[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Washington, North Carolina 'The Original Washington' se an 1985 1995 Preliminary Draft: August 1Z 1985 Adopted by City of Washington: December 9, 1985 Certified by Coastal Resources Commission: May 29, 1W Mill- A Ptepared by. i City of Washington,K."C. P.O.Box 1988 washing,on, North carouna 27889 (919) 946-1033 and 4G8LDESIGNASSOCIATFS.RA. HD iG AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS" :211 3nwood Ave. North Carolina 27612 Land U PI W2 1-9004 W-37 1986 Cover drawin'g reproduced frorn "Downtown Plan", prepared for City of Washington,1979 The Washington Land Use Plan: 1985-1995 Washington, North Carolina Prepared for: Washington City Council J. Stancil Lilley, Mayor Floyd G. Brothers, Mayor Pro Tern J. R. Jones Ursula F. Loy Richard Cherry Alton L Ingalls Prepared by: Ralph Clark, City Manager Louis Taylor, Director of Community Development/Planning Buddy Cutler, Zoning Administrator and Washington Planning Board U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Doug Mercer, Chairman Joe Toler COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Stewart Everett, Vice Chairman Billie Joe Arnold Jane Alligood 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE Clay Carter CHARLESTON SC 29405-24 1 1 Jim Bilbro Robert M. Thomas Robert Culler Consultant assistance provided by: Planning and Design Associates, P.)L 3515 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612 (919) 781-9004 Terry W. Alford, MRP, AIA, Planner-in-Charge Dale Downes, Associate Planner with staff assistance from: CIO Rex H. Todd, MRP, AICP, Consultant Planner; Greg Miller, BPD; Larry Underwood, M. Arch.; Astrid Blades, BVD; Sandy Fitzgerald, Debbi Wall, Carolyn Cobb, and Janet Roberts The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 197Z as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The City of Washington also contributed cash and in-kind services. 4 i Washington Land Use Plan: 1985 - 1995 I N D E X page I. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. The Importance of Planning A. What is a CAMA Land Use Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. How is the CAMA Land Use Plan utilized? . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. Why plan for Washington's future? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 III. Description of Present Conditions . A. Establishment of Information Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 B. Population, Economy, and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C. Existing Land Use Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 D. Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. Constraints: Land Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 F. Capacity of Community Facilities and Estimated Future Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 IV. Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies: Overview . . o 28 Ao Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 B. Resource Production and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 C. Economic and Community Development . . . . . . . o o . . . . 34 D. Storm Hazard Mitigation - o - o . . o .. o . . . . . . 38 E. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . o. . o . . . . . 39 F. Intergovernmental Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 V. Storm Hazard Mitigation A. Overview . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B. Storm Hazards . . o . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 43 C. Description of Types and Severity of Risk in Hazard Areas . . o . o . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 D. Recommended Policies Regarding Storm Mitigation . . . . . . 47 E. Reconstruction . * * * * * * ' * * ' 48 F. Intergovernmental Coo;din;tion* . . . . . . . . . 50 VI. Land Classification Map A. Land Classification and Policy Relationship . . . . . . . . 52 B. Developed and Developed Sub-Districts . . . . . . . . . . . 52 C. Transition I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 D. Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 E. Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 F. Intergovernmental Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 EXHIBITS A. Land Classification Map: Growth Policy Guidelines . . . . . 59 B. Existing Land Use Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 C. Flood Plain Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 D. Components of Population Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 E. Components of Employment Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 F. Major Employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 G. Components of School Enrollment Change . . . . . . . . . . . 65 H. Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 I. Prioritized Issues: Results of Public Response . . . . . . . 71 J. Region Q - North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 K. Evacuation Shelters and Planning Sub-Districts . . . . . . . 76 L. Population and Housing Units by Planning Sub-Districts 77 APPENDIX A. City Council Members B. Planning Board Members C. Notice of 3/11/85 Public Hearing D. Letter of Invitation to 3/11/85 Public Hearing E. List of Persons Invited to 3/11/85 Public Hearing F. Problems and Issues Rating Survey G. Results of Problems and Issues Rating Survey H. News Clipping on Public Hearing, Washington Daily News, 3/12/85 I. Bibliography J. CAMA Regulations 1. Executive Summary This document provides guidelines for the future growth and development of the City of Washington through the year 1995. Recommendations on accommodating Washington's population growth, conserving valuable resources, and sustaining the quality of life sought by its citizens are based on extensive research, previous plans, and citizen input. Previous limits on Washington's future, imposed by needed improvements to the city's wastewater and roads are now being or have been addressed since the 1980 Land Use Plan. These improvements are cited in this Land Use Plan. The City's capacity for growth is now, or soon will be, much improved. The challenge ahead for the City of Washington is to direct this growth, maintaining the quality of life and physical environment sought by both citizens and City officials providing input into this report. With the physical infrastructure for growth in place, Washington must look to the public policy and regulatory instruments used by coastal cities to direct and manage growth. This Land Use Plan serves to direct city use of tools such as the Zoning Ordinance, the Thoroughfare Plan, the Water and Wastewater Plan, the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation, and The Coastal Area Managment Act of 1974. The City of Washington recognizes the importance of protecting and developing its resources, both natural and man-made. In accordance with the Coastal Area Managment Act of 1974, this Land Use Plan contains policy statements and implementation strategies regarding the protection, production, and management of the City's resources as well as providing guidelines for economic and community development to 1995. A special -I- section on Storm Hazard miligation provides a plan for addressing Washington's high vulnerability to hurricanes. Methods for insuring ongoing public participation and Intergovernmental coordination of this plan ar0 also provided. This plan serves as an update to previously adopted Washington Land Use Plans and provides an overview of public policies for the future of Washington, North Carolina. -2- II. The Importance of Planning A. What is a Land Use Plan? A Land Use Plan is a collection of policy statements which serve as guidelines for local, state, and federal officials when making decisions affecting development. It is also intended to be used by private individuals when they make decisions regarding development. The Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 requires all local governments in Coastal North Carolina Counties and municipalities to develop a land use plan. The plan is to assure the orderly growth of North Carolina's coastal area and to protect important natural resources. The land use plan is to be developed to serve the City of Washington for a period of 10 years. It is required however, by CAMA, that the plan be updated every five years. B. How is a Land Use Plan Utilized? Land use plans which are prepared by local governments in the coastal area are distributed widely, and have many uses. Those reviewing and using the plans are local governments, regional councils of government, state and federal permitting agencies and public and private funding and development groups. The discussion of policies, the land classification map and the relationship between the two serve as the basic tools for coordinating policies, standards, regulations and other government activities at the local, state and federal levels. This coordination is described by three applications: (a) The policy discussion and the land classification map encourage coordination and consistency between local land use policies and the state and federal governments. The local land use plans are the principal policy guides for governmental decisions and activities which affect land uses in the coastal area. (b) The local land use plans provide a framework for budgeting, planning, and for the provision and expansion of community facilities such as water and sewer systems, schools and roads. (c) The local land use plans will aid in better coordination of regulatory policies and decision by describing local land use policies and designating specific areas for certain types of activities, thus directing other city tools such as zoning and subdivision ordinances. Local Government Uses - Counties and municipalities should use the local land use plans in their day to day decision making and in planning for the future. The land use plans should provide guidance in local policy decisions relating to overall community development. The plans also provide the basis for development regulations and capital facility planning and budgeting. By identifying how the community prefers to grow, land use plans help to assure the best use of tax dollars for extension of public utilities and services to areas designated for development. Regional Uses - The regional councils of government on planning and regional development commissions use the local land use plans as the basis for their regional plans and in their function as regional clearinghouse (A-95) for state and federal funding programs. The local plans indicate to these regional agencies what types of development the local community feels are important and where the -4- development should take place. State and Federal Government Uses - Local land use plans are used as one major criteria in granting or denial of permits for various developments within the coastal area. State and federal agencies must be sure that their decisions consider the policies and land classification system which are described by the local governments in their plans. The Coastal Area Management Act stipulates that no development permit may be issued if the development is inconsistent with the local land use plans. Similarly, decisions relating to the use of federal or state funds within coastal counties, and towns and projects being undertaken by state and federal agencies themselves must also be consistent with the local plans. State agencies also use the plans in their A-95 review. It is thus vitally important that local governments take the opportunity to be as definitive as possible in developing their policy statements and land classification system to minimize interpretive decisions on the part of state and federal review, permit, and funding agencies. C. Why Plan for Washington's Future? Planning for the future is of particular importance to Washington, North Carolina. Washington has played an important role in North Carolina's history since it was founded in 1115 by James Bonner* It grew to be one of the State's most important ports by the end of the 19th century and early 20th century as well as becoming the county seat of Beaufort County. With the advent of railroad construction, hard-surface road construction, and modern trucking, Washington's importance began to diminish, The once thriving waterfront came only to serve one steamboat -5- line by 1950. The wharves became dilapidated and a general economic downturn was experienced. Washington first recognized the need for planning during the early 19601s. The City Council appointed a Citizen's Committee to investigate the possibility of initiating urban renewal projects which eventually led to the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Project. The execution of this project resulted in a complete renovation of the waterfront area. Abandoned warehouses, and dilapidated buildings and piers were cleared out. The land was built up and the Stewart Parkway was constructed. A park-like waterfront area for the public was also created. The bulk-head was furnished with free water and metered electricity to accommodate overnight docking. Other notable planning achievements soon followed. The Washington Square shopping center was developed as an alternative commercial and retail center to the Central Business District. Main and Market Streets were renovated in an effort to create an amenable atmosphere downtown. The most recent planning achievements include the continuation of community development/redevelopment projects and the development of housing for low and moderate income groups using Community Development Grants, the creation of a National Register District, and the creation of a local historic zoning district which approximates the National Register District. Thus far, Washington has been tremendously successful in responding to its changing economic base. It now must meet the challenges of the future. In order to adequately provide for its present and future citizens, Washington must address many problems. These problems include: -6- 1) How best to expand wastewater treatment and collection systems to accommodate present and future demand. 2) How best to revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow for expanding development and assuring orderly growth? 3) How best to develop the waterfront area using the river to continue reviving economic development in Washington? 4) How best to continue enhancing the visual qualities of Washington? 5) How best to improve the water quality of the Pamlico-Tar River? In light of these-problems, and others, Planning and Design Associates, P.A. (PDA) and the citizens and staff of the City of Washington have prepared the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan Update. The plan is divided into six sections and an appendix. The different sections include: Executive Summary, The Importance of Planning, Description of Present Conditions, Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies, Storm Hazard Mitigation, and Land Classification Map. The Description of Present Conditions outlines the demographic and economic aspects of Washington and provides an existing land use map. This section summarizes current plans, policies, and regulations reviewed during the Plan update process, discusses existing constraints to Washington's development, provides estimates of future growth in Washington, and provides estimates of future community facilities demand that will accompany the projected growth. The section on Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies is organized into categories of resource protection, resource production, economic and community development, public participation, storm hazard mitigation, and other specific issues. This section also discusses the increasingly important role of intergovernmental coordination in regard to those policy statements. -7- The fourth section of this plan presents the Land Classification Map and discusses the criteria used to determine the classification of the Washington Planning Area as well as the intergovernmental coordination and cooperation necessary for successful utilization of this land classification system. The fifth section is a relatively new aspect of the CAMA Land Use Plans, Storm Hazard Mitigation. This section identifies what the City of Washington has to lose in the event of a storm, how the City should best minimize its potential losses, and how the City should reconstruct in the event of a storm. -8- III, Description of Present Conditions A. Establishment of Information Base Data for the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan Update was collected through a combined effort of city officials and Planning and Design Associates, P.A. The data assembly began with assessments of the 1976 Washington Land Use Plan, the 1980 Washington Land Use Plan Update, and other public policy documents, technical plans and studies, and published information on the Town. A Bibliography of Literature reviewed is contained in Appendix I. Published data were collected from local, county, state and federal agencies as needed. These included consultant collection of data via visits with the N.C. State Office of Budget and Management, N. C. Office of the U.S. Geological Survey, N.C. State Archives, N.C. Department of Transportation, N.C. Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, City of Washington School System, City of Washington Chamber of Commerce, and the UNC-Chapel Hill Department of City and Regional Planning Library. Telephone and on-site interviews were conducted with the NRCD regional office and Washington City Staff, including: John Crew, Coastal Land Use Planner, NRCD, Ruth Leggett, Coastal Land Use Planner, NRCD; Louis Taylor, City Community Development Coordinator; Buddy Cutler, City Zoning Administrator, and Ralph Clark, City Manager. Other initial guidance was provided by Jonathon Philips, of the Pamlico Tar River Foundation, Keith Hackney of Hackney Industries, Inc., and Frank Lewis, of the Washington Chamber of Commerce. Information regarding location of Areas of Environmental Concern, and general field data on all policy issues outlined in this Plan were collected through field surveys (windshield and on foot) by Planning and Design Associates, P.A. and City Staff, as well as through personal interviews with -9- citizens, including local land surveyors using maps and photographs as references. The Consultants made extensive use of previous adopted Land Use Plans, as well as other published documents listed in the Bibliography in Appendix I. B. Population, Economy, and Housing Population The population of Washington is moving from the core of the City to near, or out of, the city limits, making annexation a necessary means for the City to both substain its tax base, and keep up with the demands for City Services, This is not a new trend. Both the 1976 and 1980 Washington Land Use Plans made the same observation. Exhibit D (page 62) outlines the components of population change in the City of Washington and Beaufort County. It is important to note that the County population increased by 12.2% while the city population decreased by 6.1%. It is apparent that much of the counties growth is attributable to the City of Washington, in areas just outside its City Limits. Much of the City's population decrease is in the under 5 age group (18.6%), which corresponds to low birth rate trends exhibited statewide during the early 1980's. The 25-34 year old population did increase significantly (28.3%) and the child-bearing years (15-44) showed only a slight decrease. The 1970-1980 population increase of the 25-34 year age group is significantly less than the state-wide increase of 49.5% and the nation-wide rate of 48.7% during the same time-frame. The overall decrease of the _10- population in the child-bearing years (15-44) is discouraging compared to the state-wide increase of 25.9% and the nation-wide increase of 25.9% between the years 1970-1980. Some of the increase experienced by the 25-34 year age group is attributable to migration. The net migration (out and in) of Beaufort County between the years 1970-1980 was 6.2%, slightly more than twice the state-wide rate of 3.0%. Economy Washington is a community with the majority of its workers employed in the wholesale & retail trade industry and the service industry. Being the county seat and area retail trade center, it attracts many workers from outlying areas - Chocowinity, Bath, etc. Despite this advantage, Washington is losing workers at slightly less than the rate at which it is losing population. Exhibit E (page 63) shows that it lost 5.4% of its workforce between the years of 1970-1980. Much of this job loss may be attributable to new industrial job location just outside the city limits. The only increase inside the city limits occurred in the categories of public administration and manufacturing. Increase in public administation follows national trends. People are getting more government. The increase in manaufacturing is due to the increased workload of the City's prominent manufactures, e.g. Hackney and Sons. Washington's industrial base has shown a gradual growth since the first CAMA Land Use Plan. Between 1976-1980 three major new employers located in the Washington area: Gregory Poole, Inc. (40 Employees); Lowe's, Inc.; and Stanadyne, Inc. (345 Employees). Since 1980, however, only one major employer has located in the area - Donnelly Marketing (300 Employees). A list of Washington's major industries is contained in Exhibit F (page 64). The impact of tourism on the economy of Washington is difficult to guage. Washington does not have a significant number of "second houses." Only 6% of Washington's total year-round housing units were unoccupied during 1980, compared to a 8.2% unoccupied housing unit rate for the whole state in 1910, Telephone interviews with several area hotels indicate that occupancy rates are significantly highest during the summer months. This indicates that a tourism base exists, giving the City something to expand upon, as discussed in Section IV-C of this plan. Housing Adequate housing for the population of Washington has been one of the City's chief concerns in the past decade. Urban renewal projects began revitalizing Washington's housing market in the 1960's with recent Community Development Block Grant programs being very successful in continuing the revitalization of Washington's low and moderate income housing market. The City of Washington is still much more attractive to single-family home owners than is the extraterritorial jurisdiction, as the 1980 Washington Land Use Plan concluded. That conclusion was derived from a study of building permit activity during the years 1975-79 within City limits and outside City limits within the 1.5 mile extraterritorial jurisdiction. Building permit data from the years 1980-1984 was not available for inclusion in the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan. The conclusion that the City of Washington is more attractive to single-family homeowners is derived from an interview with William Cochran of the Washington Housing Authority. Cochran estimates that approximately -12- 98% of housing units within City limits are conventional single-family dwellings as opposed to mobile homes. Within the entire Washington Planning Area, including extraterritorial jurisdiction, Cochran estimates that approximately 75% of the housing units are conventional single-family dwellings as opposed to mobile homes. Single-family detached housing units are available for low income persons through the public sector. As of May 1985, the City of Washington had 483 publicly financed low income housing units available. There are currently no additional units under bid solicitation, however; there are 15 building lots scheduled for demolition and future development. Apartment units for low income persons are available through the private sector. Two rental unit complexes exist in Washington. Clifton Meadows, located on W. Tenth Street near the John Cotten Tayloe School has approximately 50 rental units available, and The Village, located on.Avon Avenue has approximately 70 rental units available. Demand for middle and upper middle income units could not be accurately determined from available data; however, consultant interviews and observations suggest potential middle income housing demand as a bedroom community for the adjacent Greenville and Texas Gulf/Aurora employment centers. C. Existing Land Use Analysis Land use activities within the Washington Planning Area include areas that are devoted to Agricultural, Forest Wetlands, Commercial /Residential, Cultural /Recreational, Residential, Institutional /Governmental, and Industrial uses. All areas with these uses are identified in Exhibit B - Existing Land Use Map (page 60). Agricultural The largest land use activity in the Washington Planning Area is devoted to agricultural use. Agricultural land comprises vast tracts of land in the northern and western portions of the Washington Planning Area. Other tracts of land used primarily for agricultural purposes -are found dispersed throughout the eastern portion of the planning area. The major crops include corn, tobacco, and soybeans. Agricultural land use is affected by activities/trends occurring in the Washington Planning Area. Much of the land currently being used for agricultural purposes inside the City Limits is the most suitable land for development purposes. The City of Washington will have to pay careful attention to the development of agricultural land, being sure to protect as much of it as possible while developing those areas most appropriate for other uses. Guidelines for this growth are contained in Section IV.A - Resource Protection, and in Section VI.C, which discusses the classification of Transition lands. (See Table of Contents for page references.) Forested Wetland Forest Wetlands are found primarily on the southern shore of the Pamlico and Tar Rivers. Those areas are not suitable for development, as they have poor drainage and are highly susceptible to erosion. Future use of these areas is discussed in Sections IV.A - Resource Protection, and in Section VI-C which discusses the classification of conservation lands. (See Table of Contents for page references.) 14- Commercial/Residential Commercial /Residential uses of land are found within the City Limits. The designation of these two uses together was done primarily because this is how they are found, mixed. These areas are primarily commercial but have mixed residential use among them as well. The residential use is in the form of detached single-family dwellings and second/third floor apartments. The primary retail development is found in the downtown area. Planned neighborhood shopping centers are also located on Fifteenth Street (Washington Square and K-Mart). The most highly visible highway business development is located on U. S. 17 between Ninth and Fifteenth Streets. This area is becoming a strip commercial district. Additional strip development could occur along the new bypass (page 67) if not guarded against now. The city must take appropriate zoning measures to protect that area soon. Other major commercial districts are located along West Fifth Street from Hackney Avenue to Wilson Street, and from Seventh Street to Avon Avenue along U.S. 264. The City recognizes the caution it must take to protect this area from excessive strip development. Previous land use plans and the Downtown Plan have cited many constraints to the development of the commercial district, none of which have been rectified to date. The primary constraints include poor vehicle circulation and inadequate parking. Policies regarding the development of the commercial district are contained in Section IV-C - Economic and Community Development. -15- Cultural/Recreational Areas and facilities devoted to cultural and/or recreational use are identified in Exhibit B - Existing Land Use Map (page 60). The largest single use, as identified in Exhibit B, is the cemetary. Washington has a large historic district which is included in the National Register of Historic Places. The historic district comprises the area on the waterfront from Hackney Street to Simmons Street. The northern border is primarily Third Street. At Market, Bonner, and Harvey Streets the northern border extends as far north as Fifth Street. The southern border is the south bank of the Pamlico and Tar Rivers. Approximately 95 acres of land are devoted to recreational use. Washington's Recreation Department administers recreational activities at the following sites: Seventh St. Park, Charlotte Street Center, Kugler Field, Todd Maxwell Field, Stewart Park, Oakdale Park, Washington Docking Facilities, Jack's Creek, Bridge Street Center, Beebe Park, Carver's Landing, Haven's Gardens, Water Tank Property Area, and all public schools. Public water access is currently located at Jack's Creek. Fishing is a popular activity at this site, as well as being popular off of the Stewart Parkway and Highway 17 Bridge. Residential Residential development patterns in Washington have not changed since 1976. Residential development is dispersed (as noted earlier in this section) among commercial and industrial development, creating incompatible neighborhoods. Areas south of the Pamlico-Tar Rivers (Whichard's Beach) continue their same development trends. The homes being constructed are primarily -16- recreational and second homes. There is, however, substantial mobile home development occurring as permanent residences. All homes in this area are served by individual wells and septic tanks. Institutional/Government These areas are identified in Exhibit B - Existing Land Use Map (page 60). These areas include city and county government buildings and the airport. Industrial Industrial Land Use has not increased substantially since the previous land use plan* Development of industrial lands has occurred immediately adjacent to or within commercial /residential areas. Changes which have occurred since 1980 are primarily on the western side of the city. Gregory Poole, Inc. has located at the intersection of U.S. 17 and N.C. 1509. Discussion pertaining to the future industrial land use is contained in Section IV.C - Economic and Community Development. Much of that discussion relates to plans by the Washington Chamber of Commerce and its efforts to develop an industrial park east and/or west of the City Limits. D. Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations A comprehensive list of plans and policies for the Washington Planning Area are contained in the bibliography (Appendix I) of this plan. Local ordinances pertaining to development include the City's zoning code and building code regulations. -17- A list of state and federal regulations pertaining to development follows: STATE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ----------- A-g-e-n-c-y --------------------------------------------------------- Licenses and Permits - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Natural Resources and - Permits to discharge to surface Community Development waters or operate wastewater treatemnt plants or oil discharge permits; NPDES Permits, (G.S. 143- 215). Division of Environmental Management Permits for septic tanks to be used for industrial purposes (G.S. 143- 215.3). Permits for withdrawal of surface or ground waters in capacity use areas (G.S. 143-215-15). Permits for air pollution abatement facilities and sources (G.S. 143-215-108). Permits for construction of complex sources; e.g. parking lost, subdivisions, stadiums, etc. (G.S. 143-215-109). Permits for construction of a well over 100,000 gallons/day (G.S. 87- 88). ---- - - ------------------------------- ----------- - - - ---------------- - - Department of Natural Resources and - Permits to dredge and/or fill in Community Development estuarine waters, tidelands, etc. Division of Coastal Management (G.S. 113-229). - Permits to undertake development in Areas of Environmental Concern (G.S. 113A-118). NOTE: Minor development permits are issued by the local government. ------------ -------------------------------------------------- ------------ Agency Licenses and Permits ---------- -- ------ - --------- --- - ------- -- ----- -- ---------- Department of Natural Resources and Permits to alter or construct a Community Development dam (G.S. 143-215.66). Division of Land Resources -Permits to mine (G.S. 74-51). -Permits to drill an explanatory oil or gas well (G.S. 113-391). -Permits to conduct geographical exploration (G.S. 113-391). -Sedimentation erosion control plans for any land disturbing activity of over one contiguous acre (G.S. 113A-54). Department of Natural Resources and -Permits to construct an oil Community Development refinery. Secretary of NRCD - - ----------- - ---------------- - ---------------- - ---------------- - --- Department of Administration - Easements to fill where lands are proposed to be raised above the normal high water mark of navigable waters by filling (G.S. 146.6 (c)). -------- ------------------------------------------------------ Department of Human Resources -Approval to operate a solid waste disposal site or facility (G.S. 130-166.16). -Approval for construction of any public water supply facility that furnishes water to ten or more residences (G.S. 130-160-1). -19- FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agency Licenses and Permits -------- ---------- Army Corps of Engineers - Permits required under Section 9 (Department of Defense) and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors of 1899; permits to consturct in navigable waters. - Permits required under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. - Permits required under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972; permits to undertake dredging and/or filling activities. ------------------- --------- ------------------- Coast Guard Permits for bridges, causeways., (Department of Transportation) pipelines over navigable waters; required under the General Bridge Act of 1946 and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Geological Survey Permits required for off-shore Bureau of Land Management drilling. (Department of Interior) Approvals of OCS pipeline corridor rights-of-way. --------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Licenses for siting, construction and operation of nuclear power plants; required under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. - ------------------- - - ------------ - ---------------------- - ------ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Permits for construction, operation and maintenance of interstate pipeline facilities required under the Natural Gas Act of 1938. -20- ------------ ------------------------- - ------------------------------------ Agency Licenses and Permits -------- ------------------------------------------------------- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - orders of interconnection of (continued) electric transmission facilites under Section 202 (b) of the Federal Power Act. - Permission requred for abandonment of natural gas pipeline and associated facilities under Section 7C (b) of the Natural Gas Act of 1938. E. Constraints: Land Suitability In accordance with CARA regulations, the following is a brief analysis of the general suitability of the undeveloped lands in the Washington Planning Area* The analysis presented here plus related sections of policy discussion (Section IV) were the basis for the design of the Land Classification Map (Section VI). Land suitability is analyzed in terms of three different types of constraints--Physical Limitations, Fragile Areas, and Areas of Resource Potential. Physical Limitations There are two major physical limitations to development in the Washington Planning Area--Flood Prone/Storm Hazard Areas and Areas with Soil Limitations. Hazard Areas As shown on the Flood Prone Areas Map, Exhibit C (page 61), almost 50% of the land in the Washington Planning Area is subject to inundation. Development should either be directed away from those areas or be undertaken so as to withstand the likelihood of inundation. Flood-prone areas are also subject to erosion. As an example, according to data contained in the Beaufort County Storm Mitigation Plan, -21- during a 32 year period (1951-1983) Beaufort County lost 968.1 acres due to erosion. Had these shorelines been developed in 1951 at an average of 2 units per acre and assuming an estimated value of $30,000 per unit, approximately $60 million worth of property would have been lost to the County during that 32 year time period. Soil Limitations Soil must be suitable for both construction and septic fields. Development in soils not suitable for construcion and septic fields should not be permitted. Soil found in the northern half of the Washington Planning Area is of the Norfolk-Wagram-Goldsboro association. Drainage is moderate to good in this area. The southern half of the Washington Planning Area comprises two soil associations: Conetoe-Wando-Dragston and Dorovan Johnston. Both are poorly drained. Dorovan-Johnston is inundated throughout much of the year, making it the worst of the two. The most recent soil analysis of the area was completed in 1976. This analysis included with this plan, is availabel for inspection with Beaufort County. Fragile Areas Fragile Areas, or Areas of Environmental Concern, are identified in Section IV-A - Resource Protection, of this plan. These areas are easily destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned development. Development of these areas must be consistent with CAMA guidelines. There are other areas, not defined as AEC's, which nonetheless are fragile. These areas include all Wooded Swamps found on the south side -22- of the river. Areas With Resource Potential As noted in various sections of this plan, much of the Washington Planning Area is agriculturally productive. The growth guidelines offered in Section IV.B - Resource Production and Management should be followed. The most productive agricultural land should be identified and protected as agricultural land in accordance with Executive Order 95. Areas on the southwest shore of the Tar River have been identified as having mineral resource potential. Any mineral resource production must be consistent with State guidelines. There are no publicly owned forests, fisheries, or gamelands in the Washington Planning Area. F. Capacity of Community Facilities and Estimated Future Demand Population Projections The population within the City Limits of Washington in 1980 was 8418, 6.1% less than what it was in 1970, however, another 782 people have been added since 1980 to bring the 1985 estimate to 9200. The City of Washington is however, growing, by engaging in a continuing program of annexation of residential, commercial, and industrial lands. Annexations since 1980 have increased the City's population from 8418 to 9200, a 9.3% increase during the last five years. This represents a 1.86% annual population growth rate. Being somewhat conservative and using a 1.5% annual population growth rate, the population of the City of Washington will be 10,073 in 1990, and 10,864 in 1995. These projections assume that the City will maintain its current rate of growth. An assumed 1.5% annual population growth rate may be optimistic. There -23- are, however, several factors which should be cited when considering the growth in population of the City of Washington. They are: 1) The N.C. Office of State Budget and Management estimates that the population of Beaufort County has increased by approximately 7% between 1980 and 1985, representing a 1.4% annual population growth rate. 2) The N.C. Office of State Budget and Management estimates that the population of Pitt County has increased by 8% between 1980 and 1985, representing a 1.6% annual population growth rate. 3) Scheduled transportation improvements in the Washington Planning Area (Exhibit H), to be discussed in following narrative, will increase the accessibility of Washington to Greenville, making the Washington Planning Area very attractive as a residential community serving the Greenville employment center. Housing In 1980 there were 3,395 housing units in the City of Washington (within City Limits) for a population of 8418 persons. This is approximately 2.5 persons per housing unit. Assuming the same ratio and a 1.5% annual population growth rate, growth in housing stock would be as follows; ADDITIONAL TOTAL YEAR UNITS REQUIRED UNITS 1985 285 3680 housing units 1990 349 4029 housing units 1995 317 4346 housing units 1980 housing unit data is f rom the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. A housing unit is described as a house, apartment, group of rooms, single room, or mobile home. Vacant housing units are included in the inventory. Vacant mobile homes not intended for occupation are not included. In 1980, 6% of the 3395 available housing units were vacant. -24- Water Services The City of Washington has two water stations with a combined capacity to pump 2.92 million gallons per day. The surface water plant, located on Plymouth Street, has a 2.2 million gallons per day capacity and the ground water plant, located at Slatestone Hills, about five miles east of the surface water plant, has a 0.72 million gallon per day capacity. The 1985 average daily demand on both plants is about 1.5 million gallons per day, or about 163 gallons per day per person. Assuming the same ratio and a 1.5% annual population growth rate, Total City Demand to 1995 would be as follows: - 1.64 million gallons per day demand in 1990 - 1.74 million gallons per day demand in 1995 - 1.90 million gallons per day demand in 2000 Based on the projections above, the City of Washington will have no limitations on municipal water services during the projected time-frame required by CAMA in this plan. Wastewater Service Construction on improving the wastewater treatment plant began in January, 1985. Upon completion, the wastewater treatment plant will have the capacity to handle 2.25 million gallons per day. The most recent data available (1983) indicates that the existing demand on the wastewater treatment plant is 1.81 million gallons per day, or 197 gallons per day per person. Assuming the same ratio and a 1.5% annual population growth rate, the City will have a: - 2.00 million gallons per day demand in 1990 - 2.14 million gallons per day demand in 1995 - 2.30 million gallons per day demand in 2000 Based on the projections above, the City of Washington will not have -25- any limitations on municipal wastewater services until after the year 1111 Schools The City of Washington has five schools. Exhibit G (page -) lists those schools, the grades each serves, the 1984-85 enrollment, the capacity, and the percent of design capacity each is currently being used. Though the population study discussed earlier in this plan showed a decrease in the three school age sub-groups, enrollment is increasing, indicating that the City's schools are serving a greater number of persons outside City limits yet in the school jurisdiction. The high use rates all the schools are currently exhibiting is sufficient evidence that the City of Washington must construct another school. An interview with the City's Superintendant of Schools revealed that a site has been purchased and that the City does intend to pursue bond referendum. Also discovered during this planning process is the controversy regarding the structural quality of some of the schools, which only heightens the urgency in which the City must act to resolve this issue. Transportation Past Washington Land Use Plans and Transportation Plans have all cited the conditions of Washington roads as one of the major obstacles to the City's growth. Those obstacles will be diminished by 1986 as the N.C. Department of Transportation completes highway improvements in Washington and Beaufort County. Maps identifying the location of all scheduled improvements are contained in Exhibit H (page 66). These improvements will -26- have a tremendous impact on the City of Washington. They are: - Widen U.S. 264 from Greenville to Washington. - Construct an East-West Bypass, connecting U.S. 264 and Fifteenth Street. - Widen N.C. 32 to four lanes and install curbs and gutters. Note: The future of this improvement is still uncertain as it has been involved in litigation. - Widen U.S. 264 heading east out of Washington. Improvements are also scheduled for Warren Field, as the Airport Layout Plan Report cited in 1982. Runway lights and other improvements to the airport are being planned by the N.C. Department of Transportation. -27- IV. Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies: Overview "Policy" may be most simply defined as an expressed set of adopted statements which are to be used to guide future decisions. Taken together, the following policies therefore constitute a broad development direction for charting the City of Washington's future. These policies serve to update those provided by the 1980 Land Use Plan and are derived from a careful analysis of policies contained in previous plans and studies, published data, interviews with citizens and city staff, public hearings, and direction provided by the City Planning Commission. A more detailed discussion of Citizen Participation in formulation of these policies is contained in Section IV.E. The following policy discussion is presented in the five major categories of policy development outlined by the Coastal Resources Commission plus a sixth category, "Intergovernmental Coordination" which briefly describes the relationship between the City of Washington and Beaufort County and the relationship between the City of Washington and Washington Park. A complete listing qf all policies/issues considered for inclusion in this section is contained in Exhibit I. A. Resource Protection B. Resource Production and Management C. Economic and Community Development D. Citizen Participation E. Storm Hazard Mitigation F. Intergovernmental Coordination For each major policy category, an overview discussion and its relevance to local conditions in the Washington planning area is provided. This is followed by a summary of Policy Objectives with recommended strategies for implementation. -28- A. Resource Protection Protection of Washington's resources--both natural and historic, is in the best interest of all citizens of Washington. These are the City's heritage and future. The Resource Protection section of the 1985 Washington Land Use plan offers broad objectives and implementation strategies for achieving objectives. Previous land use plans have identifed four types of Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in the Washington Planning Area. These are Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shoreline, and Public Trust Waters. The number and location of Washington's AEC's have remained unchanged and are discussed below. Coastal Wetlands are defined under 15 NCAC 7H as any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding. Washington's coastal wetlands are found on the south side of the Pamlico - Tar Rivers near Rodman's Creek and also on the north side of the river near the mouth of Jack's Creek, within the City Limits, Estuarine Waters are defined by the State as "all water of the Atlantic Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds, rivers, and tributaries thereto seaward." Estuarine waters are the bonding element of the entire estuarine system, integrating aquatic influences from the land and the sea. They are the most productive natural environment in North Carolina. They support the commercial and sport fishing industry. Washington's Estuarine Waters are the Pamlico - Tar Rivers east of the railroad bridge. The issue of urban run-off and storm drainage is of major concern to the protection of Estuarine Water quality as well as being a major constraint to development. -29- The City of Washington recognizes the current emphasis that the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) is placing on water quality. Like the CRC, the citizens of Washington consider water a high-priority issue. (See Section IV.E--Public Participation.) The third type of AEC in the Washington Planning Area is Estuarine Shoreline. Estuarine shorelines are characterized as dry land especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse effects of wind and water. The estuarine shorelines found in the Washington Planning Area are those shorelines bordering the estuarine waters described abov e for a distance of 75 feet landward of the mean water line. The last type of AEC found in the Washington Planning Area is the Public Trust Area. The public trust waters are all navigable inland waters to which the public has the rights of access include Estuarine Waters. Another important resource which Washington must continue to protect is its Historic District. The Historic District is essentially the entire downtown area bordering the waterfront. The district is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. A Historic District Commission has been established to oversee the protection and development of the Historic District. The following objectives and implementation strategies provide public policy guidelines for the protection of Washington's Natural and Cultural Resources. Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation 1. Protect Water Quality of a. Restrict installation of Septic Pamlico and Tar Rivers and Tanks in areas of Forested potabel water supplies at the Wetlands, and/or flood prone areas surface water plant on w/Dorovan Johnston Assoc. and/or Plymouth St. and the ground Bibb Assoc. Soils. water plant at Slatestone Hills. -30- Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation b. Insure integrity of filtering capability of Forested Wetland systems via: (1) Establish Conservation buffer zones in areas of Dorovan- Johnston Assoc. and Johnston- Bibb Assoc. soils, within flood-prone areas and forested wetlands. C. Develop and Implement an area program for urban run-off and drainage. Plan for phased improvement of municipal storm drainage system. Use zoning policies to improve urban run-off and drainage, e.g. restrict uses and density. d. Protect Tranters Creek, Kennedy's Creek, Runyons Creek and other freshwater creeks as present and future sources of fresh water. (1) Establish conservation buffer zones around creeks as per criteria above. (2) Assure maximum compliance with DEM standards for industry adjacent to or included in conservation zones. (3) City should sponsor education and training workshops for industry in coordination w/NRCD/DEM and other industry education agencies and groups. e. Revise subdivision regulations and adopt and enforce sedimentation and erosion control ordinance to reduce surface run-off and erosion related water quality problems. Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation f. Study the annexation of areas adjacent to the Pamlico River that lack sewerage systems to reduce infiltration from septic tanks. g. Moniter all existing industry for negative impact on AECS. 2. Protect Areas of a. Continue enforcement of permit Environmental Concern authority by the CAMA permit officer. b. List specific appropriate and inappropriate uses for each AEC in the City Zoning Ordinace. c. Conduct field studies to re-affirm AEC's within the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction in accordance with section 15 NCAC 7H of the CAMA Regulations. d. Sudy potential uses of Castle Island which conform to CAMA guidelines and guard these islands against all non-conforming uses. 3. Protect Cultural and a. Continue the implementation of Historic Resources downtown improvement plans. b. Support current efforts of the "Downtown Committee" and "Committee of 100" to stimulate private investment in downtown. B. Resource Production and Management The purpose of this section is to discuss areas in the Washington Planning Area that offer production potential and which must be effectively managed to realize their fullest potential. Washington's most important area of resource production potential is land used primarily for agriculture. Beaufort County is annually among the leaders in North Carolina in corn, grain, and soybean production. Though this plan is for a growing city, much of the Washington Planning Area is -32- used for agricultural purposes, Fortunately, the City of Washington has zoned those areas in the Washington Planning Area which are prime for agricultural production. The challenge the City must meet now is to allow for "orderly growth," maintaining those areas most productive as agricultural, and rezoning those areas most appropriate for other uses. There currently is no commercial forestry in the Washington Planning Area. The Land Use Map (Exhibit B, page 60) indicates wide tracts of land which are heavily wooded. Commercial forestry, however, has not been raised as an issue. Another area of resource production potential is the southwest shore of the Tar River. Some restricted and appropriately guided sand mining may warrant consideration from the City. The final source of resource production potential are the Pamlico and Tar Rivers. The maintenance of water quality is essential in order for the rivers to continue supporting the commercial and recreational fishing industries and other water based recreational uses. The importance of Washington's waterfront is also discussed in Section IV*C - Economic and Community Development* The following Policy guidelines are recommended for continued production and management of Washington's Resources: Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation 1. Reduce the municipal tax a. Identify agricultural lands most burden on agricultural lands suited for urban development and within the planning juris- annexation within the planning diction. district and re-zone appropriately. -33- Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation b. Identify most productive agricultural lands not required for future city growth and restrict non-agricultural uses on these lands. 2. Commercial Forest Lands (N.A.) 3. Moniter restricted mining of a. The City will consider pro- mineral resources on the south- viding technical assistance west shore of the Tar River. for projects that are com- patible with the City's goal of maintaining water quality. 4. Promote water quality a. Support Water Quality programs in the Pamlico and Tar Rivers listed under "Resource to insure continued support of Protection." commercial and recreational fishing industries. C. Economic and Community Development The City of Washington has a tremendous opportunity before it--the waterfront. Waterfront development has long been a goal of the City. Washington initiated the development of its waterfront in the 1960's and is now facing the challenge to continue development that will promote tourism and recreation. Washington has the opportunity to develop its tourism industry greatly, drawing persons primarily from Greenville, one of the fastest growing areas in the State. The waterfront is not Washington's only economic development opportunity. The proximity to Greenville and the four-laning of U.S. 264 offer the City improved accessibility, Construction on U.S. 264 to Greenville is expected to be completed within two years. Once construction is complete, Washington is only a 20-minute ride from Greenville--a close enough proximity that many people may wish to live in Washington and work in Greenville. The low tax base in Washington and Beaufort County make it advantageous -34- f or industries to locate in or near Washington. The Greater Washington Chamber of Commerce currently plans to create an industrial park east and/or west of the City (making accessibility to Greenville easy). Its plans should be supported. Washington has been very successful in its community development efforts to address problems of concentrated blight and substandard housing. It is hoped that these successes can continue. The need for continued development of both community and tourist recreational and park resources to is recognized in this plan, as are other types of community facilities such as a farmers market, increased water access points, and waterfront parks. All of Washington's opportunities will require careful management to assure "orderly growth." The Economic and Community Development policy objectives and implementation strategies listed below should serve the City as a guideline for "orderly growth." The need for improvements to basic city services such as water, sewer, and streets is of paramount importance to the city, based on ranking of priorities from citizen input at the March 11 public hearing. The issues of downtown revitalization and historic preservation, summarized in Resource Protection, are also essential to the continued economic development of Washington. Consistency between Economic and Community Development policies and Resource Protection policies is ensured through careful consideration of every policy category issue as it was addressed. -35- Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation 1. Provide for Water and Sewage a. Extend sewerage and waterlines system expansion to accommodate in accordance with 201 Facilities future growth. Plan Capital Improvement Plan, and Land Classification map. 2. Provide adequate streets and a. Update Thoroughfare Plan, roads to accommodate future coordinating planning with up- growth. dated Land Classification Map (1985). 3. Promote tourism and a. Establish a special waterfront recreational industry development district. Solicit development. competitive development proposals for restricted lease of public waterfront. b. Establish additional points of public access to the water. Solicit funding and technical assistance from Division of Coastal Management and other sources. c. Continue to support programs and plans of the Historic District Commission. d. Establish Scenic Corridor Districts for public and private improvements to major city access routes (e.g. tree planting). e. Continue enforcement of and improvements to a Signage Ordinance. f. Investigate potential uses of Castle Island. 4. Provide recreation a. Work toward adoption of a facilities and Programs Master Plan for Municipal Parks for all present and and Recreation programs. future residents of the Washington Planning Area. 5. Support expansion of a. Work with industrial recruitment existing industry and staff of the N. C. Department of recruitment of new industry. Commerce and the Greater Washington Chamber of Commerce to: -36- Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation (1) Identify types of new industry desired. (2) Identify specific sites for future industry requiring support from City Services. (3) Support expansion of existing industry. 6. Support continued growth a. Create an Airport Restricted in utilization of the District at end of runways to Municipal airport for insure future installation of economic development. Instrument Landing Equipment. b. Continue generating area and regional support in opposition to airport use restrictions being proposed by U. S. Department of Defense. c. Oppose all plans by the FAA/Department of Defense to expand military flight training areas. d. Update 1982 Airport Master Plan in accordance with 1985 Land Use Plan Update. e. Amend zoning ordinance so that growth around the airport is restricted. 7. Continue Washington's a. Provide planning assistance to role as a commercial, the Greater Washington Chamber of retail center for farmers. Commerce and/or the Downtown Washington Association for location and development of a Farmer's Market. 8. Accommodate the City's a. Pursue bond referendum. projected growth and current need for an additional b. Identify type of school needed school. based on population, by age group, projections. c. Solicit proposls upon receiving bond referendum. -37- Policy Objective Strategies for Impl6mentation 9. Provide a location for potential a. Examine potential energy energy facility sitings as facility siting proposals opportunities present themselves. thoroughly before authorizing construction. b. Oppose all proposals for potential location of a nuclear energy facility. c. Permit energy facility sitings only in locations zoned I-1, permitted Special Use. 10. Accommodate potential development a. All marina development must of marinas as opportunities present strictly adhere to CAFLA themselves. standards set forth in 15 NCAC 7B and outlined on pages 54 and 55 of A Handbook for Development in North Carolina's Coastal Area, published by the Division of Coastal Management of the NRCD. b. Proposed locations of marina development must conform to zoning, ordinances in effect at the time of the application. D. Storm Hazard Mitigation The importance of a sound storm mitigation or hurricane planning cannot be over-emphasized. There are three major reasons f or such planning: 1) To save lives. 2) To save capital investments. 3) To save irreplaceable natural resources. Long-time residents of Washington can well remember past hurricanes and their results. 1972: Hurricane Ginger brought Washington's waters to a 6.2 feet level. 1960: Hurricane Donna brought Washington's waters to a 6.5 feet level. 1955: Hurricanes Connie, Diane, and Ione brought Washington's waters up to a 6.4 feet, 7.7 feet, and 7.8 feet level, respectively. 1954: Hurricane Hazel brought Washington's waters to a level of 7 feet. Washington will always face a strong threat from hurricanes, northeasters, and other major storms. As the town has grown, and continues to grow, the severity of loss has become greater. Due to this ever- increasing severity of loss it is important to plan now to be prepared for tomorrow. The purpose of this section is to offer guidelines towards planning for a major storm. These broad guidelines are elaborated upon in accordance with CAMA guidelines, in Section V of this plan--Storm Hazard Mitigation. Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation 1. Identify areas most likely a. Compile a hazards map that out- to be damaged and the extent lines all areas subject to flood to which they will be and/or wind damage. damaged. b. Compile an inventory of existing land use and structures in the Washington Planning Area. c. Estimate monetary value of structures subject to loss due to storm damage. -38- Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation 2. Create an evacuation plan to a. Evacuation must be consistent be followed by all residents of with Beaufort County Plan. the Washington Planning Area in the event of a storm. b. Coordinate all plans with the Division of Emergency Management, the Federal Emergency Agency, and the N. C. Department of Transportation. 3. Prepare a post-recovery plan a. Prioritize all clean-up efforts. that best meets the needs of the community and makes most b. Create a "Recovery Task Force." efficient use of time. c. Allocate responsibilities among Recovery Task Force Members. d. Establish guidelines for repair and reconstruction. e. Coordinate all efforts with necessary county, state, and federal agencies. E. Public Participation A variety of techniques were used in an effort to gain as much public input as possible into this plan. The following narrative describes those techniques and offers objectives and implementation strategies for continuing the public participation plan. Planning for the public input began in December after the City's consultants, Planning & Design Associates, P.A., had researched all past plans available from the City and had interviewed City administrative officials regarding the current land use issues. Preliminary findings were then presented to City Planning Commission at their March 4 meeting. Issues derived from previous plans are documented in Appendix F. Priority consideration was given to policies previously adopted through a public participation process and/or policy documents approved by elected officials (e.g. EPA 201 Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Airport Master -39- Plan, etc.). All of the issues were then compiled into one list, and a rating scale was established for use at a Public Hearing. (See Appendix F.) On March 11., 1985 a Public Hearing was conducted. Prior notice was advertised in the Washington Daily News (Appendix Q, and letters inviting civic and industry leaders were mailed. (See Appendices D and E.) News coverage of the hearing was provided in the Washington Daily News (Appendix Each person in attendance, including the City Council were asked to rate the issues on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being most important, and to list any issues, not previously listed, in the provided space. (Appendix F.) The results of that Public Hearing are found in Appendix G. A scoring system was devised to allow for analysis of the results. Each issue received a numeric score based on priority assigned by each respondent and a Total Net Score was calculated for each issue. Using the Net Score the issues were then prioritized into categories of importance. The priority categories and recommended implementation strategies are found in Exhibit I (page 71). Draft sections of the plan - a working draft of "Policy Objectives and Implementation Strategies" and the Land Classification Map were made available for the Planning Board's review and input in mid-June, to solicit input before the July 1 Planning Board meeting, at which the City's consultants, Planning & Design Associates, P.A., were present. The City of Washington must now continue soliciting public participation. The following objectives and implementation strategies should be followed. -40- Policy Objectives Strategies for Implementation 1) Encourage active participation a) Develop a roster of civic in land use discussion by all organizations and key sectors of the population. individuals to be notified of public meetings regarding land use issues. b) Publicize notices of meetings in local newspaper preceded by feature articles on specific issues to be discussed during upcoming meeting. 2) Educate the citizens of a) Distribute brochures currently Washington about issues available in annual tax bills facing the area regarding or in utility bills. matters of resource protection, resource production, and b) Prepare public information community and economic programs for presentation to development. civic groups, churches, and F. Intergovernmental Coordination school classes. The preceding discussion of policies are to serve as the basic tools for coordinating numerous policies, standards, regulations, and other governmental activities at the local, state, and federal level. The City of Washington and Beaufort County have long made cooperation a standard practice. The cooperation discussed in the 1976 Washington Land Use Plan still exists today. The cooperative efforts made in the interim have included the planning of rescue squad service, transportation planning, storm mitigation, and collection of taxes. Washington has also maintained a long-standing cooperative relationship with Washington Park. The two municipalities share many common services, recognizing the need to work together. Washington also administers Washington Park's zoning on a fee basis. The need for coordination between the City and County the most crucial -41- new element of this plan - Storm Mitigation, is particularly evident. The storm mitigation plan is perhaps the most crucial new element of this plan because the hurricane season begins with city review of this plan in August 1985. -42- V* Storm Hazard Mitigation A. Overview The importance of a sound storm mitigation plan cannot be over- emphasized. There are three major reasons for such planning: 1) To save lives. 2) To save capital investments. 3) To save irreplaceable natural resources. Washington will always face a strong threat from hurricanes, northeasters, and other major storms. As the City has grown, and continues to grow, its potential loss increases. Due to this ever-increasing severity of loss it is important to plan now to be prepared for tomorrow. The purpose of this section is to offer guidelines towards planning for a major storm. Following this overview are five sub-sections which contain the guidelines the City intends to follow in preparation for a major storm and the reconstruction to occur afterwards. B. Storm Hazards The first step in this storm mitigation plan is to identify and map all areas of the community which are most vulnerable to hurricane damages and to identify the damaging forces each area is subject to. The areas most vulnerable to hurricane or other major storms are all AECs, found within the Washington Planning Area. These areas are coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shoreline, and public trust waters. AECs are defined and identified in Section IV.A of this plan. These areas have been classified as conservation. Other areas vulnerable to hurricane or other major storms are those areas with an elevation below the 100 year flood plain. The 100 year flood plain elevation for the City of Washington is 10 feet. A map of areas with -43- an elevation below 10 feet is contained in Exhibit C (page 61). These areas have a 1% chance of flood inundation in any given year. The entire Washington Planning Area is also vulnerable to hurricane damages. The areas listed above are subject to damaging forces that include high winds, flooding, erosion, and wave action/batt e ring. The chart below ranks the severity of risk in each hazard area according to the damaging forces which are likely to occur there. Severity of Risk in Hazard Areas - - ----------- 11 Exposure to Damaging Forces Hazard Arga !Severity High !Flooding Erosion Wave 11 Rank Winds Action !Coastal Wetlands H H H H !Estuarine waters H H H H !Estuarine Shoreline: H H H H !Public Trust Watersl 2 H H M M !Flood Prone Areas 3 H H M L 'Rest of Community 4 H M L L Exposure Levels: High, Moderate, Low Disk: Allan File: Risk The Washington Planning Area is subject to high wind damage. A map outlining flood-prone areas is contained in Exhibit C (page 61). A map locating areas subject to erosion and wave action - the AECs, is located in Exhibit A (page 59). -44- C. Description of Types and Severity of Risk in Hazard Areas A key component of this storm mitigation plan is the following description of what is at risk in the Washington Planning Area. This description risk includes, in accordance with CAMA guidelines, an inventory of land uses and an inventory of structures within the planning area. Also provided, as per CAMA guidelines, is an indication of the monetary value of the losses that the planning area might sustain in the event of a major storm. A narrative description of the inventory of land uses in the Washingtofi Planning Area is contained in Section III-C and an existing land use map is contained in Exhibit B (page 60) of this plan. The land use map enables the City to measure the severity of what the city has at risk in terms of commercial, industrial, and institutional structures. The potential capital loss in these areas is self-evident. The figure would be hundreds of millions of dollars, an amount so staggering that it could not be replaced. Data and maps provided by the N.C. Office of State Budget and Management and the N.C. State Archives enabled this plan to divide the City of Washington into nine "Planning Sub-Districts." The division of the City into planning sub-districts was derived from Enumeration District boundaries. Exhibit K (page 76) outlines the boundaries of each planning sub-district and lists the groupings of Enumeration Districts where necessary. Exhibit L (page 77) lists what Washington has at risk in each of the planning sub-districts. Data contained in this exhibit includes two planning areas encompassing Long Acre Township and Chocowinity Township. These Townships are not included in the Washington Planning Area. The use -45- of Enumeration District Data therefore includes a small population at risk outside the existing planning jurisdiction. What Washington has at risk is considerable - both in terms of population and in housing structures. There is a total population of approximately 15,086 in the planning area with an estimated housing structure value of $162,739,200. The counts of population and number of housing units within each planning sub-district enable the City to measure the severity of risk for each individual planning sub-district, both in terms of human lives and in terms of monetary value. The evacuability of the Washington Planning Area is discussed in Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way, the County's storm mitigation plan. Eight evacuation zones have been established in the County. Parts of the Washington Planning Area lie within three of these zones - Zones IV, V, and VIII. Surge Inundation Points have also been identified in Before the Storm in Beaufort County Inundation Points in the Washington Planning Area include: a portion of SR 1300 that feeds U.S. 264, and all State roads that feed SR 1300, from Broad Creek to Washington across Runyon's Creek Bridge; and on U.S. 264 from Oak Drive and Hillcrest Drive due west, intersecting U.S. 17, south to and including the Pamlico River Bridge. The analysis provided in.Before the Storm in Beaufort County provides evidence that the entire City of Washington is well within the standard warning time of 12 hours provided by the National Weather Service. The principle roads in Washington, U.S. 17, U.S. 264, and N.C. 32, are all capable of transporting 455 vehicles per hour at 35 miles per hour. During a 12 hours period the three roads together could transport 16,380 vehicles, -46- allowing the City ample room for growth and still maintaining good evacuability. The City of Washington has three evacuation shelters available to residents of its planning area. They are: John C. Tayloe Elementary School, eastern Elementary School, and the National Guard Armory. (See Exhibit K, page 76) D. Recommended Policies Regarding Storm Mitigation Policy statements*and implementation strategies offered in this section of the Land Use Plan will decrease the City's risk of hurricane damage: Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation 1. Protect Areas of Enviromental a. Continue enforcement of permit Concern authority by CAMA permit officer. b. List specific appropriate and inappropriate uses for each AEC in the City Zoning Ordinance. 2. Maintain or strengthen a. Enforce the State Building Code existing policies known to taking maximum advantage of its decrease the risk of hurricane construction standards which deal damage. with the effects of high wind. b. Support the local CAMA Permit Officer in monitering the construction of hotels., restaurants, and similar large commercial structures in erosion- prone areas. C. Assist the County in preparing an Erosion and Sedimintation Control Plan to be filed with the Enviromental Management Commission. 3. Increase public awareness of a. Conduct a risk-avoidance hurricane preparation. education program through the Office of Emergency Management to advise current and prospective developers of existing storm -47- risks in Washington. Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation b. Conduct hurricane education program through the Office of Emergency Management in all public schools to instruct youngsters what to do in the event of a storm. E. Reconstruction According to Before the Storm: Managing Development to Reduce Hurricane Damages by William D. McElyea, David J. Brower, and David R. Godschalk,, a reconstruction plan has four purposes. It should: 1. Expedite community recovery by outlining procedures and requirements before damages occur. 2. Establish a procedural framework for putting storm mitigation measures into effect after disaster strikes the community and buildings and utilities are being repaired and rebuilt. 3. Gather and analyze information concerning the location and nature of hurricane damages in the community. 4. Assess the community's vulnerability to hurricane damages and guide reconstruction to minimize this vulnerability. Beaufort County has a post disaster reconstruction plan, the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan, which was adopted in September 1982. That plan addresses post disaster reconstruction, fulfilling all four purposes cited in.Before the Storm: Managing Development to Reduce Hurricane Damages The Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan outlines all of the steps the County will take to serve all of its communities during the recovery phase of a major hurricane. That plan is available in the regional office of the M*C* Division of Emergency Management in Washington. The City of Washington should follow the guidlines set forth in that plan, paying particuliar attention to Annex F (Beaufort County Damage -48- Assessment Plan), Annex G (Disaster Assistance Program Summary), and Annex I (Beaufort County Plan for Temporary Housing). In addition to following the guidelines of the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan, there are several courses of action the City should take that will complement the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan. These courses of action will also expedite the successful delivery of the Beaufort County Plan. The following policy objectives and implementation strategies further define the policy statments offered in Section IV of this plan. Policy_Objective Strategies for Implementation 1. Prioritize all clean-up a. Service facilities (electricity, efforts. water, sewer, etc.) should be repaired first. b. Public facilities which could be used for additional shelter should be repaired next. c. A "worst damage" approach should follow afterwards. d. The City should be prepared to adopt a temporary moratorium on all new development until reconstruction is complete. e. Redevelopment will occur at a controlled pace. Structures not conforming to zoning ordinances in place at the time which have experienced 50% or greater destruction (to be evaluated by Planning Board) will not be reconstructed. -49- Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation 2. Create a "Recovery Task a. The task force should include the Force" and allocate respon- following members or representatives: sibilities among members. 1. City Manager 2. Building Inspector 3. City Council 4. Planning Board 5. Public Works Superintendant 6. Police/Fire Departments 3. Coordinate all efforts with a. Upon establishment of the necessary County, State, and "Recovery Task Force" and Federal agencies. allocation of responsibilities, notify agencies listed under Intergovernmental Coordination. F. Intergovernmental Coordination The City of Washington is responsibile for reporting all of its activities concerning storm hazard mitigation and hurricane preparedness with the following agencies: N.C. Division of Coastal Management State Office: Office of Coastal Management Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 733-2293 Field Office: Office of Coastal Management Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 1502 North Market Street P.O. Box 1507 Washington, NC 27889 (919) 946-6481 -50- N*C* Division of Emergency Management State Office: Division of Emergency Management Department of Crime Control and Public Safety 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 733-3867 Regional Office: Area Emergency Management Coordinator N.C. Division of Emergency Management 607 Bank Street Washington, NC 27889 (919) 946-2773 N.C. Division of Community Assistance (National Flood Insurance Program Information) Flood Insurance Coordinator Division of Community Assistance Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 733-2850 Federal Emergency Management Agnecy National Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 Public Information - (202) 287-0300 Publications - (202) 287-0689 Regional Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV 1375 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Public Information - (404) 881-2000 Disaster Assistance Program - (404) 881-3641 Flood Insurance Program - (404) 881-2391 -51- VI, Land Classification Map A. Land Classification and Policy Relationship The Land Classification Map is included in this Plan (Exhibit A. page 59) as a framework for local government to utilize when identifying future land use. The map accompanying the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan was based on documentation from previous plans, studies, and existing published data, worksessions with the City Staff, and public participation, including interviews with local land surveyors, and meetings between the Planning Board and it's consultants. The purpose of the land classification map is to illustrate City policy statements provided in this land use plan. The areas shown on the land map serve as a guideline for Washington's official Growth Policy, and, as such, serves as a visual reference for use in policy implementation. It is not a strict regulatory mechanism. The CAMA land classification system contains five broad classes: developed, transition, community, rural, and conservation. In the City of Washington's Planning Area, the community classification is not applicable. The following narrative describes the classification of the 1985 Washington Land Use Map. B. Developed and Developed Sub-Districts The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued intense development and re-development of existing incorporated areas. The land designated as developed indicates an area that is provided water and sewer services as well as the other usual municipal services such as police and fire protection. Areas included as developed on the 1985 Washington classification map -52- are lour sub-categorles identified for special consideration, These subcategories are explicitly referred to in Section IV of this plan - Policy Objectives and Implementation Strategies. The special designation of these areas indicates that these are the areas the City may consider special protection for in the future. The "Developed" sub-categories are Historic District, Waterfront Development District, Scenic Corridor, and Airport Restricted. The Historic District comprises the area on the waterfront from Hackney Street on the west side of the City to Simmons Street on the east side of the City. The southern border is the south bank of the Pamlico-Tar Rivers. The northern border is primarily Third Street. At Market, Bonner, and Harvey Streets the northern border extends up to Fifth Street. Policy objectives pertaining to the Historic District are contained in Sections IV.A-Resource Protection, and IV.C- Economic and Community Development. The Waterfront Development District comprises the area on the waterfront from Bridge Street to Harvey Street. The northern most border is one block off the waterfront and the southern border is extended to encompass the Pamlico Islands. The purpose of the Waterfront Development District is summarized in Section IV.C and is a response to the City's desire to complete work initiated in the 1960's. The establishment of this special district and the pursuit of competitive development proposals for restricted lease of the public waterfront is based on the City's desire to serve both residents and visitors. The Scenic Corridor Districts are the major entry and exit ways to the City. Scenic corridor districts include U.S. 17, U.S. 264, and River Road. The purpose of these districts is to sustain efforts to enhance the urban -53- quality and aesthetic appeal of entering and leaving the City of Washington, as well as improve and/or maintain Washington's special aesthetic qualities. The designation of this district, with corresponding improvements, such as the development of tree planting programs, and the enforcement of an improved signage ordinance, will contribute to the City's future tourist industry. The Airport Restricted Districts are located at the end of Warren Field runways. Restricting development in these districts will enable future runway expansion and/or installation of landing instruments. The purpose of the Airport Restricted district is to guide growth away from these areas. This district also serves to restrict development in areas affected by noise from the airport. The designation of these districts is an important step for the City. It is the City's intent to enforce these designations through the use of zoning. The City intends to consider, for example, tougher signage ordinances, stricter subdivision regulations, etc. C. Transition I and II The purpose of the Transition class is to provide for future intensive urban development. The development of these areas is projected to occur within the next ten years, and is judged most suitable (physically as well as financially) for expansion/provision of community services. The Transition category identifies land for additonal growth, when land classified as developed is not available or suitable. The 1980 Washington Land Use Plan began the policy of dividing Transition areas into several subcategories, providing for prioritized growth. The 1985 Washington Land Use plan continues this policy, dividing -54- the Transition class Into Transition I and Transition II* Transition I areas are those areas that the City of Washington will strive to provide city services to within the ensueing five years. The Transition I class comprises of four areas: 1) The area just northeast of Washington Park immediately adjacent to Runyon's Creek. 2) The area just south of the airport at Smallwood subdivision. 3) The area north of existing city limits adjacent to U.S. 17 and U.S. 264. 4) The area east of Tranter's Creek, along U.S. 264. Transition II areas are those areas that the City of Washington will strive to provide city services to within the ensueing ten years. The Transition II comprises three areas: 1) Areas north-northwest of city limits between U.S. 264 and the airport. 2) Areas east of the airport due north of Smallwood subdivision. 3) Areas east of the city on both sides of U.S. 264. Transportation, water, and wastewater improvements already in progress (see Section MC - Existing Land Use Analysis) were the primary basis for the designation of the Transition I and II areas. D. Rural The purpose of the Rural class is to provide for agriculture, forest management, mineral extraction, and other low-intensity uses. Lands in this category greatest potential for agricultural use and includes land that may have one or more limitations that would make development undesirable. The Rural class includes all land on the northern, eastern, and western borders of the Washington Planning Area. The land adjacent to Wichard's -55- Beach Road has also been designated as rural, since it is out of the floor prone area and contains soil types suitable for agriculture. E* Conservation The purpose of the Conservation class is to provide for effective long- range management of significantly limited or irreplaceable areas. This management is necessary in the Washington Planning Area because of the high nutrient pollutants that runoff and erosion often contribute to pollution of the Pamlico-Tar River public trust waters* The establishment of the conservation class creates a "buffer zone," discouraging intensive development of these areas. This classification does not limit all development. Development in these areas may occur as long as that development does not impair the biological, social, economic, and aesthetic value of these areas, An exception to this definition is the dowtown section of Washington, which must be protected for historical purposes yet is not classified "conservation." Conservation areas on the Land Classification map include all areas bordering public trust waters and all areas identified as an AEC (See Section IV*A-Resource Protection). Conservation areas also include all surface waters. The boundaries for these areas were established by topographic boundary of flood prone areas and locations of forested wetlands in areas of Dorovan- Johnston Association Soils. F. Intergovernmental Coordination The preceding discussion and map of the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan Classification System serves as the visual reference for coordinating the policies contained in this plan at the local, state, and federal levels of -56- government* Exhibit J (page 75) provides a map indicating the members of the Region Q Council of Governments, all of whom also adopt city and county land use plans. The 1985 Washington Land Classification System is consistent with the 1981 Beaufort County Land Use Plan and the 1984 Beaufort County Storm Mitigation Plan: Before the Storm in Beaufort,County: Avoiding Harm's Way. -57- EXHIBITS A. Land Classification Map: Growth Policy Guidelines B. Existing Land Use Map C. Flood Plain Map D. Components of Population Change E. Components of Employment Change F. Major Employers G. Components of School Enrollment Change H. Transportation Improvements (5 pages) I. Prioritized Issues: Results of Public Response (4 pages) J. Region Q - North Carolina K. Evacuation Shelters and Planning Sub-Districts L. Population and Housing Units, by Planning Sub-Districts -58- EXTgATERRITORIAL JUFISDICTI()@4 60L)ND@'%y 0 0, X 1, x 6 I V I rl 00 WASHINGTON C@r 0 u 0 ae 4 TAR RIVER o0 PARK @1.01 NIM PAMLICO RIVER 0 < kv. FMA ig M.-NM, CITY LIMITS Pr ............ nl, MCI, 11 @tjll% . ............ . . . g I Xt L) gw, -sw- x"R, .. .. .... N` ............ ...... -, m. @,6,,,, tnw.1U -@y m W.- pr"ration of this repon Was financed in part through a grant provitled by the North Carolina Coastal Managerrvent F@ogrzrn, through funds'provided by the Coastal Zone 47 Manaseff*n% Act of 1VZ as amended, which is administeted by the Office ol Ocean arw Coamaf Resource Managernent, National Oceanic and Atmospherk Adrninistratiort. The City of Waslunston a&o wittributed cash and in4ind services. EXTR ER 1000' zt: ZZZ 0; t4' IN .... ....... L-j . . . . . . . . . . . .... 4, .......... ....... ... ** .. ..... ... . . .......... .. ................. . .. .......... ... .. . ..... ... ... . .. .... .. .. .. .. . .... ... .. ... ... ... ... ........ . . . . . . . . . . x. . ......... . .. ... .. ... ... ..... ....... ... .. ....... ... ... ........ TAR RIVER PAMLICO RIVER 0 CO Pre C i U --A - -- - ---------------- . ....... ... .. . . ...... TC The preparation of this eport was financed in part through a grant provided by the North JP@Tcarolina Coastal Management Program. through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 197Z as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The City of Washington also contributed cash and in-kind services. IIAL ,JRSDICTI0N BoUNDARY ExfRATERR11OR N ... ......... ............ ....... ....... X: ............. . .............. .......... TAR RIVER . . . . . ......... . . ............. ............... ...... ...................... PAMLICO RIVER .... ............ ... ......... ...... 0 ................ . ....... . ...... ..... ............... ................................ ............... ............ ........... ................ U ............. ... ..... ............. X ..................... .......... ............ ....... zi .......... ..................... . . ................. . .. ....... .......... ... .............. . ...... ..... .. ...... X.: .............. ... ..... ............... . ............ ........... ............. ....... . ........ .... . .......... ............ ...................................... ............ F, .......... .......... . ......... ............ .................... a ...... .. . . ...... ...... .......... 0 t .... ..... .. . .... ........ The preparation of this report was financed in pan through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management iqogram, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 197Z as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The City of Washington also contributed cash and in-kind services. AIM MM M MM M M MMM M MM M M w Components of Population Change in Washington and Beaufort County, 1970 - 1980 City of Washington Beaufort County 1970 Pop. 1980 Pop. 1970 Pop. 1980 Pop. Age Group and Percent and Percent Absolute Percent and Percent and Percent Absolute Percent of Total () of Total Change Change of Total () of Total Change Change Under 5 736 ( 8.2) 599 ( 7.0) - 137 - 18.6 2905 ( 8.1) 3148 ( 7-8) + 243 + 8.4 5 - 14 1694 (18.9) 1235 (14.7) - 459 - 27.1 7387 (20-5) 6538 (16-2) - 849 - 11.5 1402 (16.7) - 139 - 9.0 6033 (16.8) 6727 (16.7) + 694 al 15 - 24 1541 (17.2) + 11.5 25 - 34 837 ( 9-3) 1074 (12-8) + 237 + 28.3 3932 (10.9) 6025 (14.9) +2093 + 53.2 35-- 44 964 (10.8) 792 ( 9.4) - 172 - 17.8 3898 (10.8) 4403 (10.9) + 505 .+ 13.0 45 - 54 1069 (11.7) 850 (10-1) - 219 - 20.5 4123 (11.5) 4047 (10.0) - 76 - 1.8 55 - 64 1061 (11-9) 821 ( 9-8) - 240 - 22.6 3951 (11.0) 4291 (10.6) + 340 + 8.6 65 - over 1059 (11-1) 1645 (19.5) + 586 + 55.3 3751 (10.4) 5176 (12.9) +1425 + 38.0 TOTAL 8961 (100) 8418 (100) - 543 - 6.1 35980 40355 +4375 + 12.2 rt mile, Components of Employcent Change In Washington and Beaufort County. 1970 - 1980 City of Washington Beaufort Co unty ...... . ....... M........M------ - ---- - ---------- - ---- - ---- -M------------------------------- 1970 Esp. 1980 Emp. 1970 Esp. 1980 Emp. Categories and Percent and Percent Absolute Percent and Percent and Percent Absolute Percent of Total 0 of Total 0 Change Change of Total () of Total () Change Change ---------- - - ---------- - ------ ------ - --------------- - - ----- M------- - --------------------------------- Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Hining 97 (2.7) 95 (2.8) - 2 2.1 2169 (16.5) 2123 (12.9) - 46 -21.2 Construction 207 ( 5.8) 163 4.9) - 44 -21.3 961 ( 7.3) 1043 ( 6.4) + 87 + 9.1 Manufacturing (Durable and non-Durable) 771 (21.8) 971 (28.9) +200 +25.9 3170 (24.0) 4699 (28-5) +1529 + 48.2 Transportation, Communication 83 ( 2.5) - 68 -45.0 C, other Public Utilities 151 ( 4-3) 600 ( 4.6) 675 ( 4.1) + 75 +12.5 1,4 Wholesale and Retail Trade 961 (27.1) 820 (24.5) -141 -14.7 2704 (20-5) 3459 (21-0) + 755 +27.9 Finance 125 ( 3.5) 106 ( 3-2) - 19 -15.2 330 ( 2.5) 497 ( 3.0) + 167 +33.8 Services 1219 (31-6) 914 (27.3) -205 -18.3 2894 (21.9) 3338 ([email protected]) + 444 +15.3 Public Adzdaistration 110 ( 3-2) 198 ( 5.9) + 88 +80.0 355 ( 2.7) 645 ( 3.9) + 290 +81.7 TOTAL 3541 (lOOZ) 3350 (1002) -191 - 5.4 13183 (1001) 16484 (100--) +3301 +25.0 x CT ---------- -- - ---- - ------- - ---- --- ------------- - - r@ Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Hanagement, rr Employed persons 16 and over by industry Exhibit F BEAUFORT COUNTY AND WASHINGTON, NC: MAJOR EMPLOYERS, (1/1/85) ---------------------------- i ------------ i-------------------- i--------- 1 Location 1 Type Industry 1 of Company 41 11 !Employees: ---------------------------- i ------------ :-------------------- --------- !Blue Channel Corp. :Belhaven !Seafood 250 :Coca-Cola Bottling Co. !Washington !Soft drink bottling 18 " :Dr. Pepper's Bottler's, Inc.:Washington !Soft drink bottling 1 80 I 1 11 11 :linger Co. lChocowinity !Furniture 475 1 !Hamilton Beach !Washington !Electric appliances 1 1000 1 !Outer Banks, Inc. lChocowinity !Tank & pipe linings 1 45 !Hackney & Sons, Inc. Nashington ITeuck bodies 229 I Is !Maola Ice Cream lWashington lIce cream 1 55 i "1 11 It a, 11 !Mason Lumber Co. Nashington !Lumber 55 !Mass Planning Kill !Washington !Lumber 119 National Spinning Co. lWashington !Garment mfg. 1000 :Samson's Mfg. Co. lWa5hington 16arment afg. 325 :Tidewater Equipment Co. lChocowinity ILagging equipment 30 1 11 61 11 11 !Texasgulf Chemicals Co. !Aurora !Phosphate mining 1220 !Washington Beverage Co. !Washington ISoft drink bottling 15 i I I lWashington Garment Co. !Washington 16arment mfg. i 120 1 :Washington Packing Co. !Washington !Meat processing 23 1 iYounce & Ralph Lumber Co. !Belhaven !Lumber 50 :Flanders Filtersq Inc. !Washington !Industrial filters 480 i !Atwood & Morrill Nashington :Valves 35 i It i !N.C. Phosphate Corp. !Aurora lPhosphate mining 60 !Stanadyne, Inc. !Washington !Industrial filters 345 1 :Privateer Mfg. Co. !Chocowinity !Garment mfg. 55 :Donelly Marketing !Washington Marketing 300 !Lowe's Inc. Nashington 'Hardware & lumber 35 !Gregory Poole !Washington Heavy equipment 40 1 -------------------- --------- ----- ----- Disk: Allan File: Washemp -64- Lxhiblt 6 Components of School Enrollment Change Washington, North Carolina 78-79 84-85 Total % of Grade Enrollment Enrollment School Enrollment Capacity Capacity K 276 286 1 324 309 2 330 284 Eastern Elem. 879 936 94% 3 340 268 4 310 275 Tayloe Elem. 543 559 97% 5 293 287 6 258 291 John Small Elem. 578 650 89% 7 271 332 8 277 356 9 337 322 Jones Junior High 1010 1050 96% 10 315 295 11 321 256 12 27 263 Except. 43 10 High School 824 1072 77% Disk: Bath 185 Recall Code: BIBLIO -65- R-216 0 JM 3.3 Z... WAV. I _&dt U& IM UU Ua 5.2 UU MTT COUNTY RIVW V1WW LW_ % A., 33 'A clr\ WAI Kv. .3 IM *Y- JMMM BEAUf ORT COUNTY jai IM 33 IML IMM b lZma JvnJW 99 IM Lin Jim .330 L % il -S ';;! .4 .1 - 1AM HE *0 1.0 R-216: US 264r SR 1537 TO WASHINGTONg PITT --BEAUFORT COUNTIES Widen existing two-lane roadway to four-lane divided facility. (D Projected Completion: FY 85 N.C. D.O.T. Transportation Improvement Projected Cost $14,810,000 Program, 1984-85 Length (Hiles) 10.4 JR." MR 10- .30 10- 5.1N :Mlift. Ini C, .26 WASHNGTON ......... . . . . . F;f* St. YAP is U4 &EAUFORT 4:04JNTY 7j) a U-224: WASHINGTON; 15TH ST. E-W BYPASSr BEAUFORT COUNTY Multi-lane roadway on new location. Projected Completion: FY 85 Source: N.C. D.O.T. Transportation Improvement Projected Cost : $1,316,000 Program, 1984-85 Length (Miles) : 0.7 all. R UAQ 1014 TAR ISIS to WASH tool-4.418 33 17 1.5 Cft*% 00." im % LM HINGTO PARK j- 13 B IV? jb C, 30 Oki Mfv POP 644 iin -V'e 1W UAL Lin 33 LM BEAUFORT COUNTY R-1014: NC 32, WASHINGTON PARK CITY LIMITS TO SR 1300, BEAUFORT COUNTY rt Widen existing roadway to a four-lane curb and gutter section. PROJECTED COMPLETION: FY 85 SOURCE: N.C. D.O.T. Transportation Improvements PROJECTED COST �21800,000 Program, 1984-85 LENGTH (MILES) is L W 2021 WA Us? IJ24 MW IS39 rAR '14@ tat un L;7-; N.. 1D3 'BEAUFORT COUNTy Lw WASHI T 32 MP. 116S iLu 17 D.,qk. C.. iw Ion LM an HINGTO* Liu R PARK . r LW JOUGM0 IC, 7.9 -W IN C90W Ja Lai 1A Ph". un IAL R-2021: US 2643 SR 1501 IN WASHINGTON TO-NC 32, BEAUFORT COUNTY Widen exist adway to mulF17--lane section. ing ro Projected Completion: FY 91 Source: N.C. D.O.T. Transportation Projected Cost : $S,100,000 Improvement Program, 1984-8S Length (Miles) : 5.3 Exhibit H page 5 ARPT. MMK- WARM&M 011LA RUNWAY CATEGORIES 9 ACREAgg- 47? SITE' No- 7/- 26 1 @1 i .31 AN V080 rag r. a AVA maw &MEAM" MH A: J1 24r.. A... SAW" rAllwAy -C0fteJftF&,.WM@rX NAMSAR ANSAS 480 J.; lww@ *Lave im .*-to 0-@ 0 1-0 AV AVV WARREN FIELD PROJECTS (State/Local) 1. Obstruction Removal, Approach Ends of Runways 5, 17, 23, and 35 2. Acquire and Install Localizer ior Runway 5 3. Grant Adjustment for State Project 83-08*(acquire and install REILS, VASI, MIRL) TOTAL FUNDS FEDERAL LOCAL STATE $ 220,713 -0- $ 110,357 $ 79,856 Source: N.C. D.O.T. Transportation Improvement Program, 1984-85 -70- Fxhibit i page I Problems and Issues Based on Written Responses March 11, 1985 Public Hearing P R 1 0 R I T Y A A I S S U E S: Expansion of Sewage System - Define areas for future expansion via Transition I & II areas. - Continue Engineering Design and Funding Applications for expansion. (Plans to State by July 1, 1985). Inadequate Storm Drainage Provide funding for an updated storm water drainage analysis. Pollution of Pamlico River - Restrict septic tanks in Flood Plain. - Restrict development in Forested Wetlands. - Assure maximum compliance of industry with NRCD-DEM Standards. - Sponsor education/training workshops for industry in cooperation with DEM and other interested groups. Upgrading/Expanding City Roads Update Thoroughfare Plan, coordinating it with the 1985 Land Use Plan. -71- Exhibit I page 2 Problems and Issues Based on Written Responses March 11, 1985 Public Hearing P R 1 0 R I T Y A I S S U E S: Waterfront Development - Establish special waterfront development district. Hurricane Preparedness - Prepare Hurricane Mitigation Plan. - Sponsor "Hurricane Awareness" education programs that provide public knowledge regarding evacuation routes and shelters. Create a "Recovery Task Force" that will expedite work necessary to gain funds for recovery in the event of a disaster. Continued Historic Preservation - Continue providing incentives for private investors to undertake development of opportunity projects. - Establish an annual program of events that will serve as a publicity tool for the Historic District. - Encourage residential use of Downtown 2nd and 3rd floors. Expansion of Tourist Industry - Establish waterfront development district. - Continue the development of the Historic District and Downtown. - Establish Scenic Corridor Districts along major access routes. Improvement of Townscape Elements - Continue implementing the Downtown Plan - Establish scenic Corridor Districts along major access routes. Recruitment of Small Specialty Shops - Establish waterfront development district. - Follow recruitment guidelines contained in Downtown Plan. -72- Exhibit I page 3 Problems and Issues Based on Written Responses March 11, 1985 Public Hearing P R 1 0 R I T Y B I S S U E S: Development of a Farmer's Market - Coordinate location and design with area farmers. - Provide funding for development. Expansion of Restricted Airspace by Military Lobby federal and state representatives regarding proposed expansion of restricted airspace. Airport Expansion - Create an Airport Restricted District that restricts development near runways. - Provide funding for the development of instrument landing. Update 1982 Airport Layout Plan Report coordinating it with the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan. Expansion of Billboard Ordinance - Create Scenic Corridors District. - Continue enforcing existing sign ordinances. - Begin developing stricter sign ordinances. -73- Lxnibit i page 4 Problems and Issues Based on Written Responses March 11, 1985 P R 1 0 R I T Y C I S S U E S: Expansion of Historic District Ordinance Expand local historic district to include areas further north on Market Street. Public Waterfront Access - Identify potential public water access locations. - Apply for Public Water Access Planning funds from Division of Coastal Management, Planning and Resource Evaluation Branch. 2nd and 3rd Floor Downtown Development - Provide incentives for current owners to develop these areas. - Encourage the development of these areas for residential use. Expansion of Cultural/Recreational Facilities Adopt existing recreational facilities plan. Designate in a capital improvements program items which would provide additional facilities to meet the needs ofthe 30-45 age group. Expand Local School Programs to Accommodate Industry Training Needs Sponsor a conference between industry leaders, Beaufort Community College administrators, and local school administrators addressing the issue. Conservation of Wetlands, AEC's - Enforce building code and septic tank regulations in Coastal Wetland Area. - Establish Conservation areas in 1985 Washington Land Use Plan to protect areas not yet developed. - Monitor all development in Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, and Public Trust Areas for compliance with DEM standards. Solid Waste Management - Encourage enforcement of laws and regulations regarding solid waste dump sites. - Investigate alternative uses of solid waste as in-fill development. -74- Exhibit j VIRGINIA offlo Region Q NorthiCawolina Winton HERTF R -3 OR !A COUNTY'.. Ah 61' 1 @-14& rellaviliev 130 ulandoi 'powailvville Ro I K:obel Ifor colerih 3. Wigton 0 04 AbAskeinvills A COUNTY Windso \Oak Cit "&Milton j.' All -J! meto" ARTIN Parmel 113 Vista Roberson ilia CO j meavillo fit.10- 0 30 13 33 Bear fast FAS nd "Oe TT to ountain 43. COUNT 32 Jv I, Psnt*go Farniville '10 N. BelhatIn AUFORT Washingto fl, @- N all p., WIriter Its Washing OU V Choc@Winitj Pori .'Both Ayden A "a 13 'ItIon f4l N1. r "J 0611J." cOu%TV 2 0 2 4 6 10 14 MILES -75- IN IN SU C ID D E G The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The City of I.shington also contributed cash and in-kind services. APPE14DIX A. City Council Members B. Planning Board Members C. Notice of 3/11/85 Public Hearing D. Letter of Invitation to 3/11/85 Public Hearing E. List of Persons Invited to 3/11/85 Public Hearing F. Problems and Issues Rating Survey G. Results of Problems and Issues Rating Survey H. News Clipping on Public Hearing, Washington.Daily News, 3/12/85 I. Bibliography J. CAMA Regulations APPENDIX A CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS J. Stancil Lilley, Mayor 946-8258 (h) 946-4594 (o) Floyd G. Brothers, Mayor Pro Tem 946-4028 (h) 946-7088 (o) J. R. Jones 946-5903 (h) 946-0128 (o) Richard F. Cherry,Jr. 946-3523 (h) 946-0874 (o) Ursula Loy 946-3423 (h) Alton L. Ingalls 975-2056 (o) Mail to all Council Members to be sent to: City of Washington P. 0. Box 1988 Washington, North Carolina 27889 APPENDIX B PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Doug Mercer, Chairman Jim Bilbright 105 Lawson Road 104 Carey Place Washington, NC 11881 Washington, NC 27889 946-7976 (h) 946-6067 (h) 322-4111 (o) 946-0116 (o) Manager of Environmental Control Manager Texas Gulf Social Security Administration Stewart Everett, Vice Chairman Robert Culler 701 E. Main Street 409 Lawson Road Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 946-9011 (h) 946-6641 (h) 946-6521 (o) 946-3131 (o) Data Processing Manager Vice President and General Sales Mgr. Hackney Industries, Inc. WIGN - TV7 Jane Alligood Chester Bright 220 Simmons Street 327 West 9th Street Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 946-8840 (h) 946-3254 (h) Clay Carter P. 0. Box 1444 Washington,NC 27889 946-4977 (h) 946-4233 (o) Insurance Agent Nationwide Insurance Company WashLUP Appendix C PAGE 12 - WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23,1985 LEGAL NOTICE PLANNING BOARD MARCH 4,1985 Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be hold by the Planning Board on March 4,1985 at 8:00 PM in the City Council Chambers in the Citys Municipal Building to discuss the following iterim (A) The Planning Board Will discuss a preliminary group Housing Development (Woodbridge, Phase 1) as sub- mitted by Mr. Stephen L Wil- son located on No. 264 East Uohn Small Avenue). (B) The Planning Board will discuss a group Housing De- velopment (Heritage Park# phase 1) as submitted by Mr. Whit Balckdone located on Hackney Avenue Extension ---------------I Nnrth of West 15th Street. (C) The Planning Board wiff* discuss with Planning and De- sign Associates, Washington's CAMA Land Use Plan Up- date. (D) Mr. Chris Furlough is re- questing the rezoning of 6J2 acres located on Highland Drive from A-20 to R-6. Mr. Chris Furlough is planning a group Housing Development on this property. Niifice is hereby given that as a result of the Public Hearing to be hold by the Planning Board on March 4,1985 at 8.00 PM in the City Council Chambers in ther City's Muni- cipal Building substantial changes may be made in the advertised proposal reflecting objections, debates, and dis- cussion at the Public HearingL item B-D will be discussed of a Public Hearing to be hold by the City Council on March 11, 1985 at 7:30 PM in the City Council Chambers in the City's Minicipal Building. All interested persons are in- vited to attend. As approved by the City Man- ager. 0. R. "Buddy" Cutler Director of Inspections and Zoning Washington, NC 2.23, 25 2tc PI-ANNING &DESIGN ASSOCIATES, PA. 3515 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 (919) 781-9004 Appendix D Terry W. Alford, MRR AIA Rex H. Todd. MRP, AICP February 28, 1985 Paul H. Brown, PE Nancy M. Lane, MA Mr. Frank Stancill Plant Manager Hackney Industries, Inc. 400 Hackney Avenue Washington, NC 21889 Dear Mr. Stancill: The City of Washington and Planning and Design Associates, P.A. (PDA) are now engaged in an update of the 1980 Washington Land Use Plan. This plan will be used by the City's Planning Board, the County CAMA Permit officers, developers, and state and federal agencies to make decisions about development and preservation activities in Washington, North Carolina. Thus far, our work has concentrated on establishing a data base, researching all past plans and policies, and analyzing constraints and issues regarding Washington's development. Now we want to here f rom you. You are listed as one of Washington's top 30 community/ indus trial leaders and your input to this plan is vital. During the March 11 City Council meeting, a certified public hearing, we will be presenting a brief slide show discussing Washington's development to date, and focusing on Land Use and Land Classification Maps incorporating your views. We also would like to discuss with you the most relevant issues facing Washington today, with the goal of incorporating you input into the City's Plan. The Public Hearing will be held on March 11 at 7:30 p.m. We encourage you to attend it and provide your guidance and direction. If you have any questions before then, please call me, or Dale Downes, at (919) 781-9004. We look forward to seeing you Monday night. Sincerely, Terry W. Alford President /ad Disk: Washington LUP Recall Code: Ltr Appenaix L LIST OF PERSONS RECEIVING LETTER INVITATION TO 3/11/8S PUBLIC HEARING Page 1 of 3 Mr. John Crew Mr. J.R. Jones NRCD City Municipal Building P. 0. Box 1507 P.O. Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Buddy Cutler Ms. Carol Cochran Municipal Building City Municipal Building 102 E. Hain St. P.O. Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Don Davenport Mr. Richard Cherry Beaufort County Court House City Municipal Building 2nd Street P.O. Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Ms. Judy Meyer Ms. Ursula Loy Beaufort County Arts Council City Municipal Building Gladden Street P.O. Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Louis Taylor Mr. Ralph Clark Community Development Coordinator City Manager P.O. Box 1988 City Municipal Building Washington, NC 27889 P.O. Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Carroll Whitehurst Rehabilitation Officer Mr. B.D. Dawson P.O. Box 1988 Manager Washington, NC 27889 Coca Cola Bottling Co. 905 W. 5th St. Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Dwight Jones Donnelly Marketing 224 Conrad Court Mr. Zoph Potts Washington, NC 27889 President N.C. Dr. Pepper Bottlers, Inc. P.O. Box 1608 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Frank Lewis Greater Washington Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 655 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Doug Currin Manager Maola Ice Cream Co. of N.C. 126 E. Water St. Mayor Stancil Lilley Washington, NC 27889 City Municipal Building P.O. Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Marvin Mason President Mason Lumber Co. Mr. Floyd Brother 1835 W. 5th St., Hwy. 264 West City Municipal Building Washington, NC 27889 P.O. Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Tom Litchfield Mr. Don Obernesser President Vice President of Operations Moss Planing Mill Co. Stanadyne, Inc. P.O. Box 1568 P.O. Box 1105 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Bob McClure Mr. Mac Pigott General Manager Manager National Spinning Company, Inc. Blue Channel Corp. W. 3rd St. Ext. 312 Front St. Washington, NC 27889 Belhaven, NC 27810 Mr. Marshall Tyndall Mr. Linley Gibbs Manager Plant Manager Samson's Manufacturing Corp. Hamilton Beach W. 5th St. P.O. Box 1158 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mrs. Lib Ross Mr. Clarence Edwards Manager Director of Manufacturing Washington Garment Company Singer Co. 900 E. 5th St. P.O. Box 1627 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Roy Garrish Mr. Don Delong Manager General Manager Washington Packing Company Texasgulf,Inc. P.O. Box 753 P.O. Box 48 Washington, NC 27889 Aurora, NC 27806 Mr. James Younce Mr. Frank Stancill Manager Plant Manager Younce & Ralph Lumber Co. Hackney Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 160 400 Hackney Ave. Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Tom Allan Mr. Warren Wilkerson President Manager Flanders Filters, Inc. Privateer Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 1708 P.O. Box 69 Washington, NC 27889 Chocowinity, NC 27817 Mr. Don Baird Mr. Percy Dickens Manager Vice President Atwood and Morrill Co., Inc. Tidewater Equipment Co. P.O. Box 490 P.O. Box 1028 Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Ray Garcia Mr. Bill Carr President Manager N.C. Phosphate Corporation outer Banks, Inc. P.O. Box 398 P.O. Box 326 Washington, NC 27889 Chocowinity, NC 27817 Page 3 of 3 Mr. J. T. Keech Chairman Warren Field Airport Commission:, Beaufort Co. Public Health Department P. 0. Box 1027 Washington, NC 27889 Mr,. Jonathan Philips Hs. Ruth Leggett, Coastal Land Use Planner J?amlico Tar River Association NC Department of Natural Resources River Bend Apartments and Development Washington, NC Planning a Resource Evaluation 27889 Ms. P. 0. Box 1507 Washington, NC 27889 Mr. Al Phelps Downtown Washington Association West Main Street Washington, NC 27889 Appendix F PLAN'NING & DESIGN"ASSOCIATES, 11A. Washington Land Use Plan Summary: Problems & Issues Public Hearing March 11, 1985 An important aspect of the land use planning process is to identify local issues and establish policies relating to those issues. Discussion with community leaders, and windshield surveys have allowed us to identify many of these issues. Now we need your input. Below are the major issues we have identified so far. We would like you to rate each issue on a scale of 1 - 5 as to how important you think that issue is. One (1) will indicate not important and five (5) will indicate very important. We have left space for you to add any issues you think should be identified which we haven't listed. Please rate those as well. Issue Rating 1. Waterfront area development and renovation. 2. Continued Historic Renovation. 3. Development of a "Farmer's Market." 4) Improvement of townscape elements. 5. Recruitment of small specialty, retail shops. 6. Airport expansion. 7. Expansion of restricted air space by the military. 8. Upgrading/expanding city roads. 9. Expansion of sewer system. 10. Expansion of tourist industry. 11. Expansion and recruitment of industry. 12. Expansion of a billboard ordinance. 13. Expansion of a historic district ordinance. 14. Pollution of Pamlico River by industry. 15. Pollution of Pamlico River due to inadequate storm drainage. 16. Hurricane preparedness and storm disaster planning. Issues" Appendix G Results of Washington Land Use Plan Public Hearing March 11, 1985 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- :Number of Persons lGrading Issue a: ---------------------------------------------------------- !Net !Priority Issue : 1 : 2 : 3 ' 4 : 5 :Score 'Rating ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Waterfront Development 1 0 5 6 3 55 A Continued Historic Renovation 1 2 8 2 2 47 A Development of Farmer's Market 4 4 0 3 4 44 B Improvement of Townscape Elements 0 3 6 4 1 45 A Recruitment of Small Specialty Shops 3 2 4 4 2 45 A Airport Expansion 3 4 3 1 3 39 B Expansibn of Restricted Airspace by the Military 4 0 2 2 5 43 B Upgrading/Expanding City Roads 1 0 4 5 6 63 AA Expansion of Sewage System 2 0 1 3 1112 11 77 AA Expansion of Tourist Industry 1 1 3 6 1 4 56 A Expansion & Recruitment of Industry 2 1 1 1 :10 61 AA Expansion of Billboard Ordinance 4 0 5 3 2 41 B Expansion of Hist. District Ordinance 6 2 4 @3 0 34 C Pollution of Pamlico R. by Industry 1 0 1 5 8 64 AA Pollution of Pamlico River Due to Inadequate Storm Drainage 2 0 3 3 9 68 AA Hurricane Preparedness 1 3 2 5 4 53 A Public Beach Access 1 2 0 2 2 23 C 2nd & 3rd Floor Downtown Development 0 0 1 0 3 18 1 C Expansion of Cult./Rec. Facilities 0 0 0 1 1 9 C Expand Local School Programs to Accomodate Industry Training Needs 0 1 0 0 0 13 1 is C Conservation of Wetlands, AEC's 0 0 0 0 1 5 C Improve Solid Waste Management 0 0 0 0 1 5 C -------------------------------------- ------ --------- Priority Rating Scale: Grading Scale: 60+ Net Score - AA 1 - Least Important 45-59 Net Score - A 5 - Most Important 30-44 Net Score - B less than 30 Net Score - C Disk: Allan File: LUPPH WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS Weather Tonight clearing. Low in the mid 40s. West winds 10 to 20 mph. ESTABLISHED 1909 NO.61 TWELVE PAGES WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, TUESDAY AFTERNOON MARCH 12, 1985 (USPS 687-300) PRICE 25c City's Future Growth Addressed At Hearing By TOM HALL Washington's growth is in the hands of its people, but only a handful had comments for a land use plan at a City Council meeting last night. An update of the plan, required every five years by the Coastal Area Management Act, is intended as a guide to ensure orderly growth, said Terry Alford, whose firm is preparing it. Through meetings with citizens and reviews of previous plans, Planning & Design Associates of Raleigh has determined problems and issues as the most necessary to address immediately, including: -Renovation of the waterfron area and historic buildings. -Development of a "Farmer's market." -Improvement of "townscape elements." -Recruitment of small specialty shops. -Expansion of Warren Airport and military air space. -Upgraded roads, such as $14 million under way state projects. -Improvement of the city sewer system. -Expansion of tourism and industry. -Establishment of a billboard ordinance. -Pollution of the Pamlico Rier by textile Indus- tries and inadequate storm water drainage. -And a hurrican mitigation plan. People attending last night's public hearing were given questionnaires and asked to rank the issues on a scale of importance and add other concerns. The firm says Washington's population decreased 1 percent from 1970 to 1980, but Beaufort County's grew 12.2 percent in the same period-figures the firm calls "particularly distressing." However, according to city officials the poplulation of Washing- ton has increased about 3 percent since 1980. Last night's public hearing was advertised, and approximately 30 community leaders were notified by mail, according to Louis taylor, city director of Community Development and planning. Twenty- two people wer in the audience. Among those speaking was Jonathan Phillips of the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation Inc., who said the primary concern of the group was water quality and the conservation of natural resources. Phillips presented a statement suggesting guide- lines for the plan, including maintenance and en- hancement of the river, opposition to development that would degrade water quality, and the en- couragement of development that preserves the wa- ter-related way of life in Washington. "...The immense pressures to overdevelop Pamlico shorelines are well know." the statement said. (See LAND USE, Page 9) Land Use From Page 1 adding that planning must be especially careful to protect public trust waters, wetlands and other areas of environmental concerns. Another cited concern was runoff from urban areas. Keith Hackney of Hackney Industries Inc. stres- sed the improtance of the airport to industrial de- development. Kari Bonne of the airport commission, noted a 50-acre industrial site in the paln. "It's good high land. It's out there and ready to be used," Bon- ner said. Ruth Leggett of the state Division of Coasta Man- agement told the council that other public agencies looked at land use plans when considering funding. Water quality was a primary concern, she said. Al phelps of the Downtown Washington Associa- tion said he would like emphasis added on the use of the second and third floors of downtown buildings as residences. A second public hearing is expecte in May or June to present a preliminary draft of the update plan. A final draft is anticipated in September. Appendix I BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, S. Storms People, and Property In Coastal North Carolina, (Raleigh, North Carolina: U.N.C. Sea Grant Publication (UNC-SG-78-15, 1978). Basgall, Monte, et al.9 "Hurricane." 'Raleigh NeEs and ObserverY (Raleigh, North Carolina: 8 July 1984, Section D). Bosserman, Jr., and Dolan, R. The Frequency and Magnitude of Extratropical Storms Along the Outer Banks of North Carolina., Technical Report 68-4, (Charlottesville, Virginia: Coastal Resources Association, 1968). Bureau of the Census. County Business Patterns 1982--North Carolina, U.S. Department of Commerce, Issued: October, 1984. Dehn, Jr., Ervin N. Airport Layout Plan Report For Warren Field, Washing- ton, North Carolina, (Wilmington, North Carolina: Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc., May, 1982). *Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Hazard Mitigation: Handbook of Common Procedures, (Washington, D.C.: FEMA Report Number 14, 1981). Foster, D. Disaster Planning: The Preservation of Life and Property, (New York: Springer-Verlag; 1980). Freeman, W.J. Greater Washington 201 Facilities Plan , (High Point, North Carolina: Freeman Associates, July 1977; Amende ovember 1978). Freeman, W.T. January 1985 Addendum to Greater Washington 201 Facilities Plan, (High Point, Nort Carolina: Freeman Associates, July 1977; Amend@Td_November 1978). Keller, J. Timothy. Downtown Plan, Washington, North Carolina, (Charlottesville, Virginia: Land and Community Associates, August 1979. Leary, Robert M. 1980 Washington Land Development Plan, (Raleigh, North Carolina: Robert M. Leary & Associates, May 1980). Leary, Robert M. A Manual For North Carolina Historic Properties Commis- sions, (Raleigh, North Carolina: Robert M. Leary & Associates, 1980). Loy, Ursula and Pauline Worthy. Washington and the Pamlico, (Washington, North Carolina: Washington-Beaufort County, Bicentennial Commission, 1976). McElyea, W.D. et al. Before the Storm: Managing Development to Reduce Hurricane Damages, (Raleigh, North Carolina: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Office of CoAstal Management, 1982). *-Nichols, George L. et al. 1976 Washington Land Development Plan, (Washington, North Carolina: Washington Planning Board, March 1976). *North Carolina State Data Center. Census of Population and Housing- Beaufort County, Township of Washington, City of Washington, OfficTe of State Budget and Management, 1980. *North Carolina Department of Transportation. Transportation- Improvement Program 1985-1994. Simpson, R.H. and Tiehl, H. 'The Hurricane and Its Impact, (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1981). Smith, H. McKeldon* National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Historic District of Washington North Carolina, (Raleigh, North Carolina: U.S. Department of the Interior, Division of Archives and History, 1978). Stone, J.R. Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating Evacuation Times for Non-Metropolitan Coastal Communities, (Raleigh, North Carolina: UNC Sea Grant College Program, 1982). *Waters, T.L. Transportation Plan For Washington and Washington Park, (Raleigh, North Carolina: Planning and Research Branch, Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation, January 1979). Wubreh, Mulatu. Economic Base Analysis of Small Communities: A Guide For- Practitioners ;n-d Public Officials., (Greenville, North Carolina: East Carolina University, 1984). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control-Wrights- ville Beach, North Carolina, (Wilmington, North Carolina: 1982). * Zoning Ordinance and Washington City Code, (Washington, North Carolina: 1980). List of Maps * Thoroughfare Plan, Planning and Research Branch, Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1979. Greater Washington 201 Facilities Plan, Wm- F. Freeman Associates, 1979. Noise Impact and Land Use Planning-Warren Field, Talbert, Cox, and 'Xssociates, Inc., January 1982. *,Approach and Obstruction Analysis--Warren Field, Talbert, Cox, and Associates, Inc., October 1982. *,Airport Layout and A cess Plan--Warren Field, Talbert, Cox and Associates, Inc., October 1982. *Approach and Vicinity Plan--Warren Field., Talbert, Cox, and Associates, October 1181* Land Classification Map and Existing Land Use Map, City of Washington, NC., February, 1975. *.Map of Flood--Prone Areas, Washington, NC, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971. Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, Washington, NC U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1977. (Panels OIF, 03F, 04F, of 6). *.Flood Hazard Boundary Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map, Washington, NC, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1977. (Panels 1,@-,4 of 6) Enumeration Districts Map - City of Washington and Washington Park, U.S. Bureau of Census, August 1980. Indicates plans, documents, ordinances, and maps currently being used and followed by the City of Washington. Population and Housing Units, by Planning Sub-Districts ----------- ----------- - - ---------- - - --- - ---------- Total Number Resident of Attached Total Number Planning Enumeration 'Population: and Detached of Sub-District District(s) (1980) Housing Units Mobile Homes -- - --------- --- - ---- - --------------- -- - - --------- A :598A,590 1993 11 505 43 B I'585T 11 1745 11 598 11 18 1' C 1'591 310 129 '1 0 11 D :589 548 176 11 0 I E 11592,593,597 3599 1328 '1 .0 I I F 1594,595,596 3804 1695 11 0 G 11583 11 514 11 220 1' 0 11 I I H 11600 11 1952 1' 537 1' 202 I I I 11602T 11 619 '1 25 11 409 I I I I I I ITOTAL NUMBER 15086 5216 1' 672 '1 ,Median Value $31,200 $15,000 I I I ITOTAL VALUE $162,739,200 $10,0809000 I I I - - - - ---- - - Disk: Allan File: Washinv I' Data By Enumeration District provided by N.C. Office of State Budget and Management for 1980. Planning Sub-Districts B, H, and I include parts of Long Acre Township and Chocowinity Township. 2Equals median value of housing units in Beaufort County, 1980. Source: Profile of North Carolina Counties, N.C. office of State Budget Management, 1984. 3Equals estimated value of mobile homes in Beaufort County, 1983. Source: Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way, @_Ianning and Design Associates, P.A., 1983. -77- DATE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTED IN U S A 3 6668 14108 7132