students and the decrease in high school students appears to have slowed. This may be a reflection of a recent upturn in the birthrate which has been experienced nationally as well. as statewide. The first impact is in elementary schools and later in high schools. TABLE 2 SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VA. Year Elementary Change High School Change Enrollment From Prior Enrollment From Prior Year Year 1980-81 1,500 NA 978 NA 1911-82 1,414 -6 910 -68 1982-83 1,940 -4 866 -44 1983-84 1,513 +23 855 -11 1984-85 1,553 +40 821 -34 Source: Virginia Department of Education, Annual Report of the Superin- tendent of Public Instruction; PMA analysis. Housing units authorized in the county also have increased since 1982, especially with the increase of multi-family units in 1983 and 1984 and a considerable increase in single family conventional units in 1986. 4 14 TABLE 3 HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1980 1981 .1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOBILE 32 38 46 44 44 55 69 SF 30 15 16 33 28 33 58 DUPLEX 3-4 UNITS 4 5+ UNITS 28 98 -DEMOLITIONS -1 -3 -1 -3 -3 TOTAL UNITS 62 52 59 104 167 92 124 Source: U. Va. Center for Public Service Overall it appears that the county may have experienced some population decline in the very early 1980's, but may now have reverted back to a pattern of gradual population growth. The Virginia Depart- ment of Planning and Budget projects 14,800 persons by year 1990 and 14,910 persons by year 2000. These projections obviously do not take into consideration the new developments that are now in progress within the County. 2. Population Distribution Within the County An analysis of year-round housing units shows that during the decade of 1970-1980, outside of the towns, the Eastville District grew the most and the Capeville District lost housing units. Franktown grew a little. All of the towns experienced slow growth except for Cape Charles and Exmore which showed decreases in housing units. The area map on the following page shows the borders of the magisterial dis- tricts and major rural villages and incorporated towns. 5 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA OFFICIAL BASE MAP J FRANKTOWN DISTRICT .7 4 V, A EASTVILLE DISTRICT-___ IL4 L17 -d CAPEVILLE DISTRICT yl MAP I MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS INCORPORATED TOWN or CITY t SMALL TOWN or VILLAGE ...... MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LINE PLRNNING MSNRGEMENT ASSOCIRTES TABLE 4 YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VA. 1970 1977 1980 AVERAGE CENSUS FIELD STUDY CENSUS CHANGE ANNUAL UNITS UNITS* UNITS 1970-80 % CHANGE HOUSING UNITS OUTSIDE TOWNS TOTAL RURAL CAPEVILLE 1145 1007 1001 -144 (1) TOTAL RURAL EASTVILLE 1225 1501 1896 671 5 TOTAL RURAL FRANKTOWN 1164 .1201 1195 31 0 TOTAL OUTSIDE TOWNS 3534 3709 4092 558 2 HOUSING UNITS INSIDE TOWNS CAPE CHARLES 742 724 700 -42 (1) CHERITON 274 281 295 21 1 EASTVILLE 86 94 95 9 1 EXMORE 563 557 559 -4 (0) NASSAWADOX 229 238 250 21 1 BELLE HAVEN (pt) 40 50 57 17 4 TOTAL TOWNS 1934 1944 1956 22 0 TOTAL NORTHAMPTON COUNTY 5468 5653 6048 580 1 Includes re-adjustment of 190 units in field study from rural areas to towns also includes shift of 150 units from Capeville to Eastville rural districts in 1970 and 1977 figures to conform with re-districting in 1980 Census Sources: 1970 & 1980 Census; 1977 field study.by PMA; PMA adjustments The 1980 Census only classified 90 units as seasonal for the whole county (Capeville, 34; Eastville, 33 and Franktown, 23). Therefore the summer population distribution would not be significantly different from that indicated by the year-round units analysis. Field observa- tions support this as many previously seasonal homes have become permanent dwellings, particularly in the Smith and Silver Beach areas. 3. Future Population Potential one problem in using recorded population and housing trends as a basis of projecting future population is that they do not reflect the pressure for development that Northampton County is presently ex- periencing. As of June, 1988, 202 subdivisions providing for 3,305 lots have been recorded and more are in the planning process. A summary of the subdivision activity follows in subsection III.C. The target of most of this development appears to be the upscale retirement market and the locations that are in demand in the larger tracts along the Chesapeake Bay. If all of the housing units that are in the planning process were to materialize into sales and fulltime occupants, the County is in line for a very large population increase over the next decade. While it is not possible to predict with reliability how the market will respond to this massive private investment in residential, sites, it is safe to predict that it will have a large impact on the County's resources. 7 C. ECONOMY Mirroring demographic trends, the Northampton County economy shows little change from .1980-1987. The county is rural, mainly agricul- tural, and has shown little change in agriculture or employment indicators. Other economic statistics such as income and retail sales have mainly shown slow growth, slower than the state average. 1. Agriculture The following table shows a relatively stable picture of county agriculture from 1978-1982, the latest agricultural census available. TABLE 5 AGRICULTURAL TRENDS, 1978-1982 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1978 1982 Farms with sales of $20,000+ 184 184 Land in farms (acres) 59,433 60,108 Average size of farms (acres) 323 327 Average value of land & buildings per acre $1,129 $1,386 The strength of the agricultural economy on the Eastern Shore, compared with the state average is shown in the following 1982 agricultural comparisons: Average Size Average Market Value of All Farms (acres) of Products Sold Northampton County 253 $90,054 Accomack County 254 $114,222 Virginia 182 $31,005 Source: Northampton County Comprehensive Plan, 1984 2. Other Private Sector Employment Private sector employment in Northampton County has shown little or no change over the past five years. Employment has grown in Accomack County during that period, as well as statewide. The little growth in employment would as a rule account for the low level of population growth because it takes jobs to support population. An exception to this is retirement housing which increases population without a need to provide jobs to support the residents. There are, however, some jobs created by construction and the increased.services required of new residents. 8 TABLE 6 PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYER ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYMENT AND AVERAGE CHANGE, 1983-1987 No. of No. of A:v.Annual Average Average Av.Annual Establ, Eslabl, Percent Employment Employment Pe rcenl@ 2nd Q 1983 lst Q 1987 Change 2nd Q .1983 1st Q 1987 Change Statewide 97,922 117,381 5.0 1,655,079 2,053,093 5.7 Accomack 615 645 1.2 7,-929 8,929, 3.2 Northampton 274 273 -0.1''@ 3,372 3,368 b Source: Virginia Employment Commission, Covered Employment 3. Income Wages on the Eastern Shore are low and.: losing ground compared with t@e state average. They are higher in Accomack than in Northampton County. In 1987 Northampton County wages were only 59% of the state average. Agricultural wages actually'decrea:sed between 1980 and 1987. TABLE 7 AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE EARNINGS STATE ACCOMACK NORTHAMPTON 1980 1987 1980 1987 1980 1987 Ag'riculture,Forestry, Fisheries, Mining $184 $234 $230 $223 $215 $178 Construction 293 366 212 237 206 252 Manufacturing 302 413 170 245 147 214 Transportation, Communicat, & Other Utilities 367 536 311 451 298 353 Trade 211 270 158 193 168 175 Finance, Insur.& R.Estate 267 448 215 321 237 271 Services 240 360 199 250 165 227, TOTAL AVERAGE $264 $363 $184 $243 $165 $214 AS PERCENT OF STATE 100 100 70 67 63 59 Source: Virginia Employment Commission, Covered Employment Median family income in Northampton County as reported by -Tayloe Murphy Institute was 61% of the state average: 1979 1986 Income % of State Income % of State Northampton Co. $12,131 61 $18,864 61 Accomack Co. 13,497 67 21,134 68 Virginia 20,018 100 100 9 4. Real Estate Values Real estate valuation in the county has shown slow growth over the last few years. The largest increase was in buildings and improvements between 1986 and 1987 and that was approximately 3%, about even with inflation. Again, this is not reflecting the rise in value of property near the Bay which is now being targeted for residential development. it may take several years for the impact of this new development and potential development to result in a larger increase in tax valuation. But it appears to be only a matter of time before that happens. TABLE 8 REAL PROPERTY VALUATION Percent Percent Change Change 1984-85 1985-86 From 1986-87 From Prior Yr. Prior Year --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land $136,311,900 $136,667,800 0.26 $136,446,500 -0.16 Bldgs & Improv 120,561$700 122,268,500 1.42 126,074,700 3.11 Total Valuation 256,873,600 258,936,300 0.80 262,521,200 1.38 Real Estate Levy $1,967,976 $1,983,772 0.80 $2$010,160 1.33 Source: Virginia Department of Taxation, Annual Report D. TRAFFIC The County has 48.76 miles of arterial and primary roads. These include: U.S. Route 13, including Business 13 through Cheriton, Eastville and Exmore, sections of Bypass 13, and primary roads Routes 178, 183, 613 and 184. The "Transportation" section of the Northampton County report, Socio- Economic Data: Comprehensive Plan Background ' goes into a thorough analysis and comparisons of specific types of traffic and specific locations changing traffic patterns within the County. That report indicates that between Exmore and Eastville, traffic volume on arterial and primary roads increased between 1974 and 1983. However, between Eastville and the Bay Bridge Tunnel, volume decreased for this same time span. The business sections of U.S. 13 reflect these same findings. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel plays a major role in the increase of traffic through Northampton County. Since its opening in 1964, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has attracted an increasing number of drivers through the Eastern Shore. Since 1980, traffic through Northampton County has increased 39 percent as shown in the following table, 10 TABLE 9 CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE TUNNEL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC --------------------------------------------------------------------- % CHANGE 1980 1984 1987 1980-87 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PASSENGER CARS 3250 3500 5500 SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS/BUSES 940 1175 295 TRAILER TRUCKS 470 500 663 ------ ---- ---- ---- TOTALS 4660 5157 6458 39% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE: VDH & T - Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Interstate, Arterial and Primary Routes, 1980, 1984, and 1987 VDH&T have changed statistical gathering methods and are currently including pickup trucks and vans in the passenger car category, accounting for the dramatic changes in these categories. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District report that for the first six months of 1988, in excess of 1.062 million vehicles have passed through the Bridge Tunnel for an average daily traffic count of 5902 total vehicles. Projections indicate that by the end of the year the average will substantially exceed last year's figures. I. ANALYSIS OF GENERAL LAND USE CONDITIONS A. GENERAL INFORMATION Northampton County is located on the southern half of the peninsula in Virginia, known as the Eastern Shore. The Eastern Shore includes Accomack County to the north and Northampton County to the south. Northampton County has a and area of 226 square miles from Fisherman's Island to Occohannock Creek. 1. Topography There are three noticeable topographical corridors running the length of the county. The first is the bayside corridor which faces the Chesapeake Bay with a varied coastline consisting of 25 foot bluffs, 50 foot dunes to flat sandy beaches and marshlands at and below sea level. The entire coast is incised with a complex system of creeks. The middle ridge is the high ground between the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean and runs between 25 to 40 feet above sea level. The seaside corridor drops down from the 25 foot contour to land that is visible at low tide and under water at high tide. There is a extensive tidal marsh system between the fastland on this seaside coast and the barrier islands off of the coast with a few deep water channels leading to the Atlantic. The Eastern Shore contains seventy percent of Virginia's total oceanside shoreline and fifteen percent of the total tidal shoreline. Northampton County has 261.4 miles of shoreline. The majority of the shoreline, 193.7 miles, is located on the bayside, with 39.9 miles located seaside and 27.8 miles located around the barrier islands. Only 62.2 miles of shoreline are beaches (23% of the total shoreline) and 38.7 miles are dunes (14.8% of the total). The rest of the shoreline is low or low with some bluffs. SHORELINE Bayside 193.7 Miles Seaside 39.9 Miles Around Barrier Islands 27.8 Miles Total 261.4 Miles In addition, Accomack and Northampton Counties contain 47 percent of the state's salt marsh acreage. There are 28,054 acres of wetlands in Northampton County. The following table indicates the amount of wetlands in the county according to location. 12 TABLE 10 WETLAND ACREAGE LOCATION TOTAL WETLAND ACREAGE OCCOHANNOCK CREEK 151 OCCOHANNOCK NECK 35 NASSAWADOX CREEK 380 CHURCH NECK 38 HUNGARS CREEK 472 OLD TOWN NECK 3 THE GULF 49 SAVAGE NECK 1 CAPE CHARLES 55 OLD PLANTATION CREEK 163 KIPTOPEKE 82 FISHERMANS ISLAND 429 TOTAL BAYSIDE 2,246 MILL CREEK 766 DUNTON COVE 529 MOCKHORN BAY 456 RAMSHORN BAY 557 HOLT NECK 1,165 MACHIPONGO RIVER 3,431 TOTAL SEASIDE 6,904 BARRIER ISLANDS 18,904 TOTAL COUNTY WETLANDS 28,054 SOURCE: VIMS, Shoreline Situation Report: Northampton County, 1974 These wetlands are not simply an interesting topographical item; they are of national importance in that they play a vital role in the marine food chain - supplying food, providing habitat and nesting grounds for a multitude of organisms, waterfowl and marine creatures; providing an important feeding ground for migrating birds from Canada to South America; and acting as a huge cleansing ground for pollutants in the waters. Any development which destroys or even disturbs these areas risks endangering not only wildlife and marine life, it also threatens the economic livelihoods of county residents and destroys the very reasons many individuals have chosen to live in Northampton County. Legislation may attempt to protect the wetlands themselves, but development surrounding the wetlands, if uncontrolled, will create the same kind of damage. 2. Erosion The VIMS, Shoreline Situation Report for Northampton County summarizes the erosion problem in the county as severe. Many areas of 13 '0000, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA OFFICIAL BASE MAP X-' . . . . . . . . . . -ba 117 A. o . a 4 MAP 2 EROSION RATES SEVERE (3 It or more MODERATt ( I - 3 It k SLIGHT under I It PMRNRGEME"T RSSOCIRTES the county as early as 1974, were labeled "severe - critical" in that structures and people were endangered. Since 1974 more development has occurred and the situation is only worsening with each new structure and each new subdivision platted. VIMS uses the following ratings to describe shoreline erosion: Slight erosion is under one -foot per year. Moderate erosion is one to 3 feet per year. Severe erosion is anything over 3 feet per year. Map 2 illustrates the extent of the shoreline erosion problems in Northampton County. Along the Chesapeake Bay, erosion is primarily caused by northwest or north winds in conjunction with weather fronts passing through the area in the late fall, winter and spring. To a lesser degree, south- west or south winds in the sununer can also cause damage. Most of the shoreline directly facing the Chesapeake Bay experiences from moderate to severe levels of erosion. The seaside of the county is protected from erosion by the barrier islands. These islands, however, experience extreme erosion and accretion levels. The erosion on the seaside is predominately a result of "northeasters" and the ipfrequent hurricanes. These storms cause erosion through powerful wave action and one to three foot storm surges which push the waves further onto the islands. The following table summarizes the VIMS report by providing erosion rates for site-specific areas of the county. TABLE 11 SHORELINE EROSION RATES GENERAL LOCATION SEGMENT STUDIED LENGTH EROSION RATE (ft/yr) OCCOHANNOCK Sparrow Point 7300 ft I - 3(southern part) 6 (northern part) Battle Point 5000 ft 5 N. of Downing Beach 7000 ft 5 Silver Beach 7400 ft 5.7 CHURCH NECK Shooting Point 6500 ft 2 - 3 S. of Westerhouse Crk 4700 ft 2 Great Neck 12000 ft 2 (southern quarter) Great Neck Spit 2800 ft 2 - 3 SAVAGE & Old Town Neck 6500 ft 5 - 6 (n. 1000 ft) OLD TOWN NECKS Tankards/Smith Beach 13000 ft 7 - 20 Custis Pond 9800 ft 3 + (northern third) Old Orchard 3300 ft none Westcoat Point 3000 ft 3 + 15 - CAPE CHARLES Owens Landing 4400 ft 3 + (s.w. quarter) I - 3 (remainder) Cape Charles City Beach 2800 ft 1 and under Cape Charles Harbor 2600 ft none Spoil Area 6000 ft none Allegood Pond 6000 ft 3 + KIPTOPEKE TO Costin Pond 5000 ft 5 FISHERMAN'S IS. S. of Elliots Creek 3400 ft 5 Pond Drain 7800 ft Accretion: 1-2 Butlers Bluff 7000 ft I - 3 Kiptopeke Beach 6400 ft Accretion 26 Latimer Siding 5200 ft 2.5 Wise Point 10000 ft I - 3 Fisherman's Island 32000 ft 25 - 40 (west side) Accr: 15-50 (s. side) BARRIER ISLANDS Hog Island Accretion: 9 (n. end) 18 (southern end) Cobb Island 16 Wreck Island 34 Ship Shoal Island irregular Myrtle Island 19 Smith Island 23 SOURCE: VIMS, Shoreline Situation Report: Northampton County, 1974 Whether the shorelines are eroding or shifting due to a combina- tion of erosion and accretion, development along the shore will be affected, All development along all of the shorelines requires special consideration concerning setback requirements and erosion mitigation measures. Problems such as those experienced at Silver Beach and Smith Beach can be predictably repeated along the bayside. If original developers do not take these problems into account in the design of any type of development, then in time, the county may be pressured into very costly protection measures by existing owners who are faced with deteriorating property lines. 3. Groundwater Water Resources At first glance, Northampton County appears to have an end less supply of water. Bounded by the east by the Atlantic Ocean and the west by the Chesapeake Bay and countless large and small creeks cutting in from the larger water systems. However, none of these water sources provide any potable water to Northampton County. The only source of freshwater for Northampton County is precipitation. Precipitation in the form of rain and snow filters into the groundwater aquifers. Aquifers are most easily described as natural underground water storage areas. It is into these acquifers that wells are drilled in order to supply all of the water needs in the county. In Northampton County the two major aquifers are comprised of sand, which basically supplies the shallower domestic wells, and clay, which is tapped into by the deeper wells for industrial and municipal use. 16 The Eastern Shore receives about 43 inches of precipitation per year. However, 70% of this precipitation evaporates naturally back into the air. Only about 30% of total precipitation is available for potential use. Of this 30% only about 4% actually ends up recharging the aquifers; the rest is consumed or runs off into the ocean. The simplified diagram below explains this process. PRECIPITATION 43 inches/yr) )EVAPOTRANSPIRATION CONSUMPTION' (70%) WITHDRAWAL RETURN I FLOW AVAILABLE SUPPLY__.),RECHARGING AQUIFERS- (30%) (4%) TO OCEAN SOURCE: Virginia State Water Control Board, Eastern Shore Water Supply Plan, 1987. The drawing below is an illustration of a cross section of the Eastern Shore. This drawing shows the peninsula with the higher central corridor and the relationship of the freshwater precipitation to the saltwaters of the Bay and Atlantic Ocean. This is how the process is supposed to work. The precipitation filters down through the acquifers eventually mixing with the saltwater at the edges of the land mass. GENERALIZED EAST WEST CROSSSECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW SHOWING RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE PATTERNS CENTRAL PLATEAU EAST WEST PRECIPITATION LAND SURFACE rE -OLE A CHESAPEAKE iEZOME RIC L V SAY 0 so :j loo- PIE 11 LEVEL xfi@ I A 150- d 200- _C3FRESi4'dATER AQUIFER VERTICAL LEAKAGE (DSALI,4E OR BRACKISH AQUIFER OFRESHWATER AQUITARO (E]SALINE OR BRACKISH AQUICLUDE SOURCE: Virginia State Water Control Board 17 - However, the system is extremely fragile and can be upset by excessive pumping from deep water wells. When excessive pumping occurs a cone of depression develops which disrupts the natural process. The pumping draws such an huge amount of water out of the aquifer that the water level in the aquifer is reduced and the small percent of precipi- tation available to recharge the acquifer is insufficient. . The cones of depression can cause saltwater interference in some wells. There are cones of depressions in Cape Charles, Cheriton and Oyster caused by excessive pumping. The cone of depression in Cape Charles has stabil- ized, but the one in Cheriton caused by KHC Foods and the ones in Oyster caused by H. Allen Smith and C & D Seafood continue to cause interference in wells. These firms have agreed to mitigation measures which should alleviate some of the problems. The following diagram shows the effects of overdrawing water resources. HYPOTHETICAL SALINE WATERMOVEMENT DUE TO EXCESSIVE PUMPING (MODIFIED FROM DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, 1972) WEST EAST LMO SURFACE CHCS@PEAX ATLANnC GAY CONE OF. OCEAN A, @DEPRESSJON 0. so- < 100, ift 141 \1 Z5 ISO. zoo. 250- E]FRESHWATER AQUIFER ZONE OF DIFFUSION (DSALINE OR BRACKISH AQUIFER C]FRESHWATER AQUITARD EDSALINE OR BRACKISH AQUICLUCE The State Water Control Board estimates that there are'between 29 and 78 million gallons of water per day available on the Eastern Shore with an average usage of 14.5 million gallons per day to a peak usage of 21.75 million gallons per day. This suggests that the aquifers are not over utilized at the present time. Although to prevent further cones of depressions or other contamination problems, heavy water users need to be located on the central corridor where the land is higher and the depths to the saltwater sources are greater. Smaller wells need to be located sufficiently far away from these large wells to prevent interference from the large drawdown and reduced water levels in the shallower wells. Water quality is generally good although studies have shown some localized problems with high iron content; higher chloride levels, usually caused by salt water - fresh water interference; and some nitrate problems, caused by pollution. Usually only the shallower wells will experience these problems, especially if they are located near the cones of depression. These problems also arise in particular- I NIC% ly wet periods when water tables rise above septic systems. 18 4. Utilities There are presently three municipal water systems in Northampton County: Cape Charles, Exmore and Eastville. The largest system, Cape Charles, was built in the 1930's and serves about 1550 persons within the town limits. The well capacity is about half a million gallons per day and the use is about 144,000 gallons per day or just under 100 gallons per person per day. Exmore public water system was first installed in the 1940's and expanded in 1967. The system serves Exmore and some of the Belle Haven area or approximately 2000 people. The smallest municipal system is in Eastville and serves about 400 people. The three systems are deep wells and water is stored in elevated storage tanks. Eastville and Exmore do not have a treatment facility and do not see a need for one in the near future. Cape Charles does have a treatment facility providing iron removal and chlorination. The three systems serve a population of about 3950 or approximate- ly 27% of the total county population. However, water use by these systems represents only about 8.2% of the total water consumption of the county. The following table summarizes the municipal systems in Northampton County. TABLE 12 MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Cape.Charles Eastville Exmore 1982 Estimated Population Served 1550 400 2000 1982 Estimated Average Daily Withdrawal 144,000 gals. 36,000 gals. 122,000 gals. Rated Daily Capacity 400,000 gals. 150,000 gals. 400,000 gals. Storage Capacity 200,000 gals. 75,000 gals. 200,000 gals. SOURCE: Eastern Shore Water Supply Plan - Draft, State Water Control Board 1984. The majority of the county relies on individual well systems which are also used by industrial, commercial, institutional and agricultural con- sumers outside of the service areas. Average daily consumption in 1984 was 3.7 million gallons per day. On a regular basis, residential use accounts for the majority of water consumed. However, daily consumption severely .rises by 90% during the peak period, May through September. These rises are ciecused by irrigation, increases in transient population at campgrounds and summer homes, migrant labor, increases in restaurant and motel use, seafood processing, and increases in resident consumption. The major user during this peak period is agriculture, through irrigation. The fluctuations caused by increases in water usage, especially by the seafood processors and agricultural consumers, sometimes cause short term water shortages through the lowering of water levels and higher occurrences of well interferences of saltwater and other impurities. 19 Cape Charles operates the only public sewage collection and treatment system in the county. The original collection system existed for over sixty years. A treatment facility was built in 1982 and in 1986 a new collection system was built. It has an expanded capacity of 500,000 gallons with a 135,000 gallon per day usage. This accounts for only 16% of the county population. The majority of the county relies on septic tanks systems, cesspools and pit privies. A summary of the methods used in the county for wastewater disposal in the following table. TABLE 13 RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, 1970-1980 Septic Tk. Year-Round Population Public Sewer Cesspool Other Means Hous. Unit 1970 14,442 778 2,657 2,031 5,466 1980 14,625 934 3,948 1,160 6,042 SOURCE: 1970, 1980 Census of Population The high water tables and predominate soils have been cited as causes for existing and potential groundwater contamination. The following table by Betz Environmental Engineers rates the potential contamination problems by location. TABLE 14 POTENTIAL SEPTIC TANK PROBLEM AREAS Soil Rating Problem Potential Housing Density (slight, moderate, (possible, likely Town or Area (house/10 acres) severe) very likely) Nassawadox 15 slight to severe likely Eastville 10 slight possible Cape Charles 25 severe very likely Cheriton 20 severe very likely Exmore 25 moderate to severe very likely Treherneville 10 slight possible Silver Beach 20 slight to moderate very likely Oyster 15 severe very likely Cheapside 20 slight likely Townsend 10 slight possible Willis Wharf 15 severe very likely Vaucluse 15 slight possible Fairview 15 slight to moderate likely SOURCE: Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc., 1976 20 Their findings suggest that the' housing densities in certain locations within the county are too high. By reducing the densities to approximately eight units per 10 acres, the contamination problems experienced or possible would be reduced or eradicated entirely. Since all studies seem to indicate that a county sewage treatment system would be extremely costly at this time, development regulations need to reflect the ability of the land to absorb the discharges of development using existing technology. B. EXISTING LAND USE Historically, Northampton County has been an agricultural community with the land and sea providing the basis of the economy. Land use patterns have reflected the economy. They still do in that cropland and woodland continues to be the predominant land use. The following table from the comprehensive plan background report is a explanation of land use patterns. TABLE 15 EXISTING LAND USE USE ACRES TOTAL LAND AREA M CROPLAND 51,100 22.22 WOODLAND 35,925 15.62 SINGLE FAMILY 3,797 1.65 MULTI-FAMILY 3 0.00 COMMERCIAL 123 0.05 INDUSTRIAL 102 0.04 INSTITUTIONAL 715 0.31 HIGHWAYS/UTILITIES 2,505 1.09 TIDAL MARSH 35,000 15.22 SALTWATER BAYS/CREEKS 96,000 [email protected] COASTAL BEACH 4,500 1.96 Total 229,770 100 Percent Less Marshes, creeks 135,500 and beaches --------- Total Hard Lands 94,270 SOURCE: NHC, Socio-Economic Data: Comprehensive Plan Background, 1985 What is interesting to note from the information above is the actual percentage of hard land that is actually developed. If the marshlands, bays and creeks and beaches are subtracted from the total acreage (229,770- 135,500 = 94,270 total hard lands), only 7245 acres are actually developed. This is only 7.7% of the total hard land acreage. Of this 7245 acres, almost 35% is for roads and utilities and 52% involves residential develop- ment. Non-agricultural, economic development, i.e. industry, commercial, and institutional uses account for only 13% of existing development. 21 - This information is alarming in that the development pressures current- ly experienced by the County are only the tip of a huge potential iceberg. Ninety-two percent of the total hard lands of the Northampton County can be viewed as potential development. The county has recorded 745 parcels of land of 25 acres or more. Of these parcels 169 are owned by out-of-county residents. Table 16 shows the number of parcels by size for each of the county's districts: Capeville, Eastville and Franktown. TABLE 16 SIZE AND LOCATION OF LARGE PARCELS, 1988 TOTAL ACRES PARCELS CAMILLE EASTVILLE FRANKTOWN 25 THRU 49 231 79 79 73 50 THRU 99 248 46 114 88 100 THRU 199 190 45 96 49 200 THRU 499 63 15 32 16 500 THRU 999 9 0 6 3 1000 AND OVER 4 2 1 1 TOTALS 745 187 328 230 SOURCE: Northampton County Tax Records and PMA analysis The following table shows the current land use of the large parcels for each district. Overall, 95% of these parcels are in agricultural land use categories. TABLE 17 LAND USE OF LARGE PARCELS, 1988 TOTAL LAND USE PARCELS CAMILLE EASTVILLE FRANKTOWN SF RES SUBURB 30 1 4 25 COMMERC/INDUST 4 3 1 0 AGRIC 20-99 ACRES 457 116 193 148 AGRIC 100+ ACRES 251 61 130 60 NOT RECORDED 3 0 0 3 TOTALS 745 181 328 236 SOURCE: Northampton County Tax Records and PMA analysis Both tables show that the Eastville District contains the largest number of large parcels of land, whereas Capeville has the smallest numbers of parcels. These large parcels of land are targets for agricultural conversion and subdivision development. 22 C. SUBDIVISION GROWTH Prior to the 1970's, when agriculture was a stronger economic sector nationwide, only about 14 subdivisions were recorded in a decade in Nor- thampton County. Average Iot sizes in those subdivisions were less than a half acre. During the 1970's, as agriculture became increasingly less profitable, 81 subdivisions were recorded and the average lot size rose to about 1.25 acres. With a year and a half still to go in the 1980's, 80 subdivisions have been listed (69 recorded, 11 approved, 6 pending and I preliminary) and the average lot size is approaching two acres (1.9 acres). Table 18 shows these trends for five decades. TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISIONS, PAST 50 YEARS NUMBER OF AVERAGE AVERAGE LOT SIZE DATE SUBDIVISIONS ACRES LOTS LOT SIZE ADJ. FOR SUBD. SIZE 1940'S 14 132.00 353 0.37 0.34 1950'S 14 262.00 614 0.43 0.41 1960'S 13 132.00 329 0.40 0.37 1970'S 81 1338.32 1057 1.27 1.18 19801S 80 1836.75 952 1.93 1.90 TOTALS 202 3701.07 3305 Since 1939, Northampton County has recorded 184 separate subdivisions. This total does not include 18 subdivisions in the process of becoming recorded at the time of the beginning of the study. The map on the follow- ing page gives the location of the major subdivisions within the county. A listing of the latest subdivisions can be found in Appendix A. This listing gives the name of the subdivision, the approximate total acreage, the approximate number of lots, the approximate size of the lots, and the date recorded. The total acreage of subdivisions for the past fifty years is 3,701 with an approximate total of 3,305 lots. Prior to the mid-1970's, few sub- division lots were over one acre. Since 1976, most lots have tended to be over an acre. For purposes of analyzing where recent subdivisions are occurring, the county was hypothetically divided lengthwise into three corridors. Corridor 1 stretches along the Chesapeake Bay. Corridor 2 is bisected by Rte. 13 and Corridor 3 extends along the ocean side of the county. If we look at the most recent years, it is apparent that most of the subdivided acreage is in Corridor I (see table on SUBDIVISIONS, 1980's, in the appendix.) For the last 10 years, 1979-1988, Corridor 1 near the Bay contained 59% of the subdivisions but over 80% of the acreage and lots in the subdivisions. Corridor 2, the most inland part of the county, contains most of the remaining subdivisions. Only 4 subdivisions containing less than 2% of the lots or acreage were located in Corridor 3 on the Ocean side of the county. 23 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA OFFICIAL BASE MAP 6 t@l le, X MAP 3 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS 25 - 100 ACRES loo ACRES OR MORt fissociRrEs A description of a typical subdivision recorded in the 1980's in Northampton County could be described as follows: LOCATION: BAYSIDE CORRIDOR TOTAL ACRES: under 5 acres TOTAL LOTS: under 5 lots ACCESS: private road LOT SIZE: almost 2 acres per lot These smaller subdivisions are more scattered throughout the county and tend to pose a smaller and more evenly divided impact on natural resources than the huge corporate resort communities that are recently being proposed. 25 IV. PLANNING ANALYSIS AREAS Northampton County is in many ways a very diverse environment. The county cannot be simply evaluated in any uniform fashion. There are very distinct regions within the county that offer very divergent opportunities for development and yet possess very divergent land use problems as well. The bayside coast includes not only the land fronting on the Chesapeake Bay, it also includes five large creek drainage areas: Occohannock Creek, Nassawadox Creek, Hungars Creek, Cherrystone Inlet and Old Plantation Creek. These drainage areas all have things in common, but also have unique features worthy of note and rec,ognition. Different development pressures are experienced in the different regions. However, the areas possess natural land features that require consideration when developing land use regulations. These problems and opportunities appear to have been dis- regarded at times by development. This coast also is the primary target for new legislation for the protection of the Chesapeake Bay. This has caused a great deal of speculation in the area as well as a rush for subdividing large parcels in anticipation of greater land use restrictions. The development corridor is the high ground between the 25 foot contour lines between the bayside and seaside. Within this corridor virtually all the development has taken place: all of the major towns and most of the smaller towns and villages, the major roads and the railroad. While it would not be accurate to call all of the area "urban", it is the area where much development is occurring that could be defined as urban in nature- such as the towns cited in the Comprehensive Plan as areas of concentrated growth where water and sewer facilities would be expanded where not already available. The region along the seaside falls noticeably down from the 25 foot contour line to the wet water mark. This area has not developed as much as the bayside. There are small subdivisions and water oriented industries and farmlands. The final area evaluated is the wetlands and lands of the Barrier Islands. This area is for the most part under the ownership of state and federal conservation agencies, who are attempting to protect one of the most environmentally important regions of the entire United States. This area might appear to be secure from overdevelopment. However, development that occurs on the entire peninsula affects these fragile conservation and wildlife areas. It is possible that because of poor planning and land use controls on lands adjacent to conservation areas, the ability of the .conservation agencies and land and wildlife projects to fulfill their mi-ssions would be totally negated. For this reason, this region is an important area for analysis. The following section identifies the major regions of the County and discusses land use concerns, such as drainage, elevation, flooding, erosion, existing development patterns, development pressures and initial issues observed. The map on the following page illustrates the different Planning Analysis Areas to be discussed. 26 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA A: OFFICIAL BASE MAP e 17 lk7Z MAP 4 PLANNING ANALYSIS AREAS PLRNNING MRNRGEMENT nssocinTES A. OCCOHANNOCK CREEK BASIN AREA 1. General Description: The Occohannock Creek 4.Cf! Basin is an area in the northern end of the County bounded to the north by the Occohannock Creek, to the east by the Chesapeake Bay, to the south by routes 183/613 and to the west by the Town of ExMore. . ... ........ . .. The area is zoned primarily A/R with Silver Beach, Old Neck, Wardtown and ille zoned R-20. Predominant land Jamesv use is agriculture with some residential settlements along the Creek, on Route 183 and at Silver Beach. There are some large commercial farms active along 183- mostly along highlands at 20 feet or above. 2. Drainage, Elevations and Flood Zones: The delineated area drains north into Occohannock Creek and its tributaries. Routes 183/613 are situated on high ground (20 - 30 ft.) out towards Jamesville, then the roads drops down gradually to Silver Beach. Along all the coastal and tributary areas the land is very low, mostly under 10 feet, and falls in Flood Zone A category (100 year flood zone). This Flood Zone A covers over 800 feet on both sides of some of the creek beds in the Occohannock Creek Area and includes the entire area from Johnson's Cove to Battle Point, over 1500 feet back from the Bay. 3. Erosion: Most of the bay side waterfront lands in the Occohannock Neck experience severe erosion. The five mile stretch of the Neck facing the bay experiences five to six feet of erosion per year. Silver Beach is eroding at a rate of 5.7 feet per year. Already in recent history one road and one and a half rows of housing have disappeared due to erosion over the past 45 years. Another road (the main access road) and the other half of the row of housing are threatened now. Sparrow Point has experienced up to 12 feet of erosion per year at the top end of the point to 6 feet of erosion in other areas. The land facing Occohannock Creek experiences 5 to 6 feet of erosion at Old Neck, but further up the Creek experiences little erosion. 4. Existing Development Patterns: 28 4. Existing Development Patterns: The major existing communities in this area include Silver Beach on the Bayside, Wardtown and Jamesville on Route 183, and Old Neck on Occohannock Creek. Silver Beach consists of over 100 small cottages once used as vacation cottages on leased land. The property has now been subdivided into a couple of hundred small lots, most of which cannot be developed because of current land use regulations. Of the existing housing over 60 are owned as permanent places and are used for residences most of year. The 1980 Census showed that approximately 346 people lived in the Occohannock Creek Area, mostly in Jamesville or Silver Beach. The only incorporated town in the area is Exmore which borders on the east. 5. Development Pressures: All of the areas offering water access are facing very strong development pressure especially along the major inlets and property on- the Bay waterfront. A large part of the area is already saturated with subdivision activity although very little land has been actually developed. The new subdivisions being plated or developed are located primarily in Flood Zone A and are under 8 feet elevation. New development includes Kirkwood's large PUD (674 acres) south of Battle Point which includes a large area in Flood Zone A with eleva- tions at around or below 10 feet and which is experiencing an average erosion rate of 5 feet per ye ar. Drainage problems in the PUD are evident from the amount of standing water observed in ditches and on lots. The proposed development includes 950 housing units on 263.6 acres. Other potential areas for development include the already sub- divided areas around Old Neck between Killmon Creek and Concord's Wharf. Although smaller in scale than the Peaceful Beach PUD, there are a large number of subdivisions with less apparent attention to drainage, circulation and pollution problems. 6. Issues: Major development, potential and actual, is occurring in Flood Zones and areas with extremely high water tables which lack adequate drainage. Given the soil conditions, there may be an over optimistic view of the development capabilities of the area. Almost the entire shoreline is facing critical erosion problems which will only be exacerbated by excessive development. People are attracted to the area because it does provide some sandy beach areas (as compared with the seaside which is mostly marshland). However without appropriate land use 29 regulations to protect property from erosion combined with appropriate erosion mitigation measures by the developers, the area may prove to be a costly investment. Unfortunately some of the mitigation measures necessary to control the erosion (e.g. rip rap) may reduce the amount of open sandy beach area and therefore reduce the attractiveness of the area for beach uses. The amount of development being proposed for the area may contribute negatively to the environmental conditions of the Bay and may be in serious conflict with the goals and objectives to be realized by the recent Chesapeake Bay Agreement and legislation. At present there does not appear to be extensive conversion threats where farms do not offer access to water. However, since waterfront property also requires road access, as development occurs along the waterfront, the access areas will probably also experience pressures to sell and convert the farmlands to other uses. 30 B. NASSAWADOX CREEK AREA 1. General Description: a The Nassawadox Creek area is south of the Occohannock Creek and is bounded on the 4@ to the n orth by Routes 183/613, e by Routes 606 and 619, to ast the south by Route 619 and to the west by the Chesapeake Bay. The Nassawadox Creek area is a complex system of a series of creeks and inlets, the major ones include: Warehouse Creek, Church Creek and Holly Grove Cove which flow into the Nassawadox Creek and Wester- .n house Creek which flows into the bay south of Nassawadox Creek. Most of the area is zoned around A/R with the area Franktown and Vaucluse zoned A20. The region is used mostly for agriculture with some large ac t ive farms. Sparsely populated residential areas can be found around the creeks. 2. Drainage, Elevations, and Flood Zones: The land areas form fingers reaching out to the bayside in between the creek system. Roads (e.g. Routes 619, 617, 610) have been built along the highest ridge in the fingers. The area tends to drain from these ridges to the creeks on both sides of the roads. Elevations below 10 feet are largely confined to the creek boundaries. All areas around the creeks, inlets and tributaries are in Flood Zone A which can expect high to moderate degrees of flooding. High flood hazards are particularly experienced at Great Neck Spit. 3. Erosion: Erosion is a problem faced by all areas facing the Chesapeake Bay. The areas along Church Neck have moderate erosion problems (1 - 3 feet per year), but have been considered non-critical due to the lack of housing and other structures. Erosion rates for the bayside are between 2 and 3 feet per year with the highest erosion problems experienced at Great Neck Spit and Shooting Point. The lands along the creeks are experiencing little to no erosion problems. - 31 4. Existing Development Patterns: Existing development consists largely of independently built homes of county residents with some housing clusters along the creeks. Most roads have one or two houses at the end. Route 614 has a strip of FHA housing. The largest existing subdivision in the area is Vaucluse at the end of Route 619 which by 1976 had all of its original 300 lots sold, although little actual development occurred. Recently, however, the area has begun to be developed by the owners of the lots for year- round and second homes. 5. Development Pressures: The area has not undergone the large amount of subdividing that Occohannock Creek area has undergone in the past five years. However given the large number of creeks and inlets and the amount of acces- sible waterways, it can be but a matter of time before this area is targeted for development. Also, there are large amounts of active farmland in area. This land is located along main roads but not in water access areas. 8ome of these, where linkage to water courses are possible, are prime targets for conversion to resort development and related uses. 6. Issues: As mentioned above, the farmlands are possible targets for conversion to other uses once the area along the creeks have been identified for residen- tial and recreational development. The area is relatively undeveloped and is in an opportune position to be regulated against develop- ment which negatively affects the wetlands and Chesapeake Bay. In other words , there is not as much damage here to "un-do" as there is in other areas of the County. The 30-50 smaller inlets or fringes branching off from the main creeks provide opportunity for waterfront development. The flood zones are confined to creek areas making this area ideal for water front development on a large scale. Although the erosion problems are moderate along the bayside and considered non-critical because of the absence of development, as this area becomes more developed, these problems will be upgraded to critical and will benefit from appropriate land use regulations. 32 C. HUNGARS CREEK/MATTAWOMAN CREEK/THE GULF AREA 1. General Description: This area is bounded on the north by Route 619, to the east by the 25 foot contour line, to the south by Routes 634 and 606 and to the west by the Chesapeake ........... Bay. Like the Nassawadox Creek Area, this region is made up of a complex waterway system comprised of three major creeks, Hungars Creek, Mattawoman Creek N@s an d The Gulf. Hungars Creek, Mattawoman ............ Creek and their respective minor creeks . . ...... merge into a single inlet located about 5 Jf 7 A, iles north of The Gulf. m ... . ... ... Almost the entire region is zone A/R except for the area around Silver Beach which is zoned A20. The area is used almost ex clusively for agriculture with some isolated scattered housing along some of the creeks and at the ends of some of the roads. r-;X 2. Dra inage, Elevation, and Flood Zones: As with most of the bayside areas, have been located on the higher roads central ridges of the fingers of land and include Routes 623, 628, 630 and 634. These central ridges are under 20 feet in most of this area. The area drains from these ridges towards the creeks. Elevations below 10 feet are confined to creeks and creek branch- es. Flood hazard is high around the Hungars Creek and The Gulf inlets and becomes medium hazard in creek areas, which are mostly affected by storm surges from the Bay. Flood lines do not extend back into land areas sufficient to limit development except in areas of upper reaches of the creeks. 3. Erosion: This district is relatively free from serious erosion except in Old Town Neck and Smith Beach. The erosion in northern most sections in Old Town Neck is severe and critical and averages 5 -7 feet per year. Approximately 700 feet at the end of the spit eroded away in the 27 years between 1943 and 1967. One of the most serious areas of erosion in Northampton County is along the bay between Smith Beach and Tankards Beach. This segment of land averages between 7 and 20 feet of erosion each year. This erosion rate is critical for the developed areas at Smith Beach. -.33 - 4. Existing Development Patterns: The area around Vaucluse and Bridgetown in the northern section of this region, and Smith Beach at southern end are the only major development clusters. Smith Beach, like Silver Beach, is an older cottage community made up of retirement homes and vacation cottages. There are a few other randomly located subdivisions of 10-25 lots on creeks,but the creeks are mostly undeveloped. Some historic and private homes are located at road ends. Active farms are found on the higher ground near the roads. 5. Development Pressures: The region is not currently experiencing subdivision and develop- ment pressures found in other regions of the County. The lack of beaches around the creeks may make this area less attractive initially to development. However, where navigable water access is available, there is the potential for some type of retirement or second home development. Once this development begins to occur, the farms will become vulnerable to conversion. 6. Issues: The creeks in this water system contain a valuable oyster producing environment. Development of any kind must be planned cautiously in order not to destroy this fragile environment. The eroding shoreline, especially in Old Town Neck and along the Smith Beach/Tankards Beach section require development regulations that protect both property and shoreline. Farmlands offering water and road access will become susceptible to land use conversions. An issue to be repeated for the entire County involves the overdevelopment. of the areas fronting on water. The private purchase and development of all the beach areas restricts public access for County residents. Additionally, the practice of narrow front lot design in order to offer more waterfront lots in subdivisions increases the pollution problems in the Bay which recent legisla- tion is attempting to reduce. 34 D. CHERRYSTONE INLET AREA 1. General Description: This district includes areas draining into Cherrystone Inlet from Route 634/606 to the north to Route 184 leading into Cape Charles to the south. The eastern limits are primarily defined by Route 13 or the 25 foot contour shelf w ith the Chesapeake Bay making up - the western boundary. Cherrystone Inlet and King's Creek are the two primary tribu- taries into the Bay. The district contains R-20 zoning in the Route 639 - Route 640 and Mill Creek triangle and in the upper parts of King's Creek to Route 184 and Route 13. The remaining portions of the district are zoned A/R. X 2. Drainage, Elevation and Flood Zones: Due to the primary dune system found on Savage Neck, this area tends to drain towards the Inlet even though it is located on the Bay. Most of the district drains into the Cherrystone Inlet or its tributary creeks. This area is generally lower in elevation than the upper areas; almost all of the district falls below the 15 foot contour with large portions of the waterfront below 10 feet, particularly along Cherrys- tone Creek and its tributary creeks. Because of the lack of elevation, large portions of this district face high flood hazards. The areas past Tankards Beach to the end of Savage Neck are in Flood Zone A. In some of these areas as much as 2,000 to 5,000 feet on all sides of the inlet are in this high risk flood zone. The risk is lowered to medium in the upper half of Cherrystone Inlet. 3. Erosion: Sections of this district experience severe erosion problems. From Smith Beach to Custis Pond erosion rates vary between 7 and 20 feet per year. From Custis Pond to Remus Creek, the north third of the area has over 3 feet of erosion per year with the lower two-thirds having almost no erosion problems. The spit between Old Orchard and Westcoat Point lost 3900 feet of land in the years between 1959 and 1972. Although this figure suggests a 300 foot per year erosion rate, VIMS reports indicate that it is more likely that most of the erosion occurred in a few severe storms rather than yearly, with a more typical erosion rate over 3 feet per year. 35 4. Existing Development Patterns: The Town of Cape Charles is the major development center of the area. Serviced both by water and rail, the Cape Charles Harbor offers a shipping terminal for the county. There is some development starting to occur in the areas surrounding Cape Charles. Cherrystone Campground (700 + sites) has been established for several years. The campgrounds Eraw between 30,000 - 35,000 visitors to the County each year. The remaining parts of the district are sparsely populated with farms and historic homes. Most existing development is found around Route,639/640. 5. Development Pressures: The areas around Cape Charles can continue to expect development pressures given the growth and attraction to Cape Charles. Although the highland along roads is still being farmed, conflict between development and farming will continue as the area responds to the resort market. One response to the resort and tourism market is the proposed State beach at the end of Savage Neck. Given the erosion problems and existence of the primary dune system, this may be the most environmentally sensitive development, proposed for the area. 6. Issues: In some areas tidal flats block passage into some of the creeks, thus limiting the potential for water-oriented resort development. However, other areas, especially around the primary dunes along Savage Neck and Cherrystone Inlet and King's Creek, may pressure farms into conversion to resort or residential development. In addition to o 'ther shoreline erosion problems cited, this area has an important environmental feature - sand dunes along parts of Savage Neck. one subdivision has already been started in a dune area in another part of the county which will present problems of continuous wind erosion for portions of the dunes disturbed by road grading. This environmentally fragile system needs to be protected from developmental disturbance. It has been suggested as one of several areas for development as a state park. An extension of this park north could encompass the primary dune system and protect it from development. The areas around the Inlet and creeks can expect considerable development pressures. Over develop- ment of the creek areas may negatively impact on the Chesapeake Bay. 36 E. OLD PLANTATION CREEK AREA 1. General Description: This district includes areas draining into Old Planation Creek from Route 184 ... . . . . . . . . . . . leading into Cape Charles to the north. With Route 13 and the 25 foot contour shelf ........... . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . de f ining the eastern and southern (to Picketts Harbor) . . . . . . . . . . . . limits and the Chesapeake Bay making up the western boundary. The major waterways in the district include Old Plantation k, Elliots Creek and Pond Cree Drain. The area south of Cape ................. Charles to just north of Allegood Pond i s a Planned Industrial zone (PI) with a small Industrial General (IG) zone in the northern-most section off of Route 184. The district contains R-20 zoning ?round Route 184. The remain- ing portions of the district are zoned A/R. 2. Drainage, Elevation and Flood Zones: Most of this district lies very low - not much of the land is above 15 feet except for the dune areas south of Elliots Creek. Almost all of the land around Costin Pond is below 10 feet. This area tends to drain towards the bay or creeks. The area around the dunes drains towards Elliots Creek away from the Bay since the dunes are over 50 feet in some places. Because of the lack of elevation, large portions of this district face high flood hazards. From Allegood Pond to just past Elliots Creek is a Flood Zone A area. In some areas, as much as 1,500 to 2,500 feet on all sides of the inlet are in this high risk flood zone. The flood risks are high around all of the water edges and drop to medium past the edges. 3. Erosion: The areas around Old Plantation Creek are fairly stable. However, other sections of , this district experience severe. erosion problems. Around Allegood Pond the erosion rate is 3 feet per year. From Costin Pond to Elliots Creek the rate is severe - about 5 feet per year. The 37 - rate becomes moderate (1 - 3 feet per year) south of Pond Drain. The area around Pond Drain experiences an accretion rate of I - 2 feet per year, while the area just north of Picketts Harbor experiences an erosion rate between 1 to 3 feet per year. 4. Existing Development Patterns: Cape Charles Harbor provides the focus of the majority of existing development, mostly involving harbor-related industrial and commercial development. The rest of this area involves scattered housing on creeks at the ends of roads. 5i Development Pressures: The areas around Cape Charles can continue to expect industrial and commercial development pressures. Residential development is beginning to occur in several areas. Three major subdivisions are in the early stages of development. Bayview and Edgewater subdivisions on Hunts Wharf are to be golf communities on approximately 300 acres with about 750 single family units. This will be tied into Chesapeake Shores on Old Plantation Creek, which is also about 300 acres of single family housing. To the north of Pond Drain, Bayridge is planned to be a large lot development of about 100 single family homes. This site is one of four evaluated as a possible state park. This subdivision is mostly undeveloped, although the swimming pool has been built and one access road has been cut into one of the primary dunes. The Picketts .Harbor area is not yet faced with development pressures, although it most likely will in the not too distant future, Because of the wide beaches, the areas north of Allegood Pond and around Pond Drain would provide excellent public recreation areas. 6. Issues: The dune system in this area has already ex- perienced developmental penetration which may cause permanent damage to the fragile environmental structures. The system needs to be safeguarded in such a way as to allow for development without harming the dune system. VIMS reports (1974) have suggested that the areas around Costin Pond and Elliots Creek have low future potential use because of the high risk of flooding and severe erosion rates which would necessitate very expensive erosion mitigation measures. Yet, this is the very area being developed into large subdivisions. The areas around the Inlet and creeks can expect considerable development pressures. Over develop- ment of the creek areas may negatively impact on the Chesapeake Bay. 38 F. CENTRAL CORRIDOR AREA 1. General Description: Through the center of the County, from Accomack County to Kip- topeke, a long rectangular shelf is formed by the 25 foot contour line. Within this shelf, most of the high grounds of the county are located. This includes the areas within U.S. Route 13, Route 600 (old U.S. 13), all incorporated towns except Cape Charles and most of the unincor- porated village communities. (Map on the following page.) Zoning in this long section is mixed. The areas around tho- villages are mostly zoned residential with a mixture of industrial and commercial zones around Exmore and Bayside/ Fairview. Other commercial zones are dotted along U.S. 13. The remaining areas are mostly zoned A/R. 2. Drainage, Elevation and Flood Zones: The 25 foot contour line forms a rectangular pattern on both sides of the peninsula. This shelf is very pronounced along the eastern edge of the County on most roads leading off of Route 600. The land within this corridor ranges in elevation from 25 feet to a little over 40 feet, except along the bluffs south of Picketts Harbor which may be as high as 55 feet. The area drains to both sides of the shelf, except for the area on the bayside from Picketts Harbor south which drains seaside because of the high bluffs along the bay. Because of the high shelf, very little of the corridor is in serious risk of flooding. 3. Erosion: The southern-most tip between Butlers Bluff and Kiptopeke is the only section of the corridor with water frontage. Butlers Bluff and Latimer Siding experience moderate to low erosion (0 - 3 feet). Kiptopeke Beach has an accretion rate of 26 feet per year around the pier dropping off on both sides of the pier. 4. Existing D velopment Patterns: Most of the development and population of Northampton County lies within this corridor. It is a mixture of towns, villages, spot commercial development, industry, agriculture, aquaculture and other uses. Residential development consists of small subdivisions, mobile homes, and single isolated single homes. Mobile home parks are common and strip housing and subdivisions can be found intermittently on the roads connecting U.S. 13 and Route 600. Major towns or village areas include: Belle Haven, Exmore, Franktown and Nassawadox to the north; Treherneville, Martin Siding and Eastville in the central part of the corridor; and Cheriton, Cheapside and Capeville in the southern section. 39 ........ .. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA OFFICIAL BASE MAP A . . . . . . . . . . 'Wd .......... AL CORRIDOR. CENTR Fs tr: MAP 5 PLANNING pill IARNRGEMENT A SOCIRTIES The area does contain farms and farm-related services located @between villages and along U.S. 13. 5. Development Pressures: The development pressures in the northern section of the corridor appear to be of a commercial nature - with two shopping centers proposed for the near future locating almost across from one another. The development pressures in the southern section are waterfront residential subdivisions. along the bluffs. One subdivision covers 1100 acres, including bluffs and primary dunes near Butlers Bluff. An existing subdivision would become a major campground at Kiptoi,)eke Beach. The development pressures throughout the corridor will consist of tendency towards strip commercial and residential development around existing villages and towns and along U.S. 13. 6. Issues: Farmlands along U.S. 13 will continue to face. conversion pressures for non-farm development. U.S. 13 will continue to attract commercial and other development. Expansion around the towns will lead to expanded water and sewer needs. The character of the County will be altered if strip development occurs along U.S. 13. Over development of U.S. 13 will slow down traffic movement if direct access is not regulated irt some manner. 41 G* SEASIDE CORRIDOR 1. General Description: This district runs the entire length of the County from the Accomack County line to Cape Charles. This consists of the land lying between the Central Corridor and the marshlands of the Barrier Islands. It consists of a strip ranging in width from 1/2 to 2 miles. The western boundary is formed by a shelf marked approximately by the 25 foot contour line. Although the area is considered seaside, the sea is relatively difficult to observe from the land due to the extensive marshlands and Barrier Islands. (Map is on the following page.) The district is zoned A/R except for the towns of Oyster, Willis Wharf and Magotha which are R-20 zoning. Oyster and Willis Wharf also have Commercial Waterfront (CW) zones. 2. Drainage, Elevations and Flood Zones: While the western boundary of this district is marked by the 25 foot contour area, the land drops off very rapidly as one moves to the east. This reduces the available high ground to a narrow strip, almost all of which is under 25 feet. Most of the district is below 10 feet. Oyster, for example, is between the 5 and 10 foot contour lines. This makes the area particularly susceptible to flooding. The entire length of the district is in Flood Zone A from between 1 000 to 7,000 feet back from the shoreline. Most of the development in this corridor is found within this high risk flood zone. The area drains seaward and into the small inlets. 3. Erosion: The erosion rates for the entire seaside corridor are slight to none. 4. Existing Development Patterns: Existing development within this area is limited to several older fishing villages (Oyster, Magotha and Willis Wharf), the old Air Force Station and a scattering of small subdivisions or mobile home parks (approximately 50% of the homes in the area are estimated to be mobile homes). Individual houses may be found along existing roads. Most of the few inlets to the ocean are occupied by private fishing facilities. There are several smaller active farms within the strip but limitations on land and low elevation make the area not practical for major farms. Conversions to commercial green houses and related are examples of uses well suited for this area. Large parcels in this area are being purchased by the Nature' Conservancy as part of the Virginia Coast Reserve, including a 1400 acre farm at Brownville for its headquarters. In addition, the County owns a 60 acre tract at Indian Town Neck and 50 acres at Cape Charles which is in the process of becoming a county recreational facility. The County also owns boat docks at Red Bank, Willis Wharf and Oyster. 42 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY VIRGINIA OFFICIAL BASE MAP v@ AN, rn "ev SEASIDE CORRIDOR MAP 6 149sact"Tes U.S. Fish and Wildlife recently acquired Cape Charles Air Force Station and is now known as "Eastern Shore of Virginia Wildlife Refuge. 5. Development Pressures: There appears to be little opportunity to establish oceanside uses primarily because of the lack of visibility of the water. The prospect for development in this area is likely to be a continuation of what is now there. Also, due to the extensive wetland and environmental habitats found in this area, the Nature Conservancy and other environmental groups have been purchasing considerable tracts of land or conservation easements in order to protect the area from development. 6. Issues: Mobile home parks and individual mobile homes are located throughout this area. Are land use measures necessary to control the use and location of the mobile homes? Some conflict of uses may be experienced between commercial and pleasure boats in the few ocean inlets along the seaside. Because of the lack of beaches and ocean vistas, this area is not yet subject to the development pressures of the bayside. 44 H* BARRIER ISLANDS 6 WET LANDS CORRIDOR 1. General Descript ion: Along the entire length of the seaside of the County runs a marshlands corridor bounded on the east by Barrier Islands. This area is considered to be one of the most important ecosystems in the.eastern United States. Included in this corridor are Fisherman's Island National Wildlife Refuge, Eastern Shore of Virginia Wildlife Refuge, and the Virginia Coast Reserve. The Virginia Coast Reserve is part of the Nature Conservancy and now comprises 35,000 acres of Barrier Islands and marshlands along the seaside of the Eastern Shore. (Map is on the following page.) 2. Drainage, Elevation and Flood Zones: The elevation of the area is between high tide and sea level generally. It includes boat channels, tidal flats, marshlands, etc. The fastland in the area is between 0 and 5 feet elevation. All of this corridor is in Flood Zone A. 3. Erosion: Although the Seaside Corridor is experiencing little erosion, the Barrier Islands on the other hand are experiencing considerable severe erosion. The erosion ranges from 16 feet per year on Cobb Island to 34 feet per year on Wreck Island. Ship Shoal Island fluctuates con- siderably and the northern end of Hog Island has an accretion rate of 9 feet per year. 4. Existing Development: The Barrier Islands have few remaining structures on them, mostly old Coast Guard Stations and old sports clubs, including one on the northern end of Hog Island which is now owned by the Nature Conservancy and which will be converted into a place for research, retreats and workshops. 5. Development Pressures: The only development in this corridor will be for conservation and related uses, including nature walks, interpretive centers, workshops and research stations. 6. Issues: This corridor (at least in Northampton County) is being strongly protected by the state and federal conservation agencies. The development of this area as a major conservation zone is to be en- couraged and protected. However, it is recognized that overdevelopment anywhere on the Eastern Shore will impact on the fragile ecosystem considered to be so important. Land use and development anywhere in Northampton 45 - County needs to be regulated in a manner that ensures that the wetlands and marshes are not harmed in any way. 4 WETLANDS 00 MAP 7 it PLANNING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES 46 V. LAND USE ISSUES AND GOALS A. COMPRERENSIVE PLAN GOALS RELATED TO LAND USE The development policy stated in the Northampton County Comprehensive Plan is: "to promote agriculture, seafood, tourism and light industries and to protect and enhance its fragile environment and resources while permitt- ing environmentally compatible economic growth and improvement to the cultural and socio-economic well being of its citizens both present and f'uture." Towards these objectives the plan lists goals., many of which may be addressed by land use policies land regulations: Goal "Promote a quality of living environment and an effi- cient and effective commercial and industrial pattern 'ding employment and housing opportunities for the provi citizens of the County." Goal "Recognize potential new growth areas and establish same with appropriate land use controls." Goal "To maintain and improve upon the existing major communities and village centers presently defined within the County." Goal "Protect and maintain the transportation purpose of the County's highway system, which is the provision of a safe and efficient highway system that adequately moves goods and people through and throughout the county for all purposes.." Goal "To promote a quality light industrial environment and an efficient industrial pattern." Goal "To maintain a strong commitment to assist the disad- vantaged and needy citizens." Goal 'ISupport tourism as a basic industry." Goal "Provide for the preservation and optimal use of our potable water resources." Goal "Provide for the preservation of our groundwater and tidal resources." Goal "Develop and manage environmental programs with a concern for their impact on the water resources." Goal "Reduce point and nonp6int source nutrient loadings to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations necessary to support living resources of the Bay and seaside." Goal "Provide for the restoration and protection of the living resources." 47 Goal "Expand upon water-based recreation by identifying and acquiring needed access areas on the Chesapeake Bay for use by the general public." Goal "Provide for suitable recreation areas and facilities to meet local and tourism needs in concert with Northampton County Parks and Recreation Department and state and federal agencies." B. SUMMARY OF ISSUES GENERATED BY REPORT Issues have been identified in this report for planning areas in the three corridors . Issues and opportunities identified for Corridor 1, the Bay side corridor are summarized here: � Farmlands offering water and road access will become suscep- tible to land use conversions. � Over development of creek areas may negatively impact on the Chesapeake Bay. � The practice of narrow front lot design in order to offer more waterfront lots in subdivisions increases the pollution problems in the Bay. 0 High risk of flooding and severe erosion rates would neces- sitate expensive erosion mitigation measures. � Private purchase and development of all the beach areas restricts public access for County residents. � There is a need to protect valuable oyster producing environ- ments. � The dune system is a fragile environment which needs, to be safeguarded. � Areas that are relatively undeveloped are in an opportune position to be regulated against development which negatively affects the wetlands and Chesapeake Bay. � A State park has been suggested on the bayside, e.g. Savage Neck; an extension of this park north could encompass the primary dune system and protect them from development. � Smaller inlets or fringes branching off from main creeks provide opportunity for water front development away from the flood zones. Issues identified for Corridor 2, the most inland portion of the County are: 0 Farmlands along U.S. 13 will continue to face conversion pressures for non-farm development. 48 � U.S. 13 will continue to attract commercial and other development. � Expansion around' the towns will lead to expanded water and sewer needs. 0 The character of the County will be altered if strip develop- ment occurs along U.S. 13. 0 Over development . of U. S. 13 will slow down traf f ic movement if direct access is not regulated. Corridor 3 issues are: 0 This corridor is being protected by the state and federal conservation agencies. Protection of this area as a major conservation zone is to be encouraged. 0 Land use needs to be regulated in a manner that ensures that the wetlands and marshes are not harmed. 0 Mobile home parks and individual mobile homes are located throughout this area. Possible controls on use and location may be needed. 0 Some conflict of uses may be experienced between commercial and pleasure boats in the few ocean inlets along the seaside. 0 Because of the lack of beaches and ocean vistas, this area is not yet subject to the development pressures of the bayside. C. ISSUES, GOALS AND STRATEGIES The following table relates issues noted in this report to the goals and action strategies of the County's Comprebensive.Plan. 49 TABLE 19 LAND USE@ISSUES, GOALS AND STRATEGIES GOALS COMPREHENSIVEIPLAN STRATEGIES - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CORRIDOR LAND USE ISSUES DRAFT, 1988 REVISION DRAFT, 1988 REVISION ZONING ORDINANCE ONE 1.1 Along Bayfront farm- Recognize potential growth Develop standards under zoning Limit development in farm lands are becoming areas and establish within site plans &.subdivis. ordinance areas to strict agricul- susceptible to land use them appropriate land use Develop land use intensity and tural uses & farm related conversions to large controls limiting development accessory uses (15.1.490 subdivisions & PUDs except under highly r6gulated density based on land capabil. provisions for preservation circumstances & needed publ. utilities of agricultural & forest lands maintain and improve existing Delineate villages and commun- major communities and village ity clusters thru land use plan Require any development for centers other uses to obtain Maintain Exmore & Cape Charles special use permit as employment ctrs. thru zoning Establish a conversion Strictly control split and strip review process & criteria commercial and residential dev- under site plan/use permit elopment along U.S. 13 1 review Limit residential uses to farm dwellings to very low density, say 5 acre sites or a density of 0.2 units/acre. Define subdivision ord- inance to require such subdivisions as subject to subdivision regulations 1-.2 Over development of creek Develop & manage environmental Require new developments to use Establish zoning & sub- areas may negatively im- programs for impact on water best Management practices division requests to re- pact on the 'Chesapeake Bay resources quire minimum width of because of concentration Require central sewer & water lots fronting on Bay or of run-off and possible Reduce point & nonpoint source systems for large developments any creek infiltration of septic tanks nutrient loadings Require central sewage & water Stipulate in subdivision 1A Narrow lot design for systems for large and moderate ordinance that any lot more waterfront lots developments until community or within (500 ft) of increases pollution in sub-regional system is in place stream have back-up site the Bay Provide for preservation of or septic tank (on site) groundwater & tidal resources 1.4 High incidence of flooding Develop standards under zoning Continue Flood Zone Overlay in low areas and severe site plans & subdivis. ordinances District using Federal erosion rates limit to limit development in areas Flood Zone Maps as basis usability of shoreline unfit for permanent construction for identifying flood potential areas Identify areas that may be hazardous because of potential Define regulations estab- flooding or erosion lishing the distance from erosion prone shoreline 50 to permanent buildings that would assure a reasonable life of a building, i.,e. 75 years 1.5 Private purchase and Expand water-based recreation Pursue development of a park & Provide credits bonus to development of all beach by-identiiyig & acquiring needed public beach through land use private development which areas restricts public access areas on the Chesapeake controls & a capital improve- contains a public beach access for County residents Bayfor general public ments program; seek.State & (extra lots) Federal financial assistance 1.6 There is a need to Demand better-management of Encourage additional funding to Possible: Z.O. to label protect valuable oyster marine resources by all state support inspection & enforce- oyster grounds as area to producing environments agencies ment & funding for replenishment @be protected of depleted oyster grounds 'Oyster beds protected as Reduce/control point & nonpoint Demand strong'enforce. of NPDES @objec,tive of Chesapeake sources of toxic materials to program by State thru legislat. Bay Protection Zone attain level not harmful (see 1.8) Work with SCS to-reduce metal & organic run-off Reduce point & nonpoint source Require new developments.to use nutrient loadings best Management practices Require central sewer & water systems for-large developments 1.7 The- dune system needs -)Establish dune protection to be safeguarded overlay' zone patterned after Historic Zone 1.8 Areas that are relatively Recognize potential growth Develop standards under zoning @Establish a Chesapeake Bay undeveloped are in an areas and establish them site plans & subdivis. ordinan protection zone overlay y ce opportune position to be with appropriate land use regulated against devel- controls Develop land use intensity and opment which negatively density based on land capabil. affects wetlands and needed publ. utilities the Bay Provide for preservation 'of Require central.sewer & water groundwater & tidal resources systems for large and moderate developments until community or sub-regional system is in place 1.9 A State park has been pro- Support Tourism as a,basic Protect & preserve scenic, posed for Savage Neck; an industry cultural & historic areas thru extension of this park north strong land use controls could protect the primary dune system from development Develop natural resources within limits of fragile environment 51 1.10 Smaller inlets branching off Recognize potential gr;o'wth Develop stan dards under zoning .@Establish zoning & subdiv- I ce main creeks are inland from areas and establish them site plans & subdivis. ordinan ision requests to require the flood zone and provide with appropriate land use minimum width of lots front opportunity for waterfront controls Develop land use intensity and ing on Bay or any creek development density based on land capabil. & needed publ. utilities Stipulate in subdivision ordinance that any lot within (500 ft) of such stream have back-up site for septic tank (on site) Iwo 2.1 Farmlands along U.S.13 will Recognize potential growth Develop standards under zoning See 1.1. Limit conversion continue to face conversion areas and establish them site plans & subdivis. ordinance of farms except under use pressure for non-farm with appropriate land ,'use permit development controls Develop land use intensity and Review conversion per Z.O. density based on land capabil. criteria needed publ. utilities 2.2 As U.S. 13 continues to Maintain and improve existing Delineate villages and commun- Develop a village zone attract commercial and major 'communities and,village ity clusters through zoning format; zones that.apply to other development, access centers smaller villages XXX to businesses'Will become difficult; also strip Maintain Exmore & Cape Charles Define zoning districts commercial and advertising as employment ctrs. thru zoning appropriate for urban will become unsightly communities in these towns 2.3 Expansion around the towns Provide for preservation of Require central sewer & water. Put in subdivisions will lead to expanded water groundwater & tidal re'sources systems for large and moderate and sewer needs developments until community or sub-regional system is in place Recognize potential growth Develop standards under zoning Define appropriate zoning areas and establish them site plans subdivis. ordinance for urban towns, devel- with appropriate land @use oping area-residual, etc. controls Develop land. use intensity and density based on land capabil. Define density by standards & needed.publ. utilities 2.4 Character of the County will Strictly control spit and strip Establish a controlled be altered if strip develop- commercial an,d residential dev- growth overlay development ment occurs along U.S. 13 elopment along U.S. 13 zone 1000 feet each side U.S. 13 and restrict development within 2.5 Over development of U.S. 13 Protect & maintain transportation corridors that is compat- will increase traffic hazards purpose of County's highway able with County's goals and lead to unattractive strip system for minimum conflict development along entry with big traffic corridor into County 52- THREE 3.1 The seaside corridor is pro- Demand better management of Encourage additional funding to N/A Zoning tected by state and federal marine resources by all state support inspection.&.enforce conservation agencies. A agencies ment & funding for replenishment major conservation zone of depleted oyster grounds is to be encouraged Demand strong enforce. of NPDES, program by State thru legislat. 3.2 Land use should be regulated Reduce/control point & nonpoint Work with SCS to reduce metal Establish we'tiand marsh to p.rotect wetlands and sources of toxic materials to organic run-off conservation zoning dis- marshes attain level not harmful trict Restrict uses therein Reduce point & nonpoint source Require new developments to use nutrient loadings best Management practices Require central sewer &.water systems for large developments 3.3 Mobile home-parks and Recognize potential gro'wth Develop standards under zoning .',Z.O. defines where permitted individual mobile homes may areas and establish them site plans & subdivis. ordinance need to be regulated for with appropriAte land use @Subdivision ordinance may use and location controls create -mobile home. parks @or special type of sub- division thereby including fstandards for their use 3.4 Conflict of uses may be Protect& preserve scenic, 'Zoning may establish use experienced between commercial cultural & historic areas-thru @permitting keeping boats & and pleasure boats in the strong land use controls Imay limit number, but not few ocean inlets .1determine if they are Develop natural resources Ifor pleasure or business within limits of fragile environment 3..5 Seaside corridor lacks beaches Support Tourism as a basic Protect & preserve scenic,cultural Seaside development zone and vistas and is not yet industry & historic areas thru strong land With limited development subject to development use controls rights existing thru use pressures permits & etc. Develop natural resources within limits of fragile environment 53 ENDNOTES I This section is taken from two primary sources, both of which provide an excellent chronological history of the Eastern Shore: Ralph T. Whitelaw, Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1968. Nora Miller Turman, The Eastern Shore of Virginia, 1964. 2. There have been numerous studies relating to the topography and natural resources of the Eastern Shore and, specifically, Northampton County. These studies evaluate the unique features of the region and the problems that require special attention. Most of the studies in print, however, occurred before the strong development push currently experienced by Northampton County and their results and findings may reflect this absence of develop- ment. Important studies relating to this section include: Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission, Natural Resource Inven- tory, 1982. Office of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources, Proposals for Coastal Resources Management in Virginia (draft), 1977. State Water Control Board, Groundwater Conditions on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, 1975. State Water Control Board, Computer Simulation Model for Groundwater Flow in the Eastern Shore of Virgi@ia, 1977. State Water Control Board, Ground Water Resources of the Eastern Shore of Virginia, 1982. State Water Control Board, Eastern Shore Water Supply Plan (final draft), 1987. Virginia institute of Marine Science, Shoreline Situation Report: Nor- thampton County, Virginia, 1974. Wiley and Wilson, Inc., Water and Sewer Studies for Northampton County,, Virginia, 1979. APPENDIX A SUBDIVISIONS, 1980'S Number Name Acres Number Size SIZEACRES SIZE Recorded ROAD Location LOTS ACCESS Waterfrnt Bleak Ms. Manor 1 13.5 3 4.5 4.5 13.50 1986 Public Louise Moore 1 2 0.5 0.5 1.00 1980 Public 2 No mac 2 4 0.5 0.5 2.00 1980 Public 2 E. Williams 22 4 5.5 5.5 22.00 1980 Private I J. Norling 2 1 2 2 2.00 1980 Private 2 ill Della Beach 2.4 5 0.6 0.6 3.00 1980 Private I E. Williams 12.44 2 6.22 6.22 12.44 1980 Private 1 112 Mary Dillard 1.5 5 0.25 0.25 1.25 1980 Private 1 115 B.E. Williams 70 11 6.5 6.5 71.50 1980 Private I 121 Oak Ridge 18 3 6 6 18.00 19BI Public 2 120 Old Neck Landing 26 10 2.6 2.6 26.00 1981 Private I Bleak House Manor 4.4 8 0.55 0.55 4.40 1981 Private 2 Austin Ward 6 6 1 1 6.00 1981 Private I George Vincent Jr. 5.5 3 2.75 2.75 8.25 1981 Public 2 108 Richard & Kathl'n Ashy 6.9 2 3.5 3.5 7.00 1981 Public 1 119 Wilsonia Landing 70 28 2.5 2.5 70.00 1982 Private I 116 Silver Beach Est 22.5 9 2.5 2.5 22.50 1982 Public I Carlton Smith 8 2 4 4 8.00 1982 Private I Various Owners 24 4 6 6 24.00 1982 Private I Cherrystone Woods 2 4 0.5 0.5 2.00 1982 Public I Evergreen 24 2 12 12 24.00 1983 Private I 107 H.M. Arnold 47.5 5 9.5 9.5 47.50 1983 Private I Bay View Cove 1.5 2 0.75 0.75 1.50 1983 Public 1 114 Great Pine Harbor 35 20 1.75 1.75 35.00 1983 Public 1 118 Summer Acres 8.25 11 0.75 0.75 8.25 1983 Publ/priv 2 127 Kings Creek Landing 14.5 29 0.5 0.5 14.50 1983 Private 1 122 Yerdly Pt- APPROX # LOTS 120 24 5 5 120.00 1983 Private I Town Field East 2.4 4 0.6 0.6 2.40 1984 Public 2 H.M. Arnold 2.6 2 1.3 1.3 2.60 1984 Private 1 Town Field West 3 3 1 1 3.00 1985 Public 2 Ralph Long 2.5 1 2.5 2.5 2.50 1985 Private 2 Ralph Long 5 2 2.5 2.5 5.00 1985 Public 2 R. Huether 15 3 5 5 15.00 1985 Private 2 Ruth Roberts Est 30 5 6 6 30.00 1985 Public I Louis Rock 3.75 5 0.75 0.75 3.75 1986 Public 3 Pleasant Grove Village 12 .12 1 1 12.00 1986 Publ/priv I F&F Estates 3 3 1 1 3.00 1986 Private 2 Eden Head 12 6 2 2 12.00 1986 Private I D Charnock 8 4 2 2 8.00 1986 Private I Fairview Manor 2 4 0.5 0.5 .2.00 1986 Public 3 F6F Estates 3 4 0.75 0.75 3.00 1986 Public 2 F&F Estates 4.5 6 0.75 0.75 4.50 1986 Public 2 126 Tysen Meadows 25 20 1.25 1.25 25.00 1986 Publ/priv 2 M Gregory 2 1 2 2 2.00 1987 Private I Robert Becker 1 2 0.5 0.5 1.00 1987 Public 2 127 Kings Creek Landing 17.5 17 0.5 0.5 8.50 1987 Private I Shep Davis Subdiv 35 10 1.25 1.25 12.50 1987 Private 125 Latimers Bluff 35 7 5 5 35.00 1987 Public Malen 13.75 11 1.25 1.25 13.75 1987 Private - 54 124 Va Chesapeake Sh 36.75 49 0.75 0.75 36.75 1987 Public I Salt Works 8 4 2 2 8.00 1987 Private 1 Walden 22 22 1 1 22.00 1987 Private 2 Cardinal Estates 4.5 9 0.5 0.5 4.50 1987 Private 2 Clearview 18 24 0.75 0.75 18.00 1988 Public I Peaceful Shores 55 11 5 5 55.00 1988 Private 1 123 Bay Ridge 73.5 21 3.5 3.5 73.50 1988 Publ/priv I Mickley 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.50 1988 Public 2 109 Butlers Bluff 60 12 5 5 60.00 1998 Private I Peaceful Beach Est 42 21 2 2 42.00 1988 Private I Hungars Landing 12 12 1 1 88 12.00 Pending Private I Hideaway Cove 35 7 5 5 88 35.00 Approved Private I Latimers Bluff Re-Sub 4 2 2 2 88 4.00 Pending Public I Bay Harbor 50 25 2 2 88 50.00 Pending Publ/priv I Cherrystone 5.25 7 0.75 0.75 88 5.25 Pending Public 1 Anchor Village 60 12 5 5 88 60.00 Approved Private 2 Butlers Bluff #2 50 10 5 5 88 50.00 Approved Private 1 Hunters Cove 12.75 17 0.75 0.75 88 12.75 Approved Public I Smaughville 2 4 0.5 0.5 88 2.00 Approved Publ/priv I Pleasant Cove 7 14 0.5 0.5 88 7.00 Approved Publ/priv I Latimers Bluff Re-Sub 7.5 10 0.75 0.75 88 7.50 Approved Private I Greenbriar Farm 70 14 5 5 88 70.00 Approved Private 1 Va A Feland 27 10 2.7 2.7 88 27.00 Pending Private 1 113 Harbor Pt 60 11 5.2 5.2 88 57.20 Pending Private 1 Seaside Acres 4.364 4 1.1 1.1 4.40 1988 Public 3 Terry Woods 1.5 3 0.5 0.5 1.50 1988 Public 2 Omar M Shilbaya 10.22 2 5.11 5.11 10.22 1988 Private I Fairview Manor Il 1.9 4 0.48 0.48 88 1.92 Approved Public 2 Latimers Bluff Re-sub 5.03 2 2.52 2.52 88 5.04 Approved Public 1 Future Enter Inc 20 4 5 5 88 20.00 Approved Private I Va Chesapeake Sh 262.1 263 0.996 0.996 88 261.95 Prelim Public I TOTALS, 1980'S: 80 SUBDIVISIONS (LST&MAP) 1836.754 952 1.93 1.90 TOTAL SUBDIVIS. 80 (62 RECORD DATED; 6 PENDING;ll APPROVED;l PRELIM.) 55 DATE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRNTED IN U S A 366