Washington County, North Carolina, land use plan Coastal Area Management Act of 1974

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

COASTAL ZONE
ilwFunIVIA11UN CENTER

HINGTON COUNTY
LAND USE PLAN

CAMA
HD 1976
211
M33
W3
19
WAS

D
1
N@4 W33
@37
1976

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

WASHINGTON COUNTY

NORTH CAROLINA

LAND USE PlAN

COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT

ACT OF 1974

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413
1976

Property of csc 1ibrary

1976

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR
THE RESIDENTS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Ed Womble, Chairman

C. M. Stokes' Mamie Davenport
Douglas Davenport Robert Swain

PLANNING BOARD

Glen Davenport, Chairman

Bobby Alexander Harlin Patrick
Cristine Askew Carlton Phelps
John Griffin Bessie Spivey
Lillie James C,M. Stokes
Edna Norman Jack Willoughby

W. B. Hartman, Jr., County Manager

PROJECT STAFF

John McGarrity, Connmity Planner
Debra Ingalls, Secretary
Mary Noe, Secretary
Danny Smith, Draftsman
Mike Yount,- Draftsman

Washington County Board of Commissioners

WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 207 PLYMOUTH, NORTH CAROLINA 27962

May 20, 1976

TO: Coastal Resources Commission

SUBJECT: CAMA Plan Submission

In compliance with the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974, we are forwarding

for your review officially certified copies of our Land Use Plan.

Under provisions set forth in Part One the State Guidelines, we wish that

you would approve additional historic sites in our County Plan as proposed

Areas of Environmental Concern. A list and brief description of these places

my be found under cover in our Plan's Synopsis. These sites do not meet the

criteria now in use for designating historic places. However, we feel these

sites have local significance which merits their inclusion in our Plan.

T. R. Spruill, Chairman
Washington County Board of Commissioners

PostScript: For your' information, we plan to distribute our synopsis by mail
to each household in the county,

T.R. SPRUILL, CHAIRMAN ED WOMBLE PAUL FRYMIER DOUGLAS DAVENPORT HOWARD DAVENPORT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
W.B. HARTMAN. JR., COUNTY MANAGER / A WENDEL HUTCHINS, COUNTY ATTORNEY / RALPH R. HUNTER FINANCE DIRECTOR BERTIE LILLEY,CLERK

Washington County Board of Commissioners

WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 207 1 PLYMOUTH. NORTH CAROLINA 27962

May 20, 1976

Coastal Resources Conission
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611

Sirs:

The County of Washington hereby transmits one certified copy of the

Washington County land Development Plan to the Coastal Resources

Commission.

The plan was formally reviewed at a public hearing held at the Washington

County Courthouse on May 7. 1976. The plan was adopted by the Board of

County Commissioners at their regular meting held on May 17, 1976.

T. R. Spruill, Chairman
Washington County Board of Comissioners

Bertie Lilley
Clerk,

T.R. SPRUIEL. CHAIRMAN ED WOMBLE PAUL FRYMIER DOUGLAS DAVENPORT HOWARD DAVENPORT MEMBERS OF THE BOA RD
W.B. HARTMAN. JR., COUNTY MANAGER/ R. WENDEL HUTCHINS. COUNTY ATTORNEY / RALPH R. HUNTER FINANCE DIRECTOR / BERTIE LILLEY, CLERK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SYNOPSIS ............................................................ 1-15

(I) INTRODUCTidN. . ............................................... 16

Organization .................................... o .............. 16

Managen-ent Tools Created ..................................... 17

(II) DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS ............................ 19
0 General Requirenmts ....................................... 19
Present Population and Economy: In Washington County ........ 20

Seasonal Population
Economic Findings
Ernployment Findings

Existing Land Use in Washington County 38

Existing Land Use Description
Significant Land Use Compatibility Problem
Problems from Unplanned Developrrent
Major Growth Areas

Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations ................ 48

(III) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES ......................... o .... 53

General Requirexrentb ...... o .......................... @..o .... 53

Identification and Analysis of Major Land Use Issues ......... 53

Inpact of Population and Econonlic Trends
Adequate Housing and Other Services
Conservation of Productive Natural Resources
Irportant Natural Environments
Protecting Cultural and Historic Resources

Alternatives Considered in the Developn-ent of Objectives,
Policies, and Standards ...... - ................... o ........ 61

Land Use Goals and Objectives .................. o............ 63

Public Participation Sumury: Washington County ............ 66

(IV) CONSTRAINTS ................................................ 73

General Requiren-ents .................................. o .... 73

Land Potential ............................................. 76

Physical Limitations
Fragile Areas
-Areas with Resource Potential

Capacity of Commnity Facilities*.. .......................... 95

Existing Water and Sewer Service Areas
Design Capacity and Utilization of Existing.._
Conmunity Facilities

(V) ESTIMATED DEMAND ............................................. 101

General Requirements .............................. 101

Future Population and EconoTry .............................. 101

Long Term Estimates and Future Desires
land and Water Carrying Capacity
Seasonal Population hTpacts

Future Land Needs .......................................... 109

Conymmity Facilities Demand .............................. 113

1985 Projected Utilization
Cost of New Facilities

(VI) PLAN DESCRIPTION... ........................ .......... 125

Description of Land Classification System ...... o ........... 125

Population Allocations to Transition, ComTercial, and
Residential Land Classifications ........... o ............. 129

Discussion of Allocated Population Densities ............... 129

(VII) PROPOSED INTERIM AREAS OF ENVIRDNMENTAL CONCERN .......... o. 136

Proposed AECs in Washington County ........ o ................ 139

Estuarine Waters
Historic Places
Corrplex Natural Areas
Public Trust Areas
Existing National or State Parks
Coastal Wetlands
Excessive Erosion Areas

(VIII) BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 151

(IX) PLYM0UTH-WASHIGT0N COUNTY PLAN RELATIONSHIP ............... 154

(X) APPENDIX ................................................... 155

Table of Figures

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1. Sunrary of Population Trends 21

2. Comparison of Population Trends 22

3.a. Age-Race Distribution in Washington County 23

3.b. Age-Race Characteristics of Plyrriouth 23

4. Estimated Seasonal Population 26

5. Projected Seasonal Population 26

6. Cropland Utilization 28

7. Major Area Employers 29

8. Business Patterns 30

9. Retail Sails Per 1000 Population 32

10. Occupational Breakdown of Employed Persons in Plymouth and
Washington County, 1960-1970 34

11. Work Trips Outside County of Residence: Washington COUntY
and Other Areas 35

12. Rates of Unemployment for Washington County and Other Areas 35
A 13. Median Family Incore:...Plymouth and Surrounding Towns 37

14. Median. Family Income: Washington County (not including
Plymouth) and Other Areas 37

15. Percentage utilizations of Farm Land in Washington County 39

16. Watershed Map 44

17. Map of Flood Prone Areas 77

18. Map of Flood.Prone Areas (Roper) 78

19. Map of Flood Prone Areas (Creswell) 79

20. 'General Soil Map 81

21.a. Stream Classification 83

21.b. Class Designations for Water Quality Standards 85

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

22. Private Gamelands 96

23. Volunteer Fire-Departments and Service Areas 98

24. School Facility Data for Washington County, 100

25. Future Population Estimates 102

Townships 103

27., 50-Year Population Estimates 105

28. Future Land Demand 110

29. Proposed Water System 114

30.- Design Waste Loads and Flows 119

31. Plymouth Zoning Maps 121

32. Average Daily Traffic Comts 123

33. Land Den-and Estimates 130

YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT:
Land-Use Planning.Under the Coastal.,Area Management Act

Why We Need a Plan

Hundreds of Washington County residents are relying on.the

growth of t heir c ommunity.to insure the prosperity of their

livelihood-s and the use and enjoyment of their homes and leisure.

Your county government has undertaken a long-rangeplanning

prograrn to try to make these interests a reality. Under, the

North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act, county residents in.

Washington County and l9other coastal counties have been asked

40 to,exp.ress,their views on how they want to see their -community--
grow in the future. Your suggestions are now part of a Plan of

which this Synopsis is a summary.

How the Plan Was Made

The Plan developed from a series of public meetings begun

early in 1975 by a Steering Committee. The County Commissioners

appointed seven citizens to.serve on this Committee: Billy.

Sexton, Ken Sallenger, Cleveland Paylor, Ted Martus, Merlin
Che"sson, Lewis Combs,:and Gerald Allen. Together they set out

to accomplish three things: first, to acquAint the public with

the provisions of the Act; second, to give people a chance to

sound off with their views on land use at the Committee's

meetings; and third, to assist the County Commissioners in the

preparation of the county's Land Use Plan. Getting local

residents to form-opinions on what they want or didn't want in
Washington County was a major task of the Committee.' After

months of meetings, newspaperarticles, radio spots, and a

written survey, the Committee developed a number of thoughtful

suggestions as community objectives for the Plan,.

Understanding the Planning Process

The methods used by the Steering Committee to arrive at their

recommendations-contained six essential elements.

(1) Important changes in the Town's economy that describe

impacts on existin@g_land use.

(2) Decisions on wh at we want for future economic gr owth.

3) Limitations on money, soils, and water resources.

(4) Alternative proposal's for dealing with land use issues.

(5) Ideas put into a Plan along with Objectives to carry

them out.

(6) Room in the Plan for adjustments to meet new conditions

as they arise.

Future Growth in Population

The first step in knoWing more about our town's potential

begins with learning where we are. In a planning process this

usually begins with a study of population trends and local

objectives concerning growth. Plymouth, like Washington County,

has had a restrained rate of growth by comparison with the state.

The cha@t and table below illustrate this point:

Estimated Population Growth

1970 1975 1980 1985 2000 2020

WazLh.' Co. 14,038 14,060 14,100 14,500 15:,500 16,800
Plymouth 4,774 4,900 5,120 5,250 5,510 5,960
Roper 750 790- 820 840 .880 950
Creswell 670 670 690 710 750 810

1970 1985 2000 2015 2025 Year

100%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Growth
rate

Although the county's estimated growth is lower than that of the

state, its growth rate is ahead of the average for rural areas

elsewhere in North Carolina, including the six.surrounding counties.

This trend is expected to increase in the future in anticipation

of new agri-industry coming to the area in connection with the

expansion of.corporate farming. The towns of Roper and Creswell

expect their popuIations to increase because of this economic,
growth, while population increases in@the Town of Plymouth will

prImArily come from annexAtions And A ny future expansion*of the

Weyerhaeuser mill in Martin County. Most county residents prefer

this "slow growth" since it preserves the area as they knowland

likeit. in choosing lismallness" as a growth objective, you have

indicated that-an enjoyable future can be had in Washington

County without trading the qualities of a rural county for the

ills of an urban area. Ironically, indus try is now more inclined

to relocate in less populated areas-, meaning that.strain can be

anticipated upon our existing government. However with proper

planning and,coordination, there is little-doubt that many who could

now stand improved standards of living will be able to benefit by

the limited.growth the majority desire8.

Our Existing Land.Use

Although basically rural today, Washington County before 1900

was lar
.gely dense woods and swamp. Logging operations and improved
transportation with railroads, bridges, and paved roads 'in the'

1920's and 1930's began to expand the development of farmland

throughout- the county. The mech4nizc@tion-of:farming@fiirther.

.accelerated the conversion of wasteland to agriculture. Today,

farming dominates the use of land in all parts of [email protected]

except for some commercial forests in the western, central and

northeastern sections. The swamps which covered much of the area

are now confined to the low areas along the'*-creeks and rivers

and in the northeastern corner of the county next to gull's Bay.

The urban land use taken up by the towns of Plymouth, Roper, and

Creswell.amounts to only one percent of the nearly 331,000 acres

of land in the county.

Land and Wat er Carrying Capacity for New. Development.

Of. prime.concern to future development in the county.is the

capacity of its s.oil and water 'resources to.sustain whatever

growthis called for. This means that housing, commercial, and

industrial sites-need to.be located where the depth to the water

table i.s sufficient for the safe operation of a septic tank; where

thesupply of groundwater is ample and of.adequate quality; and

where the soils pose only slight foundation or footing'problems,

have only slight or moderate susceptibility to erosion and are

well to moderately well-drained. Fewareas of Washington County
40 have all of these characteristics. Most areas,notably the
"blacklands" of the southern, central, and eastern sections, have

soils.which are too mucky and poorly drained to support the kind

ofurban development found closer to the towns. Although these

areas make development costly, they have excellent characteristics

for raising crops. Because of this suitability for agriculture

and unsuitability for building lots, the southern, central and

eastern portions of the county were designated as "rural" areas

in the preparation of the county's land classification map.

(Described in a follow ing section).

In Plymouth, the availability of,.public water and sewer will

allow development to occur within the capabilities of the ground-

water supplies and soil conditions located there. In Roper,

.sewer plans will extend the present capabilities of its water

system to handle its future growth.. In Creswell, the new water,

system will alleviate the limitations on shallow wells from,their

possible contamination by nearby.septic tanks. Since growth is

occurring.slowly here, this water system will adequately.serve

the needs of Creswell residents in the foreseeable future.

Elsewhere in the county, population growth is so slow that potential

impacts will be minimal. Some seasonal population growth along

Albemarle Sound and Lake Phelps should slightly offset this slow

growth, but the unfeasibility of extending water and sewer lines

to these areas and generally moderate.to,poorly drained soils will

pose natural constraints for development in these lo cations.

Specific help and advise for buying or building upon a site

for a home or business is available free-from your local planning

board, health department, and soil and water conservation

district. Consult them. If@you survey lots for'sale.1 find out'-

what the constraints are before you begin work. if you buy a lot

to build upon, find out if any physical limitations exist that will

prevent you from building.

Costs for New Services and Facilities

The growth of a community invariably increases the pressure

on local government to expand or. improve existing services or

facilities or provide new ones. Water and sewer systems_@and new

schools are the principal facilities..whose costs are-major

expenditures borne by-iocal residents. The difference between the

benefits and costs of these facilities needs to be dealt.with

consciou sly when the time comes to vote so'that as a taxpayer,
you feel that you get what you"deserve and can-afford.

Recent engineering feasibility studies for new.water, and sewer

lines discuss the need for.services in different areas of the county

as well as the sources of funds for these improvements.

Existing population*in the fringe areas of Plymouth, in

Macedonia, and in Creswell justify plans for water service to

these places by 1980. Proposed,.,designs beyond 1980 suggest water

extensions to N. C. 45 along Mackey's Road from Plymouth, extensions

from Roper to Albemarle Beach, Mackey's and Pleasant Grove,.and

a line built south from Creswell to Cherry. Proposed designs in

the distant future would extend service down Long Acre Road, to

Skinnersville and Pen Ridge and down Newland Road. This leaves

only the Wenona area and the Lake Phelps area without plans

at the present time for public water service.

In another study, sewer improvements were recommended for

the Town of Roper to alleviate a mAj_or nuisance from inoperative

septic tanks, similar improvements were recommended for the Town

of Plymouth to upgrade its existing treatment facilities to meet

state pollution requirements and new industrial and residential

needs in the town's,fringe areas. At this time no other sewer

service was proposed to other areas of the county. Funds for

construction of the proposed water and sewer improvements could

be derived from general obligation bonds, from the sale of

revenue bonds, state and federal grants, or tap-on fees paid by

new customers.

Construction costs paid through general obligation bonds

are repaid by all county taxpayers. Users of the service pay an

additional cost for operating the plant and paying its interest.

Their payments for these expenses could be derived from monthly

or sewer bills and tap-on fees.

School facilities can be paid for through a similar system

of state and local bonds,and state and federal grants. Operating,

expenses and interest could be paid for through property

assessments and supplementary state and federal programs.

The justification for "mortgaging the future".to have these

facilities involves two considerations. i@ir'st most local residents

feel that they live in a good county. Helping improve cou nty

services keeps it that way. This is based on the certainty

which a number of county residents have that better schools,

tasteful water, or a fool-proof system for sewage disposal are

better than none of these things at all. Second, development is

certain to occur in this region in the future. To a certain extent,

it is dependent upon the availability of services and facilities

from local government. If some adjacent county is chosen for new

business or industry, then pro@erty owners here will not only

loose the tax relief they may have had but could also incur heavier

taxes from services new residents need who live here but work

elsewhere. Although new industry has not been quick to settle

here, a defeatest mentality in itself deters investment and
accelerates*outmigration of our young people. A change in

attitude is necessary to accept our "smal.1ness" as an asset worth
retaining. At the same time, we all have-a responsibility to

remind our elected officials that out county has a particular need

to plan and coordinate all its actions. These actions should

insure that as our county grows, one set of serious problems

will not be replaced by another,

Economic Trends

Large scale farming and forestry should continue to dominate

the county's economic growth. During the early history of the

county, Somerset Plantation's 100,000 acre farm could be considered

as the forerunner of today's First Colony Farms. After the Civil

War, the John L. Roper Lumber Company began acquiring property

that by 1910 exceeded 600,000 acres throughout allof Eastern

North Carolina. The Roper Lumber Company encouraged farmers to

settle in the area and grow crops on their cleared-tracts, thus

accelerating the development of the county's agriculture. Today

the Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific mills in Plymouth are the

familiar evidence, of this major trend's impact.
Future ma]or impact upon the local economy focuses on agricul-

ture. In the next ten years, forest in the Newland Road area

below Roper is expected to be cleared and brought into agricultural

production. This. is based upon the county's accelerated land

clearing activity by corporate.1'superfarms." With improved management

of production, a modern generation of agri-industry can become a

new and important part of Washington County's economy.

However, until new jobs accompany increased farm production,
0

population growth will be minimal as young and old alike.move

elsewhere. for work. Countering this out-migration is the in-migration

of families looking for second.homes along our shores. Although

,this in-migration is continuing,:it will be small compared to the

growth ofthe popialar resorts in Nags Headf Kill.Devil Hills,

Kitty Hawk.. and elsewhere.

Land Use Issues and Problems

These major trends create land use issues: (1) How does
Usuperfarming" affect.the water used for.drinking and recreation.

(2) Should taxpayers or shoreline property-owners pay the cos,ts'of

bulkheading beach property lost to soil erosion? (3) How far out

can utilities be extended to growing areas before they become

economicallyfeasible? Other problems include the need for more

business and industry in the area to diversify the ta7x base;

more and better housing; better police protection; dog control;

storm drainage; and the need.for more parks and recreation. In the

plan, stated goals and objectives deal with these issues.and

problems.

Land Use Goals and Objectives

An important part of any plan is setting goals and objectives.

Carefully prepared goals and objectives represent local residents'

@opinions and desires for their county's future growth@. They are

used in two ways. First they describe the changes and improve-

ments you told.us you wanted, touching such topics as economic.

growth of the. county, protection of@natural resources, and

improvement of local government. Secondly, they establish the

framework for future policies, programs and land use regulations

that help implement the plan. Through this process -land use

changes can be guided by your local government instead of occurring

in a haphazard manner.

The following list of community objectives describe short-run

priorities--things which could be accomolished in the next two years.

Goal: To Provide for the Economic.Needs of County Residents by
Attzacting New Business and,Tnaustry to Washington.-County

(1) Establish an Economic Development Commission to encourage
new industry in Washington County. Hire a full-time industrial
developer as a staff for the Economic Development Commission.

(2) Recommend to the State Department of Transportation that
U. S. Highway 64 be widened to four lanes across the county.

(3) Support the development of a community water system in
the county.

(4.) Propose a Wenona-to-Pea Ridge road,to the State Depart-
ment of Transportation.

(5) Work wit*hthe surrounding counties to petition the study
of an interstate coastal highway.

Goal: To Protect Natural@and Cultural Resources

(1) Improve storm drainage on all creeks in the county to
minimize local flooding.

(2) Development regulations to control the breech of water-
sheds and wind erosion county-wide.

(3) Require bulkheading of shore property subject to erosion
from Albemarle Sound.

(4) Complete and publici'ze a county-wide detailed soil
survey..

(5) Regulate the dumping of animal wastes into public waters.

(6) Petition the expansion of Pettigrew State Park at Lake
Phelps.

(7) Establish a system of neighborhood parks in the county.

(8) Develop zoning and subdivision controls within Roper,
Creswell, and the waterfront areas to provide for orderl@ldevelop-
ment in these places.

Goal: To Improve the Level of Service of Local Government

(1) Improve county police protection, especially against
breaking and entering..

(2) Develop a Zenith emergency phone number system to eliminate
long distance calls to Plymouth from Creswell.

(3) Establish a dog catcher and kennel for dog control in
the county.

(4) Recruit adults to expand supervised league sports in the
county.

(5) Expand efforts to.publicize the Health Department's
schedule of services to outlying areas.

(6). Adopt a Minimum Housing Code..

(7) Expand library services in the Creswell area.

Development Objedtivesfor Roper

(1) Improve storm drainage within the town-limits.

(2) Study zoning and subdivision controls within the town
and one-mile surrounding area.

(3) Support plans for a community sewer system,and improve-
ments to the existing water system.

(4) Support the demolition of unsafe buildings and the
expansion of new housing in town.

(5) Petition the county for,increased:-police pattol@,service
at night.

Development Objectives-for Creswell

(1) Development zoning and subdivision controls within the
town and surrounding one-mile area.

(2) Review and update plans for'.a community sewer system, in
the town.

(3) Construct additional housing,of all types in this area.

(4) Expand and publicize library an d health care service*s
in the Creswell area.

(5) Petition the county for increased police patrol service
at night.

Requirements' of the Coastal Area Management Act,(CAMA)

CARA has two major requirements. The first of,these is to

map-the county according to the North Carolina Land Classification

System. This classification serves as a guide for future growth,

and may be used with land use controls.such as zoningi subdivision

regulations, building codes, floodplain restructions, and dredge

and.fill permits.

This Land Classification System is based upon the county's

existing land use pattern, population and economic forecasts,

natural and scenic features identified., 6oil typos, and thelocal

government's ability to finance services to growing areas. The

System has five designations of land':. Developed,'Transition,

Community, Rural and Conservation. H6re's what each category

describes:

Developed Land Classification.. This refers to large towns

and cities having complete city services such as water, sewer,

police protection, and fire protection. In Washington County,

this.category describes the Town of Plymouth@,

Transition Land Classification. This refers to-fringe areas

around "Developed" areas which are likely to grow in population

to become "Developed" areas in the future. "Transition!' areas

require the most detailed planning because local government must

carefully weigh the cost of extending services against its

ability to pay. In Washington County, the only "'Transition" areas

identified near the Town of Plymouth and in parts of Roper.

Community Land Classification. This refers to-small,towns

and other areas where population growth is occurring, but not as

fast as in the "Developed" and "Transitionl.areas. Consequently,

the services.planned are on a smaller scale. For example, a

"Community" area's population may be large enough,to support a

public water system but not a public sewer.system.- @In Washington

County, "Community`areas describe Creswell-and parts of Roper,

The Macedonia area, the waterfront communities along all of

Albemarle Sound@and the lakeshore surrounding Lake Phelps.

Rural Land Classification. This refers to the prime areas

for row crops and commercial forests which need-to be reserved

for that activity. These areas have few services planned in order

to encourage the concentration of manufacturing and--other urban

land uses nearer the towns where tax-supported services can be

provided most,efficiently. Most of the land in Washington County

fits this description, except for the towns, the state park, the

wildlife refuge, and the small beach communities.

Table One. [email protected].'[email protected] Concern in Washington County

Name of AEC Brief Description Land Classification of AEC Appropriate Use

estuary @vaters Albemarle Sound, Bull's Bay conservation docks and bulkheads

historic places Somerset Place no change from existing land
St* David"s Chapel use that would destroy the
Rehoboth-Church historic integrity of the
conservation
cypr6sN,trees by..30 Foot site
Canal near Lake Phelps
Morattuck Church
Garrett's Island Home
Lee's b1ill in Roper-

complex natural areas Pungo National Wldlife'Refuge conservation no change from the e-xfsting
land use that would destroy
the natural features of the
si t e

public trust waters Albemarle Sound, Bull's Bay, docks and bulkheads
Lake Phelps, Pungo Lak6,:Wd.1*&h1s conservation
Creek, Conaby Creek, Mackey"s
Creek, Scuppernong River

state parks Pettigrew State Park conservation no change from the existing
land use that would destroy
the natural features of the
site

coastal wetlands Mouth of Deep Creek no change from the existing
cypress off Albemarle Beach conservation ---!:@nd use that would . destroy
the natural features of the
site

sound erodible areas all property fronting rural and community docks and bulkheads
Albemarle Sound

Specific.tools for carrying,out the land use recommendations

in the Plan are zoning., subdivision regulations, building and

housing codes, flood plain ordinances, sediment.control regulations,

and.dredge.and fill permits. Each devise performs a limited task

and only offers workable solutions to the county's growth problems

when-.used-together. State law requires that the exercise of these

powers be,:structured through a responsible body of government.

In the, case of Washington County, the County Commissioners, the

various town councils, and local Planning Boards have this

authority..

Very simply, local government has a responsibility to plan.

Elected officials bear a real responsibility to guide growth just

as,they have.a responsibility to plan and budget the county"s

resources for health services, drainage', and police and fire

.protection. All these are a part of Washington Countyls public

interest, and we expect our elected officials.to define th,@Lt

interest ahd.protect it. Growth is occurring, and as citizens,

we can let it continue on an unguided path or we can try to steer

it in a way that creates civic pride and requires less tax mo .ney

to service. The choice and responsibility for good growth

management is ours. It takes work--and revisions--but is almost

always a good investment in time and money. Attend and

participate in the meetings of your local planning board. We

hope.you will help when you can--please participate

I. INTRODUCTION.

from: "Coastal Area Management: A New Look On The
Horizon" N.C.S.U.-Agricultural Extension Office

The coastal area of North Carolina is one of the most
important regions in the United States for food production, future
expansion of commerce, industry and recreation. To enable orderly
growth,and protection of important natural resources of that area,
the 1974 General,,Asse.mbly passed the,Coastal Area Management Act.

The Coastal Area Management Act is a state law that asks

local government in 20 counties in Coastal North' Carolina to

prepare a blueprint for their future growth and development.
The county officials areasked to work closely with local"-cit .izens

in deciding what their goals are, in planning for their best use.

Organization

State level administration and coordination.will be handled

by the Department of Administration and Department of Natural and

Economic Resources., The Act creates two,citizen agencies:

Coastal Resources Commission-Thecommission is a 15-member

body appointed by the Governor. All members are residents of the

coast. Twelve were-chosen from among nominees made by bounties

and towns in the coastal area. Three are appointed at the

discretion of the Governor. The Commission is responsible for

establishing planning guidelines, approving land use plans and

issuing permits for construction when.required.

Coastal Resources Advis ory Council--The Council is a 47-member

body.made up of locally appointed representatives from each coastal

county, plus representatives from*six state government departments.

It includes a broad cross section of coastal interests. The Council

advises the Commission on those matters before the Commission,, and

assists local governments.

Management Tools.Created

There are three major land use management tools created by

the Bill., Land use plans, areas of environmental concern and a

permit system.

Land Use Plc-tns--Each county will prepare.,a land use plan.

The,plans will be based 'on the goals of the people in the county,

the resources available in the county, and the most reasonable

path for reaching toward those goals with the resources available.

'After the plans are adopted, use of the land must agree t@ith the

plans.

Areas of Environmental Concern--These areas and their

-boundaries will be designated by the Coastal Resources Commission

by October 1, 1976. We know from experience.to be cautious when

usi ng these areas. They include marshlands, beaches, sand dunes,

navigable waters, national and state parks and areas of,historical

importance. Designation of an area as one of 'environmental concern

does not prohibit use of that area. It is a warning sign to be

careful.

Permit System--Any development within an area of environmental

concern must have a permit. The'Act does not,require'a,!Peimit Ifor

development outside areas of environmental concern.. The Act

17;

requires the following projects in areas of environmental concern

to obtain a permit from the Coastal Resources Commission. Those

projects currently needing state permits: those of greater than

20 acres in size; those that involve drilling or excavating natural

resources on land or underwater; and those which involve construction

of one or more structures having an area in excess of 60,000 square

feet. Local governments will establish regulations for all the

othertypes of developments in areas of.environmental.conce'rn that,,

willneed permits from them.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS

General Requirements

Fla. A brief analysis of the local population and economy shall
be.made utilizing existing information. Particular attention
should be,given to the impact of seasonal populations and to
economic activities which utilize, are dependent upon, or which
may impair coastal land and water resources..

b. Existing Land Use
Existing land use shall be mapped and analyzed, with
particular attention given to:

1) Significant land use compatibility problems;

2) Major problems which have resulted from unplanned develop-
ment, and which have implications for future land use;

3) An identification of areas experiencing or likely to
experience major changes in predominant land uses;

4) Areas, of Environmental Concern.*

C. Current Plans, Policies and Regulations

This element shall contain:

1) A listing and "summary of existing plans and policies having
significant implications for land use, including at least
transportation plans, community facilities plan5,'utilit--ies
extension policies, open,space and recreation policies, and
prior land use.plans and policies;

2) A listing and brief description of the means for enforcement
of all existing local land use regulations. The following
regulations shall be disucssed, where applicable: zoning
ordinance (including amendments), subdivision regulations,
floodway ordinance, building codes, and environmental impact.
statement ordinances.,

3) A listing and summary of relevant State and Federal
regulations affecting coastal land and water resources (to
be provided by the Deaprtment of Natural and Economic
Resources) .

--from CAMA Guidelines pp.. 26-31.

@Not to be mapped on Existing Land Use Map.
0

Present Population and Economy

Population Findings. Total county population including the

Town of Plymouth has grown by small percentages of less than ten
percent a decade for the last 30 years, (See Figure 1). This growth

rate is ahead of that for rural areas in the United Stated and North

",-Carolina and the, ..surrounding five counties. (See Figure 2) Most of

the county's growth between 1960 and 1970 occu rred in the fringe

areas.around Plymouth, due to the proximity of the Weyerhaeuser

plant. (See Figure.1)

Age distribution in both the county and the Town of Plymouth

shows a.trend.towards a stable, young.@adult population in the age

group from 15 to 24 that significantly changes to a.pattern of out-

migrating families leaving the county and taking their young school-

.age children with them. This out-migration pattern reverses itself

after age 45,.indicatingla trend towards an older resident popula-

tion. All these.patterns@-are more pronounced within the Town of

Plymouth,and,among,blacks..(See Figure 3).

Since after World-War II andthe end of logging operations for

the J. L.-Roper Lumber.Company, the Town of Roper's-population has

been-stagnant. Today's population in,the town is@approximately what

it was in 1950, about 790. Like Plymouth, the town."s most suitable

population is the youngand middle.aged to elderly. Unlike Plymouth,

the young people,graduating-high school tend to leave and not return.

(See Figures 1 and 3)-.

From prior@to World War II until,1960, Creswell had a slowly

.declining population. After that time'to 19701 the town"s population

grew significantly from 402 to 670. The major increase seems to be

among new families of,.s.chool-aged children. However, like Roper,

Creswell suffers from a heavy migration of its young adults once

they graduate from high school. (See Figures and 3)

FIGURE 1

SUMMARY OF POPULATION TRENDS

% Change % Change % Change
1940 1950 from 140 1960 from '50 1970 from 160
Washington Co. 12,323 13,488 +10% 13,488 + 2% 14,038 + 4%

Lee Mill Twp. 3 229 3,435 + 69. 3,444 @0% 3,407 2 - 1%
Roper 716 793 +11% @771 3% 680 -12%

Plymouth Twp. 5,237 6,294 +20% 1 6,948 +10% 7,512 + 8%
Plymouth 2,461 4,486 +82% 4,666 + 4% 4,774 + 2%

Scuppernong Twp. 2,019 2,244 +11% 1,62.9 .. -27% 1,733 + 6%
Cherry 108 73 .-32% 61 -17% No record
Creswell 459 425 - 7% 467 +10% 670 +44%

Skinnersville Twp. 1,838 1,.207 -34% 1,467 +22% 1,386 - 5%

Notes: 1. 82% population increa se forPlymouth from 1940 to 1950 due
to annexation.

2. The 1970 populat ion of 680 for Roper has been contested
by the Town as an underestimate. The Town's own estimate
of 750 population, however, still indicates a slow
population decline.

SOURCE: U.S. Census

FIGURE 2

COMPARISON@':OF`POPULATION TRENDS

19ZO 'Pop.- 1970 Pop. %Change, 160-'70
Washington County '13,488, 14,038 + 4.1%

Martin County 27,139@ 24,730 - 8.9%

Beaufort County 36,014- 35,980 - 0.1%

Chowan County 11,729- 10,764 - 8.2%

Bertie County 24,_350- 20,528 -15.7%

Tyrrell County 4,520 3,806 -15.8%

Hyde County 5,765 5)1571 3.4%

North Carolina- 2,754,234 2,796,891 + 1.5%
(Rural Areas)

United,States 94,054,425 53,886,966 0.3%

SOURCE: U.S.-Census, 1960@-1970.

FIGURE 3

AGE-RACE DISTRIBUTION IN'WASHINGTON COUNTY
a. Age-Race Characteristics-of Unincorporated Washington County
-AGE GROUP BLACK POP. 1960 BLACK POP.' 19 7 0 % CHANGE. 'WHITE -POP'. 1960 WHITE POP. 1970 % CHANGE

Under 5 685 450 -34% 491 434 -12%
5 - 14 1244 1064 -14% 1066 1123 + 5%
15 - 24 661 801 +21% 610 892 +46%
25 - 44 872 737 -15% 1109 1297 +17%
45 - 64 486 573 +18% 989 1164 +18%
Over 65 202 233 +15% 407 496 +22%

b. Age-Race Characteristics of Plymouth
AGE GROUP BLACK POP. 1960 BLACK POP. 1970 % CHANGE WHITE POP. 1960 WHITE POP. 1970 % CHANGE

Under 5 325 255 -22% 277 228 -18%
5 - 14 515 523 + 2% @550 528 - 4%
15 - 24 275 367 +33% 342 393 +15%
25 - 44 417 327 -22% 763 750 - 2%
45 - 64 293 339 +16% 612 677 +11%
over 65 108 131 +40% -187 236 +26%

SOURCE: U.S. Census

FIGURE 3 (Conit)

c. :Age-Race.Characteristics of Roper (19'70 Only)

AGE GROUP BLACK WHITE GROUPS % OF TOTAL@'

Under 5 38 30 10%
5 - 14 85@ 97 26%
15 - 24 76 46 17%
25 - 44 59 44 15%
45 - 64 85 70 22%
Over 65 29 43 10%

Sub-Total 372 330

d. Age-Race,Characteristi cs of Cre'swe'l'l (1970 only)-

AGE GROUP BLACK WHITE GROUPS % OF TOTAL

Under 5 24 42 1 0%
5 - 14 75 .115 30%
'14 - 24 36 34 11%
25 - 44 40 97 21%
.45 - 64 43 66 17%
Over 65 26 44

Sub-Total '244 398

SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1970 (5th Count). Differences between
lst Count and 5th Count tallies due to sampling errors.

Seasonal Population

It has been stated already that the intent'@of the Coastal

Area Management Act is to plan,for the future needs of the residents

of Eastern North Carolina. One::@factor needing particular attention

is the impact of seasonal visitors which,heretofore have not been

considered in population studies. These occasional visitors are

expected to grow in numbers, and they will demand the same services
as the native resident Is, excepting schools. If properly( provided

for, these people can become an asset, rather than a drain, on

thecounty's development.

All the figures shown below in Figure 4 had to be estimated

because tourist statistics for Washington County were not readily

available. The method used to calculate the figures was to start

with the number of overnight accommodations presently Available

and multiply that total by a reasonable number of persons who

miglit.@be expected-to occupy these units at any given time--in this

case the "persons per household" for'Washington County from the

1970 Census... A premise,@was made that tourism in Washington County

is,based upon-the-county's proximity to the DareiCounty beaches.

'The summer recreation traffic along Highway-64 is the best

indicator-to support this. Thus projections of future tourism

.can:be made based upon Washington County"s share of the estimated

tourist growth in Dare County. These Dare County estimates of

vacationers have been prepared by a private consultant, Stephens,

Associates of Raleigh.

FIGU@E 4.

ESTIMATED SEASONAL POPULATION'

Motel/Hotel Units 60 280
Campsites 20 x 4.66 persons. 93
Vacation Cottages'(1970) 100 per household. 466
units 839 total
tourists at any
one time, 1970.

FIGURE 5

PROJECTED SEASONAL POPULATION

1. 1970 estimate of tourist population: 839
2. 1970 estimate of tourists, Dare Co.: 23,720
3. proportion of.1970 count, Washington
County to Dare County 1:28 or.4%
4. Tourist Forecast, Tourist Forecast,
Dare County Washington County (1:28)

1980 35,106 1242
1990 48,481 to 70,000 1,715 to 2,476
2000 68,067 to ? 2,408 to ?

SOURCE: Dare'County Data from Stephens Assoc., 1974
Washington County Data, DNER estimates, 1975

From the figures shown, any estimate of tourism-in Washington

County has only represented a small impact on the local economy.

A second indicator is travel spending. A 1973 survey by the

Department Of Natural and Economic Resources' Travel Development

Section indicated only a figure of $391,250 in expenditures or

2% of the gross retail sales recorded this year, $25,017.DOi

Beyond 1980 'the population projections vary widely. The higher

estimatres are possible if growth along the Outer Banks occurs

at the rate now experienced in areas.such as Myrtle Beach, Virginia

Beach or Ocean City.
26

Consequently, seasonal population due to tourism., estimated

at 1,398 in 1970 or ten percent of the resident po pulation, does

not have a significant impact on the county's economy at present.

However, future growth in second homes is expected along Albemarle

Sound. At this location, seasonal population growth is expected

to have more impact on land us-e.

Economic Findings

Agriculture represents the largest part of the county's

economy,.as well as its major land use,' showing steady increases

in production and market,sales. Corn, soybeans, hogs and.lumber

lead all other products.in dollar sales. This.trend is likely to

continue with the impact of corporate I'superfarms" reaching their

full producti on over the next decade. During the period 1960-1974,

harvest crops acreage rose 78% while forestlands declined by 20

percent. Soybean production has been the. major row crop, followed

by corn, peanuts, and tobacco, Wheat,and..other crops make up a

small remaining percentage. This .increased production, however,

has required less farm labor because of7.mechanitati6n@.., From',

1960 to 1970 the number of farmers dropped by 50 percent.

(See Figure: 6)

-27

FIGURE 6

CROPLAND UTILIZATION

PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE ACREAGE OF,
ACREAGE OF ACREAGE OF ACREAGE OF ACREAGE OF OTHER
YEAR CORN SOYBEANS WHEAT PEANUTS (TOBACCO)

1960 42 42 8 8

1961 34 47 9 10

1962 32 51 8 9

1963 27 56 8 9

1964 27 54 8 11

1965 29 56 3 7 5

1966 29 59 6 6

1967 31 57 6 6

1968 28 62 6 4

1969 30 59 6 5

1970 38 53 5 4

1971 43 45 5 7

1972 42 46 5 7

1973 42 49 4 5

1974 44 46 4 6

SOURCE: NCDA Land Utilization survey, Washington County

WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

:0. 0,0 Figure 7

MAJOR AREA EMPLOYERS

Name No. Employees

Weyerhaeuser Corp. 2747

2 True Temper Corp. 37

Eli Z' 3 Georgia-Pacific Corp. 108

J 4 Plymouth Garment Co. 144

5 Plymouth Pallet Co. 12

6 Plymouth Fertilizer 31

7 Willaims Lumber Co. 85

8 First Colony Farms 350

SOURCE: Community Audits, NER

May, 1976

. .........

FIGURE 8

BUSINESS PATTERNS

Number of Taxable
Employees Payroll Total
Mid-March Jan.-Mar. Reporting
Industry Pay-Period ($11000) Units

Washin gton County

Total 2,386 4,147 183

Agricultural Services, Forestry, .
Fisheries (D) (D) 1

Contract Construction 54 66 14

manufacturing, 1,463 3,049 22
Apparel,:& other textile prod. (D) (D) 1
.,Children's outerwear (D) (D) 1
Children's outerwear, NEC (D) (D) 1
Lumber & Wood,prod. 323 482 15
Logging camps & logging contr. 85 76 11
Sawmills & planing mills (D) (D) 2
Sawmills & planing mills,gen.(D) (D) 2

Paper & allied prod. 987 2,400 3
Paper mills, except bldg. paper(D.) (D) 2
Paperboard containers & boxes (D) (D) 1
Sanitary food containers (D) (D) 1

Transportation-and Other Public
Utilities 28 52 4

Wholesale Trade 146 242 13

Retail Trade 426 477 75
Food stores 92 100 16
Grocery stores (D) (D) 15
Auto dealers & serv. stations 90 124 13
Misc. retail stores 56 88 11

Finance, ins.., & real estate 60 98 il

Services 136 37
Personal services 37 23 12

Unclassified establishments (D) (D) 6

Source: 'USDC County Business Patterns, 1973

-4

Both the town and the county face population losses in the 18 to

25 year old age,group despite modest increases.in total population

during the period from 196 0 to 1.970. Consequently the best trained

and highest earning persons leave to go elsewhere, reducing the

labor pool and the opportunities for new industry.

Plymouth faces severe shortages of vacant, developable land

at a,time when its extraterritorial area.is the fastest growing

part of the whole county. This situation greatly increases the

need for annexations in the years ahead or else the townwz growth

potential will be limited.

3 1

Manufacturing production in apparel and wood products comprise

the second major component of the county's economy. Precise figures
on the value of manufa@turers are unavailable because disclosure

rules were,applied to withhold data on individual firms. (See

Figures 7 and 8)

Data on the value of products manufactured in Washington County

cannot be determined from the information available because of

figures withheld to avoid disclosure of individual firms. However,

1974 labor force estimates for the county indicate a total of 460

persons in manufacturing, principally in the Town of Plymouth.

This amounts to,16 percent of the locally-employed labor force.

A much larger segment of the manufacturing labor.force lives in the

Plymouth area, but works at the Weyerhaeuser papermill directly

across the county line in Martin County.

Retail trade in the county is primarily-concentrated in the

Town of Plymouth. Retail sales in the county suffer diie to the

county's small population and t he proximity of-Washington,

Williamston and Edenton. An estimate of gross.retail sales per

person indicates that Washington County's sales.per person is below

the aver age of the surrounding six counties. In addition,

significant losses in sales personnel occurred between 1960 and 1970

in Plymouth and the county, buta decline of 5.0 percent Of total

sales personnel employed.

,.Figure 9/RETAIL SALES PER1000 POPULATION (Estimate Only)

1973 Gross 1970
Retail Sales* :Population
Washington Co. $15,017,000 14,038 $1782. 08/person
Martin Co. 50,499,000- 24,730 2042.Wverson
Beaufort Co. 92,615,000 35,980 ..k-2574.06/person
Bertie Co. 29,620,000 20,528 1442.90/person
Chowan Co. 25,244,000 101764 2345.22/person
Hyde Co. 5,931 ' 000 5,571 1064 62/person
Tyrrell Co. 5,890,000 3,806 1547:55/person
*from Sales Management **From U. S. Census
3_2

Employment Findings

The largest number of employed persons in the town and the

county are blue collar workers employed as operators. The second

largest group are skilled blue collar craftsmen and foremen.

From 1960 to 1970 the number of persons with-ski.l,led white.collar

3obs has increased significantly (by 150 percent in the Town of

Plymouth and 230 percent in the county for professionals and

technicians).

FIGURE 10
OCCUPATIbNAL BREAKDOWN OF EMPLOYED PERSONS
IN PLYMOUTH AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1960-1970

PERCENT OF TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL PERCENT CHANGE
EMPLOYED, 1960 EMPLOYED, 1970 1960-1970
JOB TYPE PLYMOUTH/COUNTY- PLYMOUTH/COUNTY PLYMOUTH/COUNTY

Professionals 8% 3% 12% 7% +150%/ +230%
Farmers 1% 13% 1% 6% no change./ - 50%
Managers 8% 5% 10% 8% +125%/ +160%
Clerical 10% 4% 12% 8% +120%/ +200%
Sales 8% 6% 4% 3% - 50%/ - 50%
Craftsmen 16% 12% 13% 18% - 20%/ +150%
Operators 21% 20% 24% 25% +115%/ +125%
Housekeepers 7% 6% 4% 3% - 40%/ - 50%
Service Workers 7% 4% 9% 8% +130%/ +200%
Farm Labor 1% 11% 1% 47% no change 60%
Common Labor 8% 5% 7% 8% - 10%/ +160%

Total employed, Town of Plymouth, 1960: 1673; 1970: 1727.
Total employed, Washington Co. outside Plymouth, 1960: 2415; 1970: 4679.

SOURCE: U.S. Census, 1960 and 1970.

Note: 'Percentages shown have been rounded oft. To get a close
approximation of the actual count of persons in a particular
category, multiply the "total employed" figure by the
percentage for the given year.

FIGURE 11
WORK TRIPS OUTSIDE COUNTY OF RESIDENCE:
WASHINGTON COUNTY AND OTHER AREAS

Percent of County Labor Force
Working Outside County
1960 1970 %Increase Over 1960
Washington County .25% 44% +176%
Wake.County 5% 14% +280%
Mecklenburg County 4% 11% +275%
Pitt County 8% 21% +262%
Beaufort County 8% 18% +225%
Bertie County 9% 31% +444%
Chowan County .8% 23% +287%
Hyde County 6% 19% +416%
Martin County 7% 18% +257%
Tyrrell County 9% 25% +277%

SOURCES: 1960, 1970 Census

FIGURE 12

RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT FOR

WASHINGTON COUNTY AND OTHER AREAS

Average Rate for Average Rate for
9-Year Period Most Recent'Year
1965-1973 of Record, 1973
Washington County 6.2% 4.9%
Wake County 2.3% 1.6%
Mecklenburg County 2 1% 1.8%
Pitt County 5:9% 4.1%
Beaufort County 3.8% 3.2%
Bertie County 6.3% 4.6%
Chowan County 4.3% 3.2%
Hyde County 6.7% 7.1%
Martin County 5.4% 2.1%
Tyrrell County 7.8% 6.6%
North Carolina 3.7% 3.5%

SOURCE: N.C. Work Force Estimates, Employment Security
Commission of N.C.

linemployment in the-county is slightly higher than the

average,rate for the surrounding six counties,. both for the most

recent..year of record--4.9 percent in 1973--and,,for-the period of

nine years from 1965 to 1973, an average of 6_2 percent. County

unemployment has consistantly averaged--higher..than--the.'rate-for

the state at any time, but has been about average...for this region.

Family median income.in.the county rose 205 percent to $7,177

in 1970 or to a point two percent behind Plymouth's family median

income of $7,313. The county-wide average of median family income

is,ahead of that for the surrounding six counties,--but behind that

of,the state.

_3d

FIGURE 13

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME:

PLYMOUTH AND SURROUNDING TOWNS

1960 Median Income 1970 Median Income % Change
All Families All Families Over 1960

Plymouth.... $4665 $7313 +157%
Edenton 3918 7250 +185%
Washington 4410 6563 +149%
Williamston, 3448 6510 +189%

SOURCES: 1960, 1970-U.S. Census

Figure 14
MEDIAN''FAMI,LY',INCOME: WASHINGTON COUNTY
(NOT'INCLUDING PLYMOUTH) AND OTHER.AREAS

1960 Median Family 1970 Median Family % Change
Income Income Over 1960

Washington Co. $3495* $7177* +205%
Beaufort,Co. 240@9, 6435 +267%
Bertie Co. 2117 @4829 +228%
Chowan Co. 2714 6397 +236%
Hyde Co. 1979 4478 +226%
Martin Co.- 2366 5711 +241%
Tyrrell Co. 1927 4307 +224%

North Carolina 3956 7774 +197%

SOURCES: 1960, 1970 U.S. Census

Note:
*Median family Iincome for all of Washington County in 1970
was $7,182. This@includes the median family income for
Plymouth., Vithout Plymouth, the median family income for
the "farm" and "non-farm" familibs of Washington County
(i.e..,, those [email protected] Plymouth) was $7,177. The
1960 statistic of $3495 was arrived at by the same method.

Existing Land Use in Washington County

Existing Land Use Description

Washington County comprises 342 square miles, broken down into

the following proportions: 53 percent, agriculture; 40 percent,

forest; 6 percent, water; and 1 percent, urban.. Of the urban

land use, Plymouth is the principal town, connecting with two other

small;.communities, Roper and Creswell, along the county's major

access road, U. S. Highway 64, going east to west. Other urban

land uses, primarily single family homes and country stroes, are

scattered by the sides of roads and along the shore of Albemarle

Sound from Albemarle Beach to Leonard's Point where N. C. Highway

32:crosses the sound.

Agriculture. Agriculture, including commerc ial forests, is

far the dominant land use in Washington County. Pastures and field

crops can be found east of N. C. Highway 99 towards Lake Phelps,

owned in large part by First Colony.Farms. During the period.-

1960-1974, harvest crop acreage throughout the county.rose 78 percent

while forestland declined by 20 percent, This dramatic increase is

attributable to large scale, land-clearing technology made feasible

by thp The scale of First Colony's operations
@arge corporate farms.

has raised local hog production to all-time records while greatly

increasing grain storage capacity in the county with its bonded

commercial elevator near Lake Phelps. The significance of large

farm investments, suitable soils, and the higher unit, prices farm

pro.,ducts derive reinforce the continuation.of agriculture as the

future major land use in this area.

FIGURE 15

PERCENTAGE UTILIZATIONS OF FARM LAND

IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

Acreage.of
Year All Land in Farms @Row Crop Idle Crop Pasture Forest
1960 94,671 45 not reported 5 50
1961- 95,297 39 6 5 50
1962 101,475 41 7 5 47
1963 100,150 43 6 4 47
1964 102,364 43 6 5 46
1965 102,765 43 6 4 47
1966 101,974 48 4 5 43
1967 104,015 50 4 4 42
1968 106,971 49 4 4 43
1969 109,666 49 7 3 41
1970 114,466 53 4 4 39
1971 113,238 56 3 3 38
1972 113,511 56 6 3 35
1973 121,887 55 2 4 39
1974 143,840 51 6 3 40

SOURCE: North Carolina Depart *ment of Agriculture,
Land Utilization and Crop Acreage Surveys

Commercial forests in Washington County a@re primarily situated

in the area west of N. C. Highway 32 towards-Martin County. Swampy

areas to the north of Plymouth and'Creswell are owned by the lumber

companies but are,not actively cleared due to their extremely wet

-terrain. A large timber tract in the center of the.county east of
Roper, formerly owned by' the" Shima American Corporation, isthe

forest area in the county most likely to be converted to field crops

in the next ten.years. Other forest areas Are likely to remain

intact in the future with possibly some peripheral residential sub-

divisions developing in the vicinity of Plymouth down Long Ridge

Road (N.C. Highway 1100).

In the Town of Roper,(.9 sq. miles) over one-fourth.percent of the

incorporated area is under cultiva tion: approximately 44 percent

of the area is devoted to harvested cropland. An additional 27

percent of the town consists of forest and swamp, however these

tracts have no significant commercial value. In the Town of

Creswell (.6 sq. mi.) only seven percent or approximately 28 acres

of the incorporated area is devoted to harvested cropland. More

significant is the 53 percent of the area covered by non-commercial

forestland and swamp. This amount of'non-productive-wasteland

sharply limits the town's growth,ana constitutes a major land use

constraint.

Commerce and Industry. Most commercial and industrial activities

are concentrated in or near the Towns of Plymouth, Roper, and

Creswell. Elsewhere,-business activity is sharply limited, consisting

primarily of county grocery stores scattered along the county's

roads. The largest industry in the county is the Plymouth Garment

4.d

Company in Plymouth. outside of Plymouth, industry in the county

is limited to the First Colony Farms grain el evator below Creswell

and the Williams Lumber Company at Mackey's above Roper.

In the Towns of Roper and Creswell there are no industrial

activities. commercial land consists of tightly clustered small

business districts (equally approximately 4 percent of the area in

Roper and 5 percent.of the area of Creswell).

Housing. Residential land use in the county consists of

scattered-site single family homes and mobile homes.on individual

lots of record,fronting,existing roads. Subdivisions and mobile

home parks are primarily located around Plymouth and along the

shoreline of Albemarle Sound. A 1973 survey of housing conditions

estimated 2,997 single family units outside of Plymouth of which

20 units were dilapidated and anothe r 890 were deteriorating. The

same surv ey counted 416 mobile homes in mobile home parks and on

individual lots. However, mobile homes have greatly increased in

number since then, and in 1976 are estimated to comprise 650 units.,

This increase is likely to continue in the forseeable future until

other forms of housing are made available in a price range that local

families,can afford or until new industry with higher wage rates

settles in the area. Second home development along Albemarle Sound

is expected to continue but at a slow pace over the next ten years.

The forseeable change in this seasonal housing is the occupancy of

existing summer houses on a year-round basis.

Residential land in, Roper and Creswell are generally clustered

around the compact business districts of each town. In Roper,

rise approximately 16 percent of the town
residential areas comp J

their absentee owners. In poorer residential neighborhoods,

11spot zoning" or garages, stores and dancehalls can be found.

Elsewhere the mix of businesses and homes along state roads is

generally limited to a number of crossroad communities that were

once founded in order to acquire postal service.

Problems from Unplanned, Development

In Washington County, the problems from unplanned development

can be catagorized uh.der poor drainage, water degradation, traffic

hazards and disorderly growth. Each of these problem areas would be.

compounded in the future if allowed to proceed without some'form,

of regulation.

Poor Drainage, In this category examples include t he forced

breech of watershed boundaries to secure Agricultural drainage and

street flooding. Rssentially, the 6`6unty@s terrain is so flat

that runoff. has nowhere to go. in the case of agricultural drainage,

it is possible in this area to secure drainage across one watershed

boundary into a particular creek if waterflow into another creek is

too sluggish, With further large-scale farming it is feared that

the Scuppernong River's floodplain will be further enlarged by

drainage from the Mackey's.Creek and Pantego Creek watersheds.

Street flooding is the local evidence of inadequate storm drainage

in the three towns that would increase with new development by
increasing the-amount of impervio"@,:-.sur__6 S-upon,'@whl-' h

.runoff could accelerate,

Water Degradation. In this category, examples include well

waster contamination from.on-site 9eptic*tanks, stream sedimentation

from unstabilized canal banks, and unauthorized animal waste discharge

which in Creswell, these areas cover approximately 21 perce nt of

the town.

Public Lands. The largest government-owned property in

Washington County is Pettigrew State Park which consists of Lake

Phelps and Somerset Plantation. Second in size to this property

i's the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, a game res erve near Wenona

which wholly surrounds Pungo Lake. Smaller holdings consist of the

,State prison farm near the corssroads community of Scuppernong,:a

state Department of Transportation gravel pit near the Sound Bridge

two state experimental farms: one between Plymouth and Roper

and the other on the southside. of Lake Phelps. County government

holdings include the county Board of Education's school sites in

the three towns, the County hospital, Courthouse, Social Services,

and Agriculture Building in Plymouth, and a landfill located east

,of N.C. Highway 45 off Mackey's Road (N.C. 1300).

Both-Roper and Creswell have approximately 27 acres a, piece

.,of government property within their corporate limits. School

grounds are the largest part of this acreage with minor tracts

devoted to fire department and municipal offices, storage areas, and

their community water facilities,

Significant Land Use Compatibility Problems

At the present time land use compatibility problems are limited

in the county and the three towns. In the county the best example

of-a compatibility problem are hog pens nearby homes or churches.

Along the shores of Albemarle Sound resident homeowners complain

about overcrowded rental trailers which receive little upkeep from

WASHIN6TON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

0
Figure 16
14 WATERSHED MAP
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY
5
WATERSHED NUMBER

1 Welch Creek
2 Conaby Creek
A' 2A Bateman's Swamp
3 Pungo River
3A Albemarle Drainage District No. 4
4::
38 Pungo River Drainage District
4 Lower Conaby Swamp and River
Low Gr und
5 Westovoer C:nal
's Creek
6 Mackey
7 Lower Mackey .s Swamp
8 Beech Swamp
9 Chapel Swamp
10 Cherry Swamp
11 Deep Creek
12 Laurel Point and Bull Creek
13 Scuppernong River
14 Group Ditches that Drain Directly
Into Albemarle Sound

SOURCE; SCS, 1973

t .......

into surface waters from drainage canals. None of these conditions

are widespread at the present time but all have significant

implications for the future, Compact beach communities along

Albemarle Sound are the areas most likely to have drinking water

contamination while sediment control and stream discharge problems

are more prevalant in the eastern half of the county now being

opened for agricultural production.

Traffic Hazards. This is the most observable problem of

unplanned development in the county. Examples include traffic

congestion on primary roads, impossible secondary roads, inadequate

off-street parking and hazardous multiple-driveway intersections.

Traffic congestion along U.S. Highway 64 and N.C. Highway 32 is

most apparent during the summer months when the two-laned roads are

snarled.with tourist traffic, log trucks, school buses, and farm

combines and tractors, Secondary roads to small subdivisions are

.often impassible because of inadequate dedication. of right-of-way

or non-acceptance for maintenance by the State Department of

Transportation,

Certain dirt roads now subject to increased farm traffic are

requiring increased maintenance due to the weight and frequent passage

of additional traffic. Inadequate off-street parking in the county

is most apparent in the Macedonia Community between Plymouth and

Roper, east of N.C. 45 along U.S,. 64, due to clusters of small homes

on small lots with numerous short driveways cutting into the main

thoroughfare. In the three towns, multiple driveways from strip

commercial establishments along U.S. 64*create hazardous turning

movements and generally impede the flow of traffic.

@Disorderly Growth. Examples of disorderly land use that is

likely to increase in the future includes: overcrowding of dwellings

near each other due to lack of,building setbacks, lack of sign

control, increased storage of junk outdoors, juxtaposed land uses,

speculative residential land sales without guarantees of improve-

mentland costs of government services .(police, fire, waste disposal,

schools, water and sewer) rising faster than the accrued income

received from increased tax assessment. At the present time

Washington County is in a relatively early stage of development and

its estimated slow growth rate will forstall the impact of these

particular land use problems. However, the full impact of these

conditions is most certain when the controls available to deal with

them are not exercised or are disrega rded.

Major Growth Areas

Future growth in Washington County can be measured more by

increased agricultural production than from increased population.

This analysis compares favorably with the differences between the

estimated population trends which are low and the estimated land

conversion trends which are high. Consequently minor population

growth greating demands for new housing is likely to generate more

subdivision.activity in the Plymouth area where such population

growth is already occurring. However, the major land use change

in the next 10 years is.expected to be the conversion of tracts in

the Newland Road area of the county (via N.C.1126) from forestland

to field crops. This increase in lands under cultivation over the

4-6

next ten years would bring the county to a plateau in its large-

scale land use conversions, reaching an approximate total of 60

percent of the land in the county or about 131,560 acres in agri-

,cultural produciton.

Current Plans? Policies, and Regulations

The following list of plans, regulations, and policies with a

bearing on land use have been prepared for the Washington County

Board of Commissioners, and where noted, the Towns of Roper,and

Creswell. A complete list of plans,,policies, and regulations

for the Town of Plymouth are contained in the Land Use Plan, for

Plymouth, They are referred to in this list ing only when they

tie into plans, regulations, or policies of the county,

Plans and Policies Adopted. The following plans and studies

have been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners: A detailed

soil survey (SCS) of the entire county has been in progress since
1975. A Housing Survey (Department of Natural & Economic Resources

that inventoried structural conditions of housing in the county was

prepared in,1973, A Land Use Analysis(DNER) describing existing

land use, population and economy in 1974 was prep ared, An Appraisal

for Outdoor Recreation (1913) inventorying recreation potential

was prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, An Overall,Economic

Development Plan listing recommendations for priority needs of the

county was adopted in 1971 by the OEDP Committee ehaired by T.R.

Spruill, Chairman of the County Board of Commissioners. It

superceded the first plan prepared in 1962 by the same Committee.

The county has no thoroughfare plan as such, however, as a matter

of policy the Board of Commissioners have recommended the paving

of secondary roadways and widening of U.S. Highway 64 before the

As
Primary Roads Council and Secondary Roads Council. The county's

policies concerning planning are incorporated into its Ordinance

to establish a Planning Board (1975), based upon the language

contained on G.S. 153A Article 18, Part I. The county's policies

concerning recreation are incorporated into its Ordinance to

Establish a Recreation Commission, based upon the language

contained in G. S@ 160 and G.S. 160A-353.

Plans.Under Consideration. The most current plans being

considered in the county are a 201 Sewer Facilities Plan (1975)

prepared by L.-E. Wooten and Company, for Plymouth and Roper and a

Water System Feasibility Study (1975) prepared by Moore-Gardner

Associates for the entire county. These plans supercede. the
0
following prior water and sewer studies:

1 Comprehensive Water and Sewer Planning'
L.W. Wooten and Company
Report 1970
.2. Plans and Specs July 1966 - Plymouth Water System Improvements
0 L.E. Wooten and Company, Engineers
3. Plans and Specs June 1966 - Plymouth Water System Improvements
L. E. Wooten and Company, Engineers

4. Plans and Specs Oct. 1962. - Roper Water System
0 L.E. Wooten & Company, Engineers

5. Preliminary Engineering Report Ropdr Sewage Systew-
.January 1968 L.E. Wooten & Company, Eng.'

6. Preliminary Engineering'Report Creswell Water System
0 March 1970 L.E. Wooten & Company, Eng.

7. Preliminary'.Engineering Report Creswell Sewage System
March 1970 L.E. Wooten & Company, Eng.

Plans and Policies Not'Being Considered. The County Board

of commissioners have not considered Community Facility Plans or'

Open Space Policies for the present.

_A9,

Other Studies. Several other studies with a significant

bearing on land use problems in water quality include the following:

Soil Conservation Service's Shoreline Erosion inventory (1972),

.United States Groundwater Service's Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pamlico

Region (1975), and the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineer-Is Environmental

Impact Statement on the dredging of the Scuppernong River. The

erosion study elaborates on the significant loss of land fronting

Albemarle Sound from 1938 to 1972. The hydrology report includes

the first study made of the potential impacts of corporate "super-

':_farms" on the ground water resources in the area. The Scuppernong

Riverstudy is still-being prepared by the Corps of Engineers'

Wilmington office and when completed may be able to justify a

drainage improvements program for this badly clogged waterway.
C
Regulations Adop ted. The County Board of Commissioners--have

adopted the following ordinances which have a bearing onland use:.

A Mobile Home and-Travel Trailer Park Ordinance which applies to

all the county outside of Plymouth and which is administered by the

county's building inspector and planning board. Second, the N.C.

Building and Electrical Code: the Building Code applying to all

areas of the county outside Plymouth and the.Electrical Code applying

to all areas of the county including Plymouth. The Building Code

is administered by the county's building inspector while the

Electrical Code is administered by a joint Plymouth-County electrical

inspector. Third, both Plymouth and the county comply with the-

Septic Tank Regulations and other requirements of the Washington

County Health Department which are administered by a District

Sanitarian4 Fourth, the county and the three towns have applied

for and received approval for Federal Flood Insurance. When the

actual,maps are completed, a floodway ordinance will be administered

through Plymouth's building inspector acting for Plymouth and the

county's building inspector acting for thecounty including the

Towns of Roper and Creswell,

Reg ulations Under Consideration, The Board of County Commiss-

ioners at this time are studying a Sediment Control ordinance for

possible adoption. Besides runoff from'constructio.n sites, this

draft ordinance proposes toitegulate the dumping of animal wastes

into drainage canals in the county. The county planning board is

considering a draft zoning ordinance for the Towns of Roper and

Creswell and-the waterfront areas of the county. Plymouth has its

own Zoning Ordinance. These Zoning Ordinances would be administered

through the planning board and elected body.. The county planning

board is also considering a draft subdivision regulations for the

county and the three towns if their town councils choose to adopt

@the regulations by resolution. If adopted, these subdivision

regulations would.,be administered through local building inspectors

.and planning boards.

Regulations-Not Being Considered. The following requlations
.,are not in force or under consideration at -the present time in

Washington County:- N. C. Plumbing Code, N.C. Housing Code, Historic

District.Regulations,,Environmenta1 Impact Statement Ordinances,

or nuisance laws. Concerning nuisance laws, the Board of County

Commissionerstrom time to time will pass a resolution governing

carnivals, fortune tellers, and the like; howeverithese regulations

have no legal significance. At pr esent,an individual with a

complaint would have to secure a warrant from the Magistrate who

would have to find grounds for the complaint in state.law before

the warrant could be served.

Federal and State Regulations. List to be supplied by the

Department of Natural and Economic Re sources.

III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

General Requirements

"The local planning unit shall, in cooperation with its citizens

and all relevant public agencies, identify the major land use

issues facing the planning area and formulate a series of objectives

to help guide future development. Themajor la.nd.use issues w1ii-ch

will be faced during the following ten year period should be

identified and analyzed, Such issues should include:

1) The impact of population and economic trends;

2) The provision of adequate housing and. other servi-ces-;-

3) The conservation of productive natural resource 's;

4) The protection of important natural environments;
5 The protection,--of cultural and historic re:t6t@rces,

"Alternative approaches for dealing with these issues and their

respective implications should then be considered in the development

of land use objectives, policies and standards. These clearly stated

objectives, policies and.standards should serve as a guide to

classifying land areas as well a-s-clearly establishing priorities

for action during the planning period.

"A brief description shall also be given of the process used

to determine objectives, policies and standards, with particular

attention given to the participation of the public and relevant
public agencies." .From CAMA "Guidelines"

Identification'-and Analysis of Major Land Use Issues

Impact of Population,and Economic Trends

The major land use issues affecting Plymouth and Washington
County in the coming ten years cover a broad range of problems.

.53

Both the town and county face population losses in the 18 to

25 year old age group despite modest increases in total population

during the period from 1960 to 1970. Consequently the best trained

and highest earning persons leave to go elsewhere, reducing-the.

labor pool and the opportunities for new.industry.

Plymouth faces severe shortages of vacant, developable land

at a time when its exterritorial area is the fastest growing part

of the whole county. This situ ation greatly increases the need

for annexations in the years ahead or else demands that the county

provide urban services in the areas surrounding,-Plymouth.

Large scale farming and forestry typecast the county's major

economic growth. During the early history of the county, Somerset

Plantation's 100,000 acre operation prefigured today's First Colony

Farms. After the Civil War, the John L. Roper Lumber Company began

acquiring property that by 1910 had exceeded 600,000 acres through-

out all of Eastern North Carolina, The Roper interests encouraged

farmers to settle in the area and grow- crops on theircleared tracts,

thus accelerating the development of the area's agriculture. Today,

the Weyerhaeuser-and Georgia-Pacific mills in Plymouth@are the

familiar evidence of this major tr end's impact.

Future major impact upon the local economy will focus on

agriculture. in the next ten years, forests in the Newland area in

the center of the county (see existing land use-,map) are expected

to be cleared and brought into.agricultural production. This is

based upon the county's accelerated land clearing activity by

corporate I'superfarms". With improved management of production,

a modern generation of agri-industry can be a new and important

part of the local economy's Luture.

However, until plenty of jobs are Made trom increased farm

production, population growth will be minimal as young and old

alike move elsewhere for work, Countering this-.out:-migration is

the in-migration of families looking for second homes along-our

shores. Although this in-migration is continuing, it will be

small compared to'the growth of the popular resorts in Nags Head,
Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, and elsewhere.

Accessibility into and out of the county is a major constraint

in its economic development as the.principal arterials (U.S. 64

and N.C. 32 North to the Albemarle Sound Bridge) are-seasonally

congested with tourist traffic which compete with slower-moving

farm vehicles and local traffic on these two lane roads. Since

these seasonal traffic volumes are not continuous throughout the

year, they fail to justify the costly road-widening projects

necessary to ameliorate the congested coriditions.

Historically, Roper and Creswell were settled as residential

communities built around essential government service@s. Roper

served as the original county seat until 1823 while Creswell:grew

from the establishment of a'pos't office there'-in 1826. Over.the

years, however, local industry and trade moved to-Plymouth and

Edenton, having side effects of declining population, loss of

business, and increasing dependence on county government within

the two communities.

Today,these effects are apparent in the increasingly larger
percentage of senior citizens living in tow nand inobsetvable

numbers of abandoned or dillapidated buildings. Yet,recent

increases in school-aged children.at the schools in both places

a return of young families to these smaller towns,, Thus,instead

of further decline:in development, the towns face growth problems

similar to those in larger communities such as maintaining basic

services .for the service-dependent and meeting rising costs for

new capital improvements.

All these trends create land use issues. How does "super-

farming" affect the water used for drinking and recreation? Should

taxpayers or shoreline property owners pay the costs of bulkheading

beach property lost to soil erosion? How far out can utilities.

be extended to growing areas before they become economically

unfeasible? Land use..go,&ls in the Plan address.these-issues.

These goals wi.th maps of existing land use and future land.classi-
ficatioi@ spell out alternative proposals for how the issues can

be solved.

Adequate Housing And Other Services

Housing and related services show a similar need for improve-

ment. An attitude-survey completed in May, 1975, by the Washington

County CAMA Steering Committee helped to determine the service

needs of county residents, on a county-wide basis, the first.

housing priority is for more dwellings of all types, The tremendous

increase in numbers of mobile homes points to this shortage of

housing alternatives in the county. Housing is further limited

by the majority of soil types in the county. These soils drain

poorly and have high shrink-swell potential, Ironically the most

suitable soil for urban-

shores.of Albemarle Sound where soil erosion is-occurring dueto,

the wind-wave action from Albemarle Sound.

other related problems are the demand for shoreline property

for second homes and the cost of providing services to these homes.

In the future, the market for waterfront acreage should increase as

the heavily populated areas of the Northeast and Piedmont begin

to migrate towards this area in search of home sites near the water,

Priorities noted in,the May survey call for.improvement in

the schools.(84%),. recreation (68%), increase d job opportunities

(66%), better shopping opportunities (65%), and improved health

services (63%). (See Appendix for survey results).

The cost of@providing services ties:@in.direc tly with the need

for economicgrowth. At present,,- both the town and the county lose

many tax dollars to other counties as local-residents take:employ-
ment and carry on their shopping and recreation elsewhere. At a

time when inflation increases government costs, this situation

creates a heavy reliance on the property tax to pay for services@

Conservation of Productive Natural Resources

Aside from the difficulties of urban land uses,:dgricul tural

lands in Washington County face severe problems in accelerated

flooding from the breach of.watersheds, wide-spread win&erosion

from large, barren areas; peat fires; and the pollution [email protected]

water supplies from dumping animal wastes.. The breech of-water-.
0 shed problems stem from the nearly flat.terrain in the eastern

half of the county, In this area, drainage canals can be made, to

drain into-either the [email protected],watershed. or the Pantego

Creek or Mackey's Creek watersheds because tho;'.--flat terrain blurs

the watershed boundary. of concern of farmers along the

Scuppernong River is the increase in that river's floodplain due

to the increased runoff from hew tracts being brought into produc-

tion which may need to drain into some other creek.. The problem

of soil erosion from the wind is unique in eastern North Carolina.

This is especially true in the early spring when gusty crosswinds

create duststorms across the broad, barren fields before vegetation

begins to take root.. the highly organic soils which are a

characteristic of this area are also prone to catch fire from

lightening. This'.condition cannot be controlled,and a.matter of

some concern among local farmers is,the likelihood of greater.

fire's sterming from the drainage of organic soils'for farm produ-..

ction. The dumping pf animal wastes is not a widespread practice;

however, it. ...is.:an issue wherever done because of the high degree
of contaminat'ed'@wa_ter reaching larger streams which serve. public

recreation needs.

Important Natural Environments

The county's.-shore areas along Albemarle Sound are the

principal natural environment likely to have significant land

compatibility problems through 1985. The potential problem is

threefold; the shore areas are uriprotected from sound erosion-an

average of 3.5 feet lost each yedr-and the soil lost is from the

thtee soil associations having the most favorable characteristics

for-urban land use. These. are the Kalmia-Norfolk-Pactolu .s associa-

tion, the Craven-Dunbar-Aycock association, and the Lakeland-

'Wagram-Ocilla association, These soils also only comprise nine

percent of the soils in the county, and consequently their-erosion

58,_

represents a permanent loss of an especially scarce resource.

Third, the demand for waterfront lots for second homes--a national

trend--is likely to double the number of residences from an

estimated 100 dwellings at present to 200 dwellings by 1985@ This

will increase shoreline development from a two mile strip now in

sections inbetween crop lands to a four mile strip from Albemarle

Beach to Leonard's Point. At present thereare no rules,

regulations, or standards to govern the location and.t.ypes of

improvements made in this area except for health,@department

regulations concerning the spacing of wellsand septic tanks.

Consequently,the intense development of a narrow strand of shore

Will require subdivision regulations and zoning, This will

insure that future land use be better protected than it, is now

by new controls that, do not overlap existing laws.

Lake Phelps is another important natural environment which

could be adversely affected by poor development practice. 'Unlike

the Pungo National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Pehlps has no lar Ige

buffer of government-bwned land surrounding it to.limit develop-

ment. The Lake is almost entirely in p,rivate hands except for an

exper-imental farm operated by N.C, State University on-the south-,

eastern rim of the Lake near the county line. While development

around the Lake's narrow buffer strip is limited to a few-scattered

homes and cottages, the remaining lots of record could be developed

for greatly increased residential and commercial activity. Such

activity could accelerate well and.septic tank problems and

contamination of the Lake from trash, debris and sewage.

The Scuppprnong River at one time hadbeen a spawning ground

for anadronomous fish, but now by local reports is virtually

devoid of any fish. This condition is due to past logging and

clearing activities which have silted-up this stream as well as

the other streams in the county.

Protecting Cultural and Historic-Resources

Lake Phelps as Pettigrew State Park is the principal cultural

resource that could be adversely affected'by overcrowding of

commercial enterprises or residential subdivisions adjacent to its

waters. The principal effects would be deteriorated water quality

which would waste the lake's stock of sport fish.and reduce Its

appeal for other.forms of water-oriented recrea-tion.

..Other.historic places in the county are St. David's' Chapel,

Rohobeth Church, Garrett@s Island Home and Somerset Place, The

protection of these places would only be limited by the shortage@,

of funds necessary to maintain their restored appearance, since

they are not.surrounded by any incompatible existing land uses,

In addition tothe list of historic places mentioned, a stand of

300 year old Cypress trees along the 30 foot can al near Lake

Phelps have local significance as historic,,,vegetation associated

with the Somerset Plantation,

-60

Alternatives Considered in the Dev elopment
of Objectives, Policies and Standards

Alternatives considered in the preparation of this plan's

objectives, policies, and standards were sharply restrained by

geographic constraints, the slow growth of a small population!

and, a limited amount of community money to invest in more

ambitious proposals. Consequently, the objectives. in this plan

express the goals of limited growth.

Future population growth will be low,, between zero and 4 percent eac]

decade,for,the next 50 years. Therefore no large-scale programs

or goals are in order by the county government, The processing

nature of the.a.reals two largest'.employers, Weyerhaeuser Corpora-

tion and First Colony Farms, are such that the expansion of

their future operations will more likely be felt in production

rather than in new employment. Consequently, some new services

and facilities will-be, needed in anticipation of small increase

in total population, but no "county-side" extensions of utilities

,@is warranted in the foreseeable future. However, considerable

attention i.s still necessary to highway and utilityimprovement

plans and land use controls for the county's future needs.

From the onset, there was never any doubt'that agriculture,,

would remain the county's economi.c base, It was determined that.

more industry was needed in order to diversify the county's small

manufacturing base in-textiles and wood products. .,In this way a

small amount of industry would provide.revenues .needed to

balance the county.'s rising budget as an alte rnative to raising

taxes. This "limited growth alternativell was expressed by local

residents as "keeping Washington County.ts growth@apace' with that

in other coun t@iesl' while limiting where this change for induIstry

could occur. In this way, most of the county could be used and

enjoyed "as it is", Reinforcing this limited growth attitude,

the majority of county residents were unwilling to see their taxes

raised to pay for new or improved services;or their county

government expand to administer new programs or regulations.

None of the objectives have known environmental side"effects

that would adversely affect the county's land use. Beside's@these

stated objectives are the land classifications which reflect

limited growth in limitedideveloped, transition, and community

classes. Most of the county is in the "rural" classification to

protect its most productive natural resources.

Land Use Goals and Objectives

An important part of any plan is setting goals and objectives.

Carefully prepared goals and obj.ectives-represent local residents'

opinions and'desires for their county's future growth. They are

used in two ways. First, they describe the changes and improve-

ments residents wanted, touching such topics as economic growth of..

the county, protection of natural resources, and improvement of

local government. Secondlyl-they establish the framework for

future policies, programs and land use regulations that help

implement.the Plan. Through this process land use changes dan@ble

guided by your local goverment instead of occurring in a haphazard

manner..,

The following.list of community objectives describe short-run

priorities--things which could beaccomplished in the next two

years.

Goal': To Provide for the Economic Needs of County Residents by Attracting
ITu-siness and Industry to Washington County

(1) Establish an Economic Development Commission to encourage
new industry in Washington County. Hire a full-time industrial,
developer as a staff for.the Economic Development Commission.

(2) Recommend to the State Department of Transportation that
U.S. Highway 64 be widened to four lanes across the county.

(3) Support the development of a community water system in
thecounty.

(4) Propose.a Wenona-to-Pea,Ridge road to the State Depart-
@ment of Transportation.

(5).Work with the surrounding couhties',to petition the study
of an interstate coastal,hi_qh"_

Goal: To Protect Natural and Cultural Resources

(1) Improve storm drainage on all creeks in the county to
minimize local flooding.

(2) Develop regulations to control the breech of watersheds
and wind erosion county-wide.

(3) Require bulkheading of shore property subject to erosion
from Albemarle Sound.

(4) Complete and publicize a county-wide detailed soil
survey.

(5) Regulate the dumping of animal wastes into public
waters.

@(6) Petition the expansion of Pettigrew State Park at Lake
Phelps.

(7) Establish a system of neighborhood parks in the county.

(8) Develop zoning and subdivision controls within Roper,
Creswell, and the waterfront areas to provide for orderly develop-
ment in these places.

Goal; To Improve the Level of Service of Local Government

(1) Improve county police protection, especially against
breaking and entering.

(2) Develop a Zenith emergency phone number system to eliminate
long distance calls to Plymouth from Creswell.

(3) Establish a dog catcher and kennel for dog control in the
county.

(4) Recruit adults to expand supervised league sports in
the county.

(5) Expand efforts to publicize the Health Department's
schedule of' services to outlying areas.

(6) Adopt a Minimum.Housing Code.

(7) Expand library.services in the Creswell area,

Development Obj.ectives..for Roper

(1) Improve storm drainage within the town limits.

6-4

(2) Study zoning and.subdivision controls within the town
and one-mile surrounding area.

(3) Support plans for a community sewer system and improve-
ments to the existing water system.

(4) Support the demolition of unsafe buildings and the
0 expansion of new housing in town,

(5) Petition the county for-increased police patrol service
at night.

40 Development objectives for Creswell

(1) Development zoning and subdivision controls within the
town and surrounding one-mile area..

(2) Review and update plans for a community sewer.system in
the town,

(3) Construct.additional housing of all types in-th.is area,

(4) Expand and publicize-library and health care services in
the Creswell area.

(5) Petition the county for increased police'patrol service
at night.

6 5'

Public Participation Summary
Evaluation of our Public Participation Program

A. Does your land use planning depend on the local planner for

direction or does citizen involvement offer direction?

The land use planning effort in Washington County has been a 50-50

effort, with the planner doing the legwork for the Steering

Committee,and the Steering Committee making contacts with the
public and guiding the planner towards what they want to see put

in the county's plan.

B. Unique features of your public participation program,that

might be useful to other communities..

Ever since the Steering Committee began their public-meetings,

they have always rotated the place of the meeting to each of the

towns in the county--Creswell, Roper,and Plymouth--in order to

make public attendance as convenient as possible, The planner,has

also spoken. to nearly every civic group and organization about the

purpoe, of CAMA. Posters have been a big help in advertising

meetings.

C. How did you develop your Public Participation Program?

The Steering Committee was created by a resolution from the County
Commissioners in December,1974. At their first organizational

meeting, this group decided that regular open meetings and speaking

engagements were the best way to get public participation.Regular

presss and radio features have been,added to this,besides the use

of an attitude survey that the committee distributed in May to
approximately 3200 households.

D. Do-you consider your public involvement a success? Please

explain.

Judging by the attendance at Steering Committee meetings, you

cannot say that public participation is a...success in Washington

County. Committee members have suggested to people that they

come--but time and again they forget, It seems that there is
40 only so much you can do to get people to attend, but attendance
is picking up since posters have been used to advertise the

meetings. Also word-of-mouth knowledge about CARA is. getting

around as residents-from, different neighborhoods are showing up

for the first time to learnmore about it. Consequently, we

feel that.the public participation is-going to show more and

more improvement as time goes on. Residents have also commented

after a meeting that they felt like their contribution had been
listened to, and t4at--they simply,had not-gone--to a meeting where

a decision had already:been made and was just.being announced,

E. List some key citizens in your public participation program:

Name, phone.numbers,

Douglas Davenport, (797-4395); Cleveland Paylor, (793-3622),;

Lewis Combs, (797-4486); Barry Harris (793-5823);'Phil Gurkin,

(793-2123); Gerald Allenj (793-3826.);.Ted Masters (793-2771);

Ken Sallenger, (797-4314); Billy Sexton, (794-2218); Dewitt

Darden, (633-3141; T R. Spruill, (793-2053); Bill Flowers,

(793-4181); Guy Whitford, (793-2223); Ernestine Hannon, (793-5015)-.

Steps.T'aken to Inform Local Citizens About the CAMA Program

A. Newspaper

.The..following is a list of feature articles which have appeared

in the local newspaper, The Roanoke Beacon. This list does not

include simple announcements of regularly scheduled Steering

Committee meetings. The readership of the Beacon is approximately

8500.

1. November 10, 197-4, "Planner Appointed: Board Approves Land Use

Planning"

2. January 22, 1975, "First Meeting Held by Land Use Group"

3. March 5, 1975, "Citizen Input Urged: Sexton Elected Chairman

of Land Use Committee"

4. March 12, 1975, "Land Use Group Sets Roper Meet"

5. April 16, 1975, "Land Use Body Will Meet With Planning Boards"

6. May 7, 1975, "Preliminary Maps, Land Use Plan Eyed by Group"

7. May 14, 1975, 7CAMA Meeting Slated for Creswell",

8. June 11, 1975, "Development Favored: Citi,zen Survey Results

Announced By Planner"

9. June 18, 1975, "Area Management: What It Is.and Why?"

10. June 1-8, 1975, "Roanotes, by Phil-Gurkin" (editorial)

11, June 25, 1975, "Area Management: Land Use Planning"

12. July 2, 197.51 "Area Management: Guarding Resources"

13. July 9, 1975,.,."Area Management; By We The People"

ai 14. July 9, 1975,"'Roanotes,.,by Phil Gurkin" (editorial)

15. August 27, 1975, (in progress) "Plan of Goals and Objectives

Endorsed by,Committeell

B. Radio

.Several.Public Service Announcements have been aired over WPNC in
Plymouth which broadcasts overra ten.-county area, to both announce
_5V

meetings and encourage atte .ndance. The Washington County Extension

Agent has been very cooperative indrafting his own CAMA presenta-
tions for airing during the noon-timei'Home and Farm Hourp.1 and in

conducting a talk show with the planner, July 7, 1975.

:C. Television

Television has not been@utilized as a medium because there is no

local station within the county.
46
D. Bulletins, Leaflets, Newslettersz

Since July, 60 posters have been distributed for every regular

meeting of the Steering Committee throughout the areas where the

meetings were to be held.: This has resulted ina big boost in

attendance at meetings by local residents..

E. Other Methods

The items above describe the techniques we have used to inform

people about C4MA.. What other method people use to get informed

chiefly appears to be word-of-mouth.

Opportunities for Citizlens.to Provide Input Into Land Use Planning

A. Personal Interviews

This techniquehas,not been used to the extent of some other

methods. One of the Steering Committee Members, Cleveland Paylor,

took the planner around to interview and explain the purpose of
CAI'm to six of the principal businessmen in the Town of Plymouth

during March and April, Another set of interviews were carried

out among local business figures by WPNC station mana.ger, Billy

Benners in March to "brainstorm" CAMA's impact on the business

community.

6-9

B. Surveys

An attitudinal survey concerning land use goals and objectives was

distributed in-May through the schools to approximately 2900 house-

holds, There were also about 300 surveys distributed among the two

senior classes at the high schools in Creswell and Plymouth. An

additional 150.surveys were distributed to predominantly black,

low-income heads of households by Mrs. Lilly James from the

Washington County Economic Development Council., Finally the planner

used the survey at his'club meetings to poll his audience on land

use problems which they we re familiar with.

C@ Workshops and Public Meetings

The Steering Committee has had ten regular meetings since January,

with an attendance total of 100. The Plymouth Planning Board had

considered CAMA issues at eight of their gatherings and the County

Planning Board has done the same at six meetings of theirs. By

far the greatest number of meetings have been with clubs and

organizations--a total of.569 people from 30. differentgroups, Of

the 569, 184 or approximately 32% were women. About 150 or about

26% were over age 65, Other meetings planned in the future will be
primarily among blacks, who only composed' about 60 or 11% or the

569 addressed so far, Briefings to elected officials have also

been done regularly: the county commissioners have received, a total

of ten reports to date, and the Plymouth Town Council has received

a total of five. This difference is due to the Commissioners

meeting twice a month while the Council,meetsonly once.

D. Other Opportunities

Public Service Announcements concerning CAMA have been aited over
radio Statio n WPNC in Plymouth on at least eight occasions. Four
7.0

of these PSA's were prepared and sponsored on the county agricul-

tural extension's "Home and Farm Hour" by their local staff. The

planner aired the remainder.

Qua lity and Quantity of Feedback From the Public

A. Approximate percentage of community providing input

of the 2900 surveys distributed through the schools, to heads of
40 households, 830 or a pproximately 29% were returned. Amongst the

300 surveys distributed to high-school seniors, 177 or abo.ut.59%

were returned. Not included in these returns are the extra polls

taken of .150 low-income blacks and the club sui@v@ys that the

planner conducted. Thus in terms of the total population,'only a

small percentage or about 12% is estimated to have personally

responded to a questionnaire on land use. The figure would be

higher if you considered-it on a 11per household" basis.

B, Areall ethnic groups and social strata involved?
.,,,._Yes, we would' say that there has been a cross-section of both.

races and sexes responding to meetings and the survey--not just

one group. While there have not been great numbers of people

involved on a percentage basis, the proportion of whites involved

has been no greater than the proportion of blacks throughout the

county.

C. Are non-residents and non-voters involved?

Non-voters werepoll ed through the attitude survey of graduating
0 high school.seniors from the county's high schools. Their attitudes

concerning land use were much the same as their elders, with some-

what more emphasis on recreational needs. Non-resident property

T, I

owners representalmost negligible percentages of the total

population because most owners of second-homes were identifiedas

residents of Plymouth. Consequently, a separate survey was not

made.

D. Futureparticipation activities planned

Future activities are being planned in about the same number as

they have in the-past. There are now more suggestions from people

attending our meetings on how to get better involvement. One of

these has been to utilize polling places throughout the county for

the location of neighborhood meetings on CAMA.

E. How are_you reflecting the responses yo u are receiving into

the land use plans?

The Steering, Committee and residents have@-madetheir feelings known

to the planner on proposals he had made-that they did not agree

with. Examples of this dealt with map changes on areas of

environmentalconcern and policies concerning trailer.._iegulati.ons.

These changes have all been incorporated into the@county.,'.s plan

to reflect what the people want.

This report was prepared by the Washington County Steering

Committee and Planner,-John McGarrity, and approved by Mayor

William Flowers of Plymouth and County Manager Barry Harris, for

the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, August 29, 197@.

IV. CONSTRAINTS

General Requirements

"Land Suitabilityj Anahalysis shall be made of the general

suitability:of. the undeveloped lands within the planning area for

development, with, consideration given to the following factors:

1) Physical Limitations for Development;

40 2) Fragile Areas;

3) Areas with Resource Potential.

"These factors shall be analyzed, and where possible mapped,

the best information available.

"The major purpose of this analysis is to assist in preparing
the.land classification mapl@;, it is recognized, however, that some

of the areas identified as a result of the,land suitability analysis

maybe designated Areas of Environmental Concern, Any areas so

designated as AECs shall be subject.to the detailed requirements

of.Section III of. these@Guidelines in addition to the analysis

carried out under this subsection,.

.1) Physical Limitations for Development An identification

shall be.made of areas-@likely to have conditions making

development costly,",or causing undesirable consequences if

developed. The following, areas shal.-I ..be identi f ied:
0 (a) Hazard Areas, including the following:

(1) Man-made (for:example, airports, tank-farms for
the storage of flammable liquidR, nuclear power
plants);

(2), Natural, Including:

(a) Ocean erodible areas

73'

(b) Estuarine erodible areas

(b) Areas with Soil Limitations, including the following:

(1) Areas,presenting hazards for foundations;

(2) Shallow soils;

(3) poorly drained soils;

M- Areas with limitations for septic tanks:including
both:

(a) Areas that are generally characterized by soil
limitations,but within which small pockets of
favorable soils do exist; and

(b),Areas where soil limitations are common to most
of the soils present,

Groundwater recharge areas (bedrock and surficial);

.(2) Public water su ply watersheds;
p

(3) Wellfields.

(d) Areas where the predominant..,slope exceeds twelve
percent.

(e) Fragile Areas-An identification shall be made of those
areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed by
inappropriate or poorly planned development.

The following shall be considered:

(1) Coastal Wetlands

(2) Sand Dunes along the Outer'Banks

(3) Ocean Beaches and Shorelines.

(4) Estuarine Waters,

(5) Public Trust Waters

(6) Complex Natural Areas

(7) Areas that Sustain Rerqnant Species

(8) Areas Containing Unique Geologic Formations

(9) Registered'Natural Landmarks.

(10) Others not defined in Part III such as wooded
swamps, prime wildlife habitats, scenic and
promine-nthigh points., etc.

(f) Areas with Resource Potential, including:

(1) Productive and unique agricultur'&l lands,
including:

--Prime agricultural soils
-..Potentially valuable agriculiiral lands with
moderate conservation efforts-.
Q-th-&r p=du-ctive or unique agricultural lands.

.(2) Potentially valuable mineral sites;

(3) Publicly owned forestst parks, fish and gamelands,
and other non-intensive outdoor recreation lands;

(4) Privately owned wildlife sanctuaries.

(g) Capacity of Community Facilities-An identification

shall be made of:

(1) ]Existing water and sewer service areas;

(2) The design capacity of the existing water treat-
ment plant, sewage treatment plant, schools, and
primary roads;

(3) The percent at which the existing water treatment
plante sewage treatment plant,-schools, and,
primary roads are currently utilized.91

From CAMA "Guidelines"

78,

Land Potential

Physical Limitations',..

Drainage. Physical limitation of undeveloped land in the

county is' that of storm drainage, particularly the forced breach

of watershed boundaries to secure agricultural drainage. This

dondition as well as wind erosion of soil,from large scale agricul-

tural clearing operations are unique to the,coastal plains topo-

graphy of eastern North Carolina.

The major physical limitation with.development land,Js the
location of'homes on sites that have impacted.septic tanks

("Sandhills" area outside Plymouth and in the Town of 'Roper),

inadequate storm drainage (Roper and Creswell) and inadequate

protection from periodic flooding (Creswell). The beach

communities':along Albemarle Sound do not have major problems.at

pIresent but only because their residents do not live there:year-

round to overtax the capacity of their shallow wells and on-site'

Septic tank systems.

Hazard Areas. Other constraints on future urban development

fall.into two cate
gories:, natural hazard areas and are&s with soil

limitations. Hazard areas identified in.Washington County are of.

two types: floodplains and shore erosion areas, Floodplain areas

are the low, swampy areas adjacent to existing strea-tas which flood

typically after a heavy thundershower, Because-these are as are so

poorly drained, they are unstitable for most kinds of construction

or productive agricultural usei.(See Figures 17, 18, and,19)

Areas with soil-limitations are those with a high water table,

shrink-,,sw@_,11 potential, and slow permeability that'make the cost of

development range.from moderate;to exorbitant. Such areas cover most

WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAPOUNA

Figure 17
MAP OF FLOOD PRONE AREAS

Flood Prone Areas

MAY, 1976

SOURCE: USGS

Figure 18
FLOOD-PRONE AREAS

FLOOD PRONE AREA
ROPER, N.C. 0

SCALZ
4/10
MILE
SOURCE: Federal Flood Insurance Administration.

</ 2&4

-_j CO

....... -------

Figure 19
CRESWELL M.C.

SCALF-: Y10 240 3110 4/10 51jo
MILE FLOOD PRONE AREAS
SOURCE: Federal Flood Insurance Administration FLOOD PRONE AREA

of Washington County, although these same areas have excellent

agricultural potential. On Figure 20 these areas are shown by the

numeric codes four through seven. The remaining areas one through

three include soils of the Kalmia-Norfolk-Pactolus association which

have the best characteristics for urban land use.

Sound erosion along Albemarle Sound is the second haz ard area

in Washington County. An average of 3.5 feet is lost each year

from the shoreline, and the soil lost is from the three soil assoc-

iations having the best footing and.drainage characteristics for

urban land use. These are the Kalmia-Norfolk-Pactolus association,

the Craven-Dunbar-Aycock.-association, and the Lakeland-Wagram-

Ocilla association. These soils also only comprise nine percent

of the county, and consequently their erosi ,on represents a

permenant loss of some of the best soils in the county. Moreover,

over a period of years the accuracy of the original survey is lost

as the waterfront lot-line recedes. Under the circumstances,

uniformed homebuyers can purchase a lot sold to them by front

footage and later find out that the total,area is inadequate for

installing an individual well and septic tank. This problem is

compounded by the futility of a homebuyer.bixlkheading his lot if

adjacent homeowners fail to bulkhead their lots. Then erosion

occurs at the fill behind the edges of the bulkhead making further

fill and bulkheading necessary.

Water Supply Areas. Washington County is currently well-

endowed with a more than ample supply of water. Its surface waters

fall within the Roanoke River basin and the Albemarle Sound. Private

and municipal water supplies draw upon two aquifers underlying the

county, flowing from wells from depths averaging between 10 and 200 ft.

GENEWAL SGOL MAPS a 4b
KALMIA-NORFOLK-PACTOLUS association: Well dra-ed and 1972..,.
@W:-ely -11 d-ned Oils with Cray fi7 sandy loom M l"my Send
..If - I&Y e's "'e I friable and y clay I- "s-i 1.
NBAR-AYC WASHINGTON COUNTY
CRAVEN DU OCK association: mdo-oy wall. some-
-hal poorly:nd Idr-ned ltoilsli;h pety Wi=ni$h Cray fin, ondy
lon. .-i- toy.,. _1 i" vt y i- is, W toy NORTH CAROLINA
LAKE LAND-WAGRAM-OCILLA association: Welld,ilined.nd
Zwha, poIly dlained ..if. with Cray 1-my Send surface layers over I
So or sandy clay loarn subsoils. ICP 0 2 3 4 5

BLADEN-MYATT-LENOIR association: P-.lY-m-wht APPROXIMATE SrAl E - MILES
poorly Grained $oil, with troy or dark gray fi my loa. ..,face i led at 1: 126.770 (1 " 2 Mil'.31 *;d
layers over firm to very firm clay I "@l IX) Miles,
com or clay subsoil r.*1L7Cad Pr*i' @i6711. I fp@ i.e. and I I
f lit" within sheet
BAYBORO-HYDE-BLADEN association: very powiy am poorly
d'a-d oils .,th black or very dark Cray laam W sillsicam surface %3 2.
BULL RA Y
yet. A,
la val f.Im 10 very film toy 1-m o, clay ub..i

DARE-DOROVAN-PUNGO association: very P.-jy &-4 ..if.
with thick to moderately thick ort-ic ..,face toy.,. over
surface layers .ntinj from and a clay. (H.sloz.l.)

PON ZER- BELHAVEN-WASDA associatiw very P..iy d-i-d
:Uoils with moderately thick to thin organic surface layers am I y
b.u,f.- layers

A,
n-

@_P
OUTH 4

ggz
___ M-1
to "'ar- R, MIN i

0 ff ----------- ----
'025

PE111GREW
-STATE PARK

-M
"M 11x
A N E p H E L p S
ME

LAKE

a so complicd ftom General Highway Map 1972 Revz
C: .I ina State mishway Dep, . and USDC. iiweau of

SOIL INTERPRETATIONS
GENERAL SOIL MAP
WASHINGTON COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA Table I

LIMITATIONS FOR SUITABILITY FOR
IN ELLI14rS WITH RECREATION ROAD S GENE FLA I WOODS PASTURE
DW LIGHT
L
0F SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
Coun y ASSOC. SEWERAGE SEPTIC TANK CAMP SITES PICNIC AREAS I IINDUSTRIES AND STREETS AGRICULTURE
P
P
A
AREAS
SYSTEMS FILTER FIELDS REA1

I . XALHUA-NORFOLK-PACTOLuS
Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Good Good Good Good
Kal.i 30% Slight__ cooi-
1% Nortolk Z07 sliaht Slight Slight light j Slight S! .1ihI Good Good Goo@
c.F, air F. i C
PaCCoL's 20% Mod. to Slight Sev.Wt.Fl. Mod. W@t-s Mod. Wetn,,s md. Wetn-s 1 S-w Fl. Good F d

2. CRAVE4-DUNBAR-AYCOCK
Craven 35% Mod. Peoc. ISev.Wt. P- Mod. 'e @l ght Mod. P@. cm. Sev.Sh-Sw.Cor. Sev.Sh-Sw.Pem.,Go Go d Go I I..I;..d
C
6% Dunbar z 5 W -C. P. S,v.WE.Fl. Pe- [email protected] Sev.Sh-S..Cor. Mod. Sh-Sw. P- I@d 1Good
Aveock Md.P-.. Slieht Sliaht Sl ight S 1 ight Good IGood Cood +-F-1 1--6
207.

3. LAKE LA ND - WAGR.".- OC I LLA
Lakeland 3 Sli lit LFC Slight LFC T-C-1. Sev. Texture od @BS S 1 ishc .it Good -.air
iF2T. S 11 -d iG.W 1 Good
Wagram Xht
2% Mod. Te.c.- Mod. Texture IS Go G
Ocilla 257. od.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fj. to Wc. I_M2d.Wt. IMd.Wt. Mod.Wr.Fl. I Md.wc. IG..d IF@ir iGood F@ d

4. BLADEN,WATT-LENOI
!laden S' Pe- Sev.Wt.Fl.Pe Sev.Wt.Fl, Sev.Wt-Fl. -Fl. v.WC.Fl. Sev.W1.FI. G ,dj od Good
S.v.Wt.Fl ISev.Wt S. - Poor Go
257. ?tyatt 30% Sev.Wt.Fl.Pem. ISev.Wt. Fl. pe-. Fl, S-Wt.Fl. ' t:": ':'- WE-Fl. Sev.Wc.Fl. Po,or -Good Good Good
Lenoir 20% Sev.Wt.Fl.Perm. ISev.Wt. Fl. Pem. Sev.Wt.Fl. S:v@'W, Fl r .Sh-S.. Sev.-Wc.TSC Good Good Good Good
5. :AYBORO-KYDE-BLADEN
.vbor. 35% Sev.Wt.Fl.P -=Sev.Wt.Fl. [email protected]. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl.Cor. Sev.Wt.-FI.TSC Poor Good Good Good
12% Hyde 3 Sev WtFI. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev-Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl.Cor. Sev.Wc.Fl.TSC Poor Good Good Good
Bladen 25% Sev.Wt.Fl.Fe- 1 Sev.Wt.Fl.Pe Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev,Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wc.Fl.Cor. Sev 'W t.Fl.TSC jPoor Good Good Good
6. DARF-DOROVAN-PUNG0
Dare 40% Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl.- Sev.Wt.Fl. ISev.Wr.Fl. Sev.WE.Fl. I Sev.Wt.Fl. jPoor Poor IPoor Poor
20% Dorovan 307. Sev.Wt.Fl. S.v.wt.Fl. Sev.wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl@ ISev.WE.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. jPoor Poor IPoor Poor
Purgo 15% Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. I ev.wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. I Poor Poor J_Poor Poor

7. PONZER-BELHAVEN-WASBA
P ... er 40% Se-Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. S-.Wt.Fl. -WE. F P25!@ Good Good Good
:[email protected]. IS.v.Wt.Fl. I S.v,Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. I Sev.Wt.Fl. Ss' @e v no
I S.v.WL.Fl. 15e..Wt.Fl. SC.
26% Belhaven v.WE.F P C F Good Fair
S-Wt.Fl. Sev.Wt.Fl. Poor Good Good Good
Wasda 1157. 1Sev. t.Fl. ISev.Wt.Fl. _I-

DEFINITIONS OF SOIL LIMITATIONS

None c. Soils have properties favorable for the rated use. Limicacions are so minor that they can easily be overcome. Good perforinance
S,ighc - and low maintenance can be expected from these soils. I
Moderate S*I!g have P"Pert!. "ode-lely favorable for the rated use. Limitations @ar. be Overt- @ modiiied with planning, aesier.
.r pe cil - -te. n:e.

Severe - Soils have me or core properties unfavorable for the rated use. Limitations are difficult and costly to modify or overcome,
requiring major soil reclamation, special design, or intense maincenance.

Abbreviations for Limiting Factors: Abbreviations for degree of limitations: St mcEure whose footings
are in sub..i i.
Fl. - Flood Ha..cd Perm - Permeability Slt. Slight; Mod. - Moderate; Sev. Severe Refers to roads and streets
*
CK
151

07'
@3 5L
3
5.4

wt. - water Table BS - Bearing Strength chat have subsoil for base.
Sh-Sw - Shrink-swell Potential TSC -,Traffic Supporting Capacity ?eanu!s,,-tobjcco,,. @:ruck.
Cor %.rrosion Potential LFC - Low Filcer Capacity 81 Water Areas Lake Phelps. Lake Pungo Corn, soybean, small grain.
October 1973 I-R-33,397

The suitability of surface waters for various uses has been

categorized in North Carolina according to a system of water quality

classifications, which rank order fresh and tidal salt waters

according to their levels of pollution. Higher classificationwhich

denotes,for example, water for food processing can include lower

quality uses such as waste disposal, but not without degrading the

higher classification to a lower standard. Lower water quality

classifications can only be raised to higher classifications through

control and treatment of effluents. These nine classifications are

depicted in the form of a pyramid and are described in the following

table. (See Figure 21a and b)

The following tables reveal that there are only four classifi.-

cations,for surface waters out of a possible nine in Washington

County.,, Of these four, Class SB has the highest water quality,

These Class SB waters designate all of Bull's Bay.

Ground water is the exclusive source of water for municipalities,

farms and domestic use in the county, Even though this water supply

is abundant, groundwater in this area is usually hard and in need of

treatment before consumption, The two aquifers underlying the

county are the -Yorktown aquifer lying in the eastern two-thirds of

the county and the Castle Hayne aquifer lying in the western third

of the county. Yields on do.mestic'wells vary from less than ten

gallons of water per minute to more than 150 gallons per minute

while municipal wells--the largest users--pump between@200 and 300

gallons per minute. These rates vary due to the location and depth

of the well and its manner of operation.

FIGURE 21.a.

STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS

.... Classification
Name Of Stream ,...,Description Class Date Index No.

ROANOKE RIVER From 18 mile market at C Sw 9/1/57 23-(53).@
Jamesvill-e to Albemarle
Sound (Batchelor Bay)
Broad Creek From-,source to Roanoke C SW 9/l/57 23-54
River
Welch Creek From source, to Main Line C Sw 7/1/73 23-55-(1)6
SCL Railroad Bridge
Welch Creek From Main Line SCL Rail- D Sw 4/1/71 23-55-(2)
road Bridge to Roanoke
River
Conaby Creek From source to Roanoke C'@Sw 9/l/57 23-56
i'. River
ALBEMARLE.SOUND (Batchelor West of.a line extending B SW 9/l/74 24
Bay) from a point of land on
the southside of the'
.mouth of Black Walnut..
Swamp in a southerly
direction.to a poiVot of
land on the east side of
-the mouth of Roanoke
River
Eastmost River ''From Roanoke River to C Sw 9/l/57 24-1-(l)
N.C. Hwy. 45
Eastmost River From N.C. Hwy. 45, B Sw 9/l/74 24-1-(2)
including cutoff be-
tween Eastmost River
and Middle River to
-,Albemarle Sound
Kendrick Creek.-Mackeys From source to U.S. D Sw 4/1/61 30-9-(l),.
Creek) Hwy. 64 at Roper
Kendrick Creek (Mackeys- From U.S. Hwy. 64 at SC 7/1/73 30-9-(2)
@Creek) Roper to.Albemarl.e
Sound
Beaver Dam Branch From source to Ken- C Sw 9/l/74 30-9-3
drick Creek
Skinners Canal From source to Beaver C Sw 9/l/74 30-9-3-1::
Dam Branch
Main Canal From source to Ken- C Sw 9/l/74 30-9-4
drick Creek
Canal B Prom source to Main C Sw 9/l/74 30-9-4-1
Canal
Canal A From source to Main C SW 9/l/74 30-9-4-2:
Canal
Lewis Canal From source to Main C Sw 9/l/74 30-9-4-3
Canal

Bakers Swamp From,source to Ken- C Sw 9/l/74 30-9-5
drick Creek-
Pleasant Grove.Creek From source to,Albe- C SW 9/l/74 30-10
marle Sound
Chapel Swamp From source-to Albe- C Sw 9/l/74 30-11
marle Sound
Newberry Ditch From source to Albe- C Sw 9/l/74 30-12
marle Sound .
Sleights Creek From-source'-to Albe- C Sw 9/l/74 30-13
marle.Sound
Bull Bay, Entire Bay SB 7/1/73 30-14
Bull Creek. From source':to-,.Bull Bay C Sw 9/l/74 30-14-1
Deep'Creek From..source:'to.Bull Bay C Sw 7/1/73 30-14-2
Bunton Creek From'.source to Bull Bay. C Sw 7/1/73 30-14-3
Scuppernong River [email protected] to,mouth of C Sw 4/l/61 30-14-4-(.
Riders Creek (First Creek)
Moccasin Canal and From sources to Scupper- C Sw 9/l/74 30-14-4-2
connecting canals nong River,
Western Canal and From sources to Scupper- C Sw 9/l/74 30-14-4-3
connecting canals nong River
Ten Foot Canal From source to Western C Sw 9/1/74 30-14-4-3.
Canal 1
Wine Foot Canal From source to Ten Foot C Sw 9/l/74 30-14-4-3-
Canalw 1-1
Mountain Canal and From sources to Scupper- C Sw. 9/l/74 30-14-4-4
connecting canals nongRiver
Thirty Foot Canal From source to Scupper- C.Sw 9/l/74 30-14-4-5
nong-River
Old Canal From source to Scupper- C Sw 9/l/74 30-14-4-6
nong River
Phelps Lake Entire Lake C Sw 4/1/61 30-14-4-6-

Figure 21b CLASS DESIGNATIONS'FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
highest use
AII S A
FRESH B SB TIDAL SALT-
WATERS- C S C WATERS
l
e D
ow st u ses S D"
comparison of class designafio@s

Fresh Waters

Class A-I -Suitable as source of water supply for drinking, cul-
inary, or food processing purposes after treatment by,
approved disinfection only, and any other usage requir-
ing waters of lower quality.
Class A-Il Suitable as a source of water supply for drinking, cul-
inary or food processing purposes after approved treat-
ment equal coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and
disinfection, etc. and any other usage requiring waters
of lower quality.
Class B Suitable for outdoor ba thing and any other usage re-
quiring waters of lower quality.

Class C Suitable for fishing and fish propagation, and any other
usage requiring waters of lower quality.
Class D Suitable for agriculture and for industrial cooling and
process water after treatment by the user as may be re-
quired under each particular circumstance.

Tidal Salt Waters

Class SA -Suitable for shellfishing for market purposes and any
other usage requiring water of lower quality.
Class SB -Suitable for bathing and any other usage except shell-
fishing for market purposes.
Class SC -Suitable for fishing and any other usage except bathing
and shellfishing for market purposes.

Class SD -Suitable for navigation and any other usage except
fishing, bathing, and shellfishing for market purposes.

Source: NCDNER, Office of Water and Air Resources.

Of concern to local residents is' the impact upon their ground-

water supplies from large industries and1farming operations. Reports

have shown that these concerns are not justified, at least at the

present time. The Weyerhaeuser papermill in Ply-mouth draws upon

surface waters from the.Roanoke River and consequently does not

have an impact on that area's groundwater reserves.

A USGS report concluded that;the farming activities at First

Colony Farms would not appreciably lower the watertable in Washington

County, based upon data known at this time. The same report indicated
however, that phosphate mining operations in Beaufort County could

affect groundwater reserves in Washington County, but that precise

effects co,u ld not be well-established without further observation.

of more general concern is the height of the water table in

relation to the use of septic tanks for on-site sewage disposal.

Since many areas in the county come within two feet of the water

table, successful percolation tests may demand that no rainy weather

1.
occur during any recent period, The lack of-sufficient travel for

septi&,tank effluents through the soil thus poses substantial trouble

because waste waters receive only partial treatment, In addition,

the combined effects of poor drainage and a high water table can
occasionally c;ause serious malfunction to tank and drain systems

from effluents backing up instead of flushing' out,

Steep Slopes. No lands in the county exceed*twelve percent

slope except where highway cuts and fills are made and along portions

'*"Successful" percolation tests can also mislead developers and
buyers into thinking that a lot is exempt from septic tank problems.
A lot which "perks" in a dry season may fail together during .a rainy
season. Inquiries among local residents are often necessary to
determine if septic tanks cannot work during three or four months of
the year...

of the shore along Albemarle Sound west of Leonard's Point. At

this location, sound erosion has created some sharp cliffs rising

to nearly seven feet in height.

Fragile Areas

In general, few fragile land areas exist in Washington County

that would be subject to damage or destruction. Furthermore, no

remnant species, unique geologic formations, registered natural

landmarks or archeologic sites will be found here. However, the

county's surface waters comprise the largest group of fragile areas

and stand to receive the most damage from unplanned development.

Public Trust Waters. By definition, these waters are described

as such;

A. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands

thereunder from the mean high water mark to the seaward limit of

State jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject to measurable

lunar tides and lands.thereunder to the meanhigh water mark; all

navigable natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to the mean

high water mark or ordinary high water mark as the case may be,

except privately owned lakes to which the public has no right of

access; all waters in artificially created bodies of water in which

exists significant public fishing resources or otherpublic resources,

which are accessibleto the public by navigation frombbdies of water

in which thepublic has rights of navigation; all waters in artifi-
cially created bodies of@water in which the public has acquired

rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedication or any other means.

in determining whether the public has acquired rights in artificially

created bodies of water, t he following factors shall be considered:

(i) The use of the body of water by the public; (ii) the length of

time the public has used the area; (iii) the value of public resources

in the body of water; (iv) whether the public resources in the body

of water are mobile to the extent that they can move into natural

bodies of water; (v) whether the creation of the artificial body of

water required permission from the State; and (vi) the value of the

body of water to the public for navigation from one public area to

another, publicarea."

--CAMA Guidelines pp. 64-65.

In Washington County these waters are those of Bull's Bay.,

Albemarle Sound, the Scuppernong River, Lake Phelps, Pungo liake,

Welch's Creek, Conaby Creek, and Mackey's Creek. They are among the

listing of streams classLified for water quality on page 65. The

Scuppernong River, Welch's Creek, Conaby Creek and Mackey's Creek,

have been damaged for fis-hing and navigation through poor land

clearing practice. All of these streams exhibit poor water flow

from siltation which has settled 'in the streams to block small boats

and enlarge the floodplains. The finer silt remains suspended in

these waters killing fish habitats and diminishing waterfowl popula-

tions. Specific effects of development in Washington County upon

the Albemarle Sound, the Roanoke River and Bull's Bay are incon-

clusive due to lack of data; however, recent reports have recommended

that new studies@be undertaken to determine such effects as they

affect water quality. (From Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pamlico Region

by Ralph C. Heath, U. S.,Geological Survey.)

Pungo Lake is completely buffered by the federal government's

Pungo, National Wildlife Refug,e and consequently has little adverse

impact from poor land dev elopment. Lake Phelps, however, has no

such buffer and has been subject to past and present abuse. During

the 19201s, active efforts were made to try to drain the lake to

increase building sites. Today,the lake is spoiled by floating

trash and silt which accumulate on its rim. Although Lake Phelps

is the major portion of Pettigrew State Park, the lake's boundary

and the boundary for the park have never been established, thus

aggrevating water quality enforcement and maintenance problems.

Estuarine Waters. By definition these waters are: defined

in G.S. 113-229 (n) (2) as, "all the water of the Atlantic Ocean

within the boundary of North Carolina and all the waters of the'

bays, sounds, rivers, and tributaries thereto seaward of the

dividing line between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing

waters, as set forth in an agreement adopted by the Wil dlife

Resources Commisg ion and the Department of Conservation and

Developmen-E'filed with the Secretary of State entitled 'Boundary

Lines, North Carolina Commercial Fishing-inland Fishing Waters,

revised March 1,.1965," or as it may be subsequently revised by

the Legislature.

In Washington County, estuarine waters are the Albemarle

Sound and Bull's Bay. Their principal value is for recreation,

particularly sport fishing.

Bluegill, white perch and other panfishes such as the war-

mouth and flier comprise over 70 percent of the catch. Catfish,

crappie and redbreast are next in fisherman-take. Largemouth

bass, although it ranks first in preference as a gamo fish,

comprises only about four percent of the catch,,while stripped

bass makes up only about three percent. (Data from the N. C.

Wildlife Commission)

Coastal Wetlands. By definition, coastal wetlands are "any

salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional.flooding

by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters

reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses),

provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical storm tides.

Salt Marshland or other marsh shall be those areas upon which grow

some, but not necessarily all, of the following salt marsh and

marsh plant species: Smooth or Salt Water Cordgrass (Spartina

alterniflora); Black Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus).; Glasswort

(Salicornia spp.); Salt Grass (Distichlis Spicata); Sea Lavender

(Limonium, spp.); Bulrush (Scirpus spp.); Saw Grass (Cladium.

J=46-ense); Cat-Tail (Typha spp.); Salt-Meadow Grass (Spartina
Pat@ns); and Salt Reed Grass (Spartina cynosuro,ides)." Included

in this statutory definition of wetlands is "such contiguous land

as the Secretary of NER reasonably deems necessary to affect by

any such order in carrying out the purposes of this Section."

(G.S. 113-2301(a))

In Washington County there are two small tracts of coastal

wetlands. One is located at the mouth of Deep Creek where it

empties into Bull's Bay. This area is completely surrounded by

swamp and is inaccessible by any means of transportation except

boat. Little is known about the species of wildlife at this site.

Because of the extremely poor drainage and remoteness of this area

it is very.unlikely that any adjbining land use will pose serious

damage in the foreseeable future. The other area is located

�0

slightly east of Albemarle Beach. Greater impact is expected here

bb@cause,the adjoining land area is being surveyed for a subdivision.

Complex Natural-Areas,. By definition are "lands that support

native plant and animal communities and provide habitat conditions

or characteristics that have remained essentially unchanged by

human activity. Such areas are surrounded by landscapes that have

been modified but that do not drastically alt er the conditions

within the natural areas or their scientif ic or educational value.

In. Washington County, complex natural areas include the federal

government's Pungo National Wildlife Refuge. Its chief value is

that'.of a sanctuary for a variety of game birds and animals,

particularly deer, fox, wildcat, quail, squirrel, rabbit, dove,

woodcock, snipe, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, raccoon, mink, otter,

Canadian geese, wood duck and other breeds of waterfowl. The

Refuge also provides sanctuary for small numbers of black bear

which still inhabit the area. (Data from N,C. Wildlife Commission)

Historic Sites. By definition historic places are "listed or

have been approved for listing by the North-Carolina-,Hiztorical

Commission, in the National Register of Historic Places pursuant

to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; historical,

archaeological, and other places and properties owned, managed or

assisted by the State of North Carolina pursuant to G.S. 1,21;

and properties or areas that are designated by the Secretary of

the Interior as National Historic Landmarks.

The only historic site in Washington County meeting the

criteria of the National Register is Somerset Place on the shores

:91

of Lake Phelps. This mansion was once part of the most prominent

plantations in the region, and the earliest forerunner.of today's

large corporate farms, At the present time it is completely

surrounded on its land sides by large farms. No adverse impact is

likely to occur at the site unless tourist attractions and

residential subdivisions begin to occur in the vicinity of Lake

Phelps. Other historic sites of localinterest which are not on

the National:Register are St. David's Chapel in Creswell, Rehoboth

Church near Skinnersville, Garrett's Island, Home near Plymouth,

Lee's Mill in Roper, and M6rattuck Church near Playmouth. The
county also has some striking historic vegetation in a nie:Mnant-of

ancient cypress trees adjacent to the 30-foot: canal near Somerset,

Place. These trees, by.local accounts, were.planted@,by.the, slaves

of Somerset Place in the 1700's to demarcate thelboundary lines

of that property. They were thought to have originally extended

all the way to the Scuppernong River nearly' five.-,miles away, but

over the years were progressively cut for their,timber,. The

remaining stand of trees is about one-half mile in length.

Areas with Resource Potential

Productive Agricultural Lands, A 1974 land utilization survey

for Washington County reported nearly 70 percent of all land in the

county devoted to agriculture, including commercial forestry, in

the map of existing land use, row cropland can be found in all parts

of the county. However, the largest tracts in production lie in

the eastern two thirds of the county, occupied in large part by

First Colony Farms. Soils in this area are highly organic and.

until-recently, virtually undrainable. (See Figure 20) However,

corporate farming practi-ce has.made these areas productive, particu-

larly for corn and hog raising which have,doubled and tripled,

respectively, in production since 1970. (See Figures 6 and 15)

Commercial forests for.pulpwood.and-board lumbers are to be

found in the western, northeastern, and central parts of the

county. Its shipping value.is third behind harvested crop,and hog

and beef sales... Forest areas in the foreseeable future are likely

to remain intact in the western and northeastern portions of th e

county because the swampy lands there'are not economically feasible

to drain. Some encroachment of forest tracts in the Newland Road

areas of the county are possible by 1985, however this conversion

Would be for additional cropland, not non-far
m activity.

Thusfthroughout all of Washington County agricultural lands

are likely to remain productive resources, reinforced as they have

been with better yields, higher,sales and improved management

techniques.

Potentially Valuable Mineral-Sites

The major mineral resource in Washington County are its

forests which were described in the preceding section, The full'

value of this particular resource has not been reached because the
principal processing facility in th@ area, Weyerhaeuser Corporation's

papermill, is located'.dir-ectly across the county line in,:Martln.C6unty.:

No other major mineral resources are known to exist in the

county other than sand which the State Department of Transportation

extracts from a pit near the Albemarle Sound Bridge. A 1971 Overall

Economic Development Plan for the county cites some Titanium minerals

and Ilmenite sands that may be of commercial interest, but to-date

these resources have not been exploited. Lack of capital and poor*

market conditions are contributing factors to this situation.

Publically-Owned Recreation Lands. The Pungo National Wild-

life Refuge and Pettigrew State Park are the twoma3or pu .blic

recreation lands in Washington County. Both areas abound in fish

and wildlife, described in the "Fragile Areas" Section of Part IV.

The Pungo Wildlife Refuge covers approximately seven and one-half

square miles in Washington County and continues into Hyde County.

The largest portion of Pettigrew, State Park consists of Lake

Phelps, covering about 23 square miles in Washington County, and

extending partially into Tyrrell County. Located on the northern

rim of Lake Phelps is the historic Somerset Place, described

earlier in Part IV tinder "Historic Places."

The appraisal of recreation potential for Washington. County

indicates that there are opportunities for development of recreation,

enterprises both public and-private, Eleven kinds of outdoor

recreation were appraised as having potential for development.

Winter sports were considered to have no potential because of

climate.

The types of recreation having potential for development in

Washington County are summarized.as follows:

Vacation cabins, cottages and homesites have medium potential for
future development.

Picnic and field sports have medium potential for future develop-
ment.

Camping grounds for vacation campers have medium potential and
transient campgrounds low potential for future -development.

Natural, scenic, and historic areas have medium potential for
development,

Vacationfarms have medium potential for development with the
potential expected to decrease.

Hunting areas.for small game and waterfowl have high potential, big
game areas have medium potential because of limited habitat
resources.

Fishing waters have medium potential for future development.

Water sports areas have a medium potential for development.

Shooting preserves have a low potential for development.

Riding stables have a low potential for development.

Golf courses have a low potential for development.
(S ource: See Outdoor Recreation Potential for Washington.County)

Additional public gamelands on private lands in Washington

County are shown in Figure 22. This information is taken from the

N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission's 1975-76 Hunting and Fishing

Maps. Primary game species. to. be Tound at these locations include

deer, quail, rabbit, squirrel, rAccoon, dove, and waterfowl.

Privately-Owned Wildlife SanctuAries. The only privately

owned wildlife sanctuary in Washington County is a bear sanctuary

in the Bull Bay Gameland;which is owned by the Albemarle Paper

Company. (See Figure 22).

Capacity of Community Facilities

Existing Water and Sewer Bervices Areas

Plymouth and Roper have water service throughout all of their

incorporated limits. The Plymouth water service area extends outside

.the city, limits acros's U.S. Highway 64 to the Plymouth Garment Co.

.The Town of Creswell is presently laying a water system to.serve

its incorporated areas.

WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

Figure 22

A.
CI@ PRIVATE GAMELANDS
BEAR SANCTUARY
GAMELANDS

SOURCE: N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, 1975-76
Hunting and Fishing maps

The only other community water supplies-are small, privately

operated-systems serving several isolated mobile home parks in the

vicinity of Plymouth. Only the Town of Plymouth has a sewer system

and it only serves the incorporated portion of town, except for

short extensions across U.S. Highway 64 to the Plymouth Garment

C.6mpany, and the Washington County Hospital.

besign Capacities and Utilization of Existing Community Facilities.

Since the county has neither a water not, a sewer system of its own,

the only existing systems to describe are in the Roper and Creswell

areas. (The Plymouth system is described in the Plymouth Land Use

Plan.)

The Roper water system is being utilized at 41 percent of its

capacity with a flow;rate of 150 gallons pet minute from a single

we-11 Present plans for improving the Roper system include the

addition of a filter to remove impurities and a second well to

increase the rate of flow.

Creswell is currently laying a new community water system to

be constructed around a 100,000 gallon overhead storage tank.

There are no utilization.figures to report as yet, however, the

system has been designed to satisfy the estimated current needs of

that community,

Fire protection is provided by five volunteer fire departments

within a four mile radius of each other for all areas of the county

except the Wenona-area.

Garbage collection is provided in Plymouth, Roper, and Creswell.

The county provides.bulk containers at scattered site locations.

WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

Figure 23
IL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS
AND SERVICE AREAS

& LOCATION OF VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS

1. Plymouth Volunteer Fire Department
2. Roper Volunteer Fire Department
3. Skinnersville Volunteer Fire
Department
4. Creswell Volunteer Fire Department
Lake Phelps Volunteer Fire
Department

FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA
(4 Mile Radius)

SOURCE: Washington County
Manager's office

C a

All refuse is transported to a 12 acre landfill located off

N.C. 1300 (Mackey's Road). This fill is privately operated

according to a trench method and is adequate for all present use.

Existing school facilities are generally overcrowded and

antiquated. A list and description of existing school facilities

and their adequacy is described in Figure 24.

FIGURE 24

FACILITY DATA FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
PFCFES- CLASSRMS A DEUJACY OF SPECIAL FACILITIES
SIONAL OR n)- CA- MEDIA AUDI- G-R4-
YEAF ADDI- PERSON- TEAQiING BI PAC@l AUM. OR TOR- TOR- MEMBER-
RIA S
SCHOOL AND GRADES ACRES BUILT TIONS NEL STATIONS UNIT ITY SPACE LIBRARY MUSICI ARTI IU?4 IU4 HIP

Creswell Elem. (4-7) 16.1 1948 10 7 1 175 1 1 A 1 242

Creswell High (1-3, 8-12 -19-39 -IT3T,- 32 9 520 1 1 A __T8_5
1 53, 59 1
Fburth St. Elem. (1-2) 3.6 1930 1955 14 16 1 1 1 A A 31a--

Plyrmuth High (9-l2)__7r._r_ 1958 1960, 19- _79F A A A A 1 877
68, 70
Roper Elern. (1-3) 7.2 -1 A A I
59
Washington St. E_em_.____F3-_67j --- 97-1-N-36 A -1 690
48, 52
Washington Union Elern. (4-8)1 21.2 1 1953 1610 945,[ Jb JZ 1 1 720 1 1 A A
*Permanent faciliities only

The capacity for elemntary pupils was caTputed on the basis of 25 pupils per classroom and the capacity for secondary pupils was conputed on the
basis of 25 pupils and 90 percent utilization.

OOCE: A Adequatev I - Inadequate

SOUFCE: Washington County School Survey, 1973-1974.

VI.4 ESTIMATED DEMAND

General Requirements

"A population estimate for the following ten years shallbe

made and utilized as the basis for de termining land and facilities

demand and for classifying land areas. Ten year population

projections will be provided by the.Department of Administration

for.use in making population estimates. Projections will be

provided for counties and cities and towns having a population

greater than 2500. Accurate projections for t hose areas with a

populationof less than 2500 are not availabIle and must be developed*

by the local planning unit.

"The projections provided by the Department of Administration

are based on prior trends with annual-updates. The local govern-

ment may wish to use these trend projections as their.population

estimates or to modify them to include additional factors such as:

1. Seasonal Population;

2. Local objectives concerning growth;

3. Foreseeable social and economic change."

from CAMA "Guidelines"

Future Population and Economy

Ten Year Population Projections. Ten year (1985) population

estimates for Washington County were interpreted from information

provided by the N. C. Dept. of Administration's Office of State Planning.

Separate estimates were prepared for Plymouth, Roper, and Creswell

by DNER with consultation by the Plymouth Planning Board and

Washington County Planning Board.

101

Fiqure 25/ Future Population Pstiriates

19702 % 1975 % 1980 % 1965
Washington County 14038 .0% 14060 0% 14100 +3% 14500
Plymouth Township 751.2 +4% 7800 .+4% 8100 +6% 8550
Plymouth 477.4 +3% 4900 +4% 5120 +3% 5250
Lee's Mill Township 3407 _1% 3370 -1% 3340 +1% 3380
Roper 6803 +6% 7933 +3% 820 +2% 840
Skinnersville Township 1.386 -8% 1280 -8% 1180 -3% 1140
1
Scuppernong Township 173@ -7% 1610 -8% 1480 -3% 1430
Creswell 670 0% 670 +3% 690 +3% 710

notes:, (1) Township population includes Town population.
(2) Source: U. S. Census
(3) Roper contested its 1970 census and reported its actual
population at 750 persons. The 1975 figure reflects an
actual head count made in September, 1975. The percentage
of change from 1970-1975 is figured on.the, .750 figure, not
the reported 680 figure.

-Population Estimate -Attitudes of
residents in the towns and reside:n@t@al,,*in-,,,,..,.t-.h@e,,,-.,,-,rurial- areas ier
.considerably concerning local growth objectives, Rural residents

generally expressed the desire to want their. area kept "like it is"

without encroachment of industry and the town's limits into their

farmland. Town residents showed greater concern for additional

homes, stores, and industry.

Actual population trends from the census indicate only a small

overall population growth. The towns and their fringe areas show

expansion at the fastest rates while the farm areas show a steady

decrease. Data supplies by NCDOA for future population estimates

took into account the decreasing number of births and smaller

families which substantiate small growth rates. Agri-industry

thought to come to the county to be near First Colony Farms may

still develop, however, the Farm's short run economic impact

102

I Iq
WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA t

SWAMP BULL BA Y

-,@--KMCOUTH
4
Figure 26

TOWNSHIPS MAP

to i

RRJ

'7
lij PETTIGR STATE PARK

H E L p s

a
4

PUNGO
LAKE

6 E u F R I c 0 U N I y y U N

.10

-A N
WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

13
4
A'

ZWA@P BULL K4 Y
13

G
sy ol

Figure 26

TOWNSHIPS MAP

Z,
j I

"MG11 WK
41
z

L4 E p ff E L p S
ID

PV)VGO
LANE

C 0 U N I Y y D E
E U F 0

will continue to be primarily in production, and secondarily on

new employment. Seasonal population is of the "pass-through" variety

and does not contribute greatly to the county's economy. Some

factors which limit tourism in the county are its small population,

incomelevels, and primary roads congestion. The most well-known

and accessible destination point for tourist and recreational

activities is Somerset Place on Lake Phelps,and its expansion could

possibly improve the county's tourism potential.

Twenty@-five and fifty year Population Estimates. The following

.figures are based upon N.C. Department of'Administration's OBERS

Series-E Population Estimates and were extrapolated by DNER. They

are shown here only to indicate how present conditions might appear

in the distant future, not taking into consideration future events.

Cautionary foresight is essential when evaluating these statistics.

Residents living in the county 50 years ago could hardly have fore-

seen the amount and kind of change which took place from 1926 to 1976.

The only valid coriclusion from this information is that the county

is certainly to remain an agr icultural community having only a small

population--no greater than the present population of three counties

surrounding it. Within the county, growth can expect to occur

fastest along the paved roads-in the fringe areas of Plymouth and

in the beach-areas generally along the U. S. 64 N. C. 32

corridor.

i04

Piepx-re 27/ 50 Year Pcrpilatl-on

1985 % 2000 % 2025

Washington County 14,500 + 7% 15,500 + 8% 16,800
Plymouth Township 8,500 +15% 9,810 +10% 10,800
Plymouth 5,250 + 5% 5,510 + 8% 5,960
Lee's Mill Township 3,380 + 1% 3,420 + 4% 3,550
Roper @840 +,5% 880 + 8% 950
Skinnersville Township 1,140 -10% 1,0.20 + 8% 1,100
Scuppernong Township. 1,430 -13% 1,250 + 8% 1,350
Creswell 710 + 6% 750 + 8% 810

Long-tevm Eatxmates_and_Local Desires., Figures used to

estimate population growth for the years 2000 and 2025 were based

upon information furnished by the Department of Administration.

However, these population estini,ates advocate local attitudes about

growth,. expressed by residents ano officials at numerous meetings,

held during the Plan's presentation, simply stated, these attitudes

advocate "slow growth" for Washington County. Residents have.talked

about growth not being good for its ownsake if it occurs faster

than their ability to finance improved services. They have also

expressed strong feelings about seeing theirarea stay as it is and

not develop after the fashion of the region's larger towns and

cities. Consequen tly:their desires have been carried out with

restraint in the preparation of community objectives, future popula-

tion estimates, and land classification on land and water carrying

capacity. Detailed data is unavailable but the following analysis

is based upon the Soil Conservation Service's generalized soils maps

and-conv'ersations'with the-groundwater division of the Department

105

of Natural and Economic Resources.

Land and Water Carrying Capacity. Soils are the greatest

limiting factor in Washington County since more than 90 percent of

them have extremely poor.drainage characteristics and high shrink-

swell potentials for non-farm land use. (See Figure 20) These

conditions create foundation and septic tank problems in homes

an d businesses which can be overcome but at considerable expense

and trouble to the property owner.

Individual wells on individual lots have an ample supply of

groundwater, however, the water quality varies from fair to poor

because of high mineral content. Well water contamination from

septic tank effluents has not been a problem where the-Health

Department's requirement for 20,000 sq. ft. lots was followed.

in the be.a ch areas where lots have been platted less than

20,000 sq. ft., well water contamination has not yet taken place

because the water supply there has only been used seasonally.

However, this can become a public health hazard as more people

reside in the beach areas full-time. Subdivision controls county-

wide and zoning controls in the beach communities are recommended

to avert this health problem.

Soil and water carrying capacities have not posed difficulties

in Plymouth which furnishes water and sewer service within the

town limits. Roper has had serious soil problems due to

inoperative septic tanks. This condition has been accelerated

by the availability of public water from the town. The Town of'

Creswell has had serious septic tank problems and has taken action

106

to avert the contamination of private wells by installing a public

water system.. However this can lead to further problems from

overcrowding areas poorly suited for the use of septic tanks,

hastening the day when plans must be drawn for a community sewer

system. The Town of Roper has already had such plans. prepared and

hopes to implement them when it is financially prepared to do SO.

Subdivision and zoning have been recommended as practical ways to
control overbuilding within Roper and Creswell until both their

water and sewer systems are capable of.higher density development.

Population estimates for the towns and the county's unincor-

porated areas are such that future growth should not overtax the

capability of soil and water resources. Howeverf the adoption of

.subdivision,and zoning controls county-wide in the waterfront

areas and in the towns will help the county health department

deal more effectively with all plans for new development.

Seasonal Population Impacts. Seasonal population is not

expected to be a large factor in Washington County's growth si nce

the county is,not a destination for tourists coming to the

regioni Estimates for seasonal population were provided in,.Part,

II of the Plan. The most lasting impact will be -dp6n seqpn'd--

home development, but agein the rate of impact will be small.
Thusi according to a 1951 Geodedic Survey, 40 dwellings exis.ted

along all the shoreline fronting the Albemarle Sound, @By 19.75--

nearly 25 years later--that number had increased to approximately

100 dwellings with approximately 100 additional lots of.reco.rd.

platted and recordedi These new lots are expected to supply the

1,07

local market with its foreseeable needs for second homesites for

at least the next ten years.

e' Edonom
Futur' y

County labor force patterns show a higher level of employment.,
for men compared to women in-'1970 c ompared to the surrounding six

counties. This pattern holds,true for blacks as we 11 as whites.

Further study of industries that are best suited for women and the

attraction of such industries to the county can change thistrend.

The major identifiable trend and factor in the Washing-Eon.

County economy which would have an impact on further land use Is

the increased farm and production of bonded grain storage capacity

of First Colony Farms. The greatest portion of its existing

harvested cropland comes from its 28,700 acre holdings in Washington

County. As indicated in Parts II and III of the Plan these

holdings are not only likely to continue but increase when idle

cropland is made teady. for planting.

bushel grain elevator on the Farm's property near Lake Phelps

significantly-increases the county's capacity of commercial-grain.

storage facilities, and could be a major factor in new aqri-

industry choosing to locate nearby. However, no agri-industry

plans in support ofthe Farm,are foreseeable at the present time

by the Farm's manager and staff. Furthermore, future increases
in the Farm's 300 man"Vemployment are expected to draw upon the

existing labor pool within'the surrounding counties. Minor

increases in the Farm' s professional staff are expected to be

filled by persons from outside. the,area who may choose to commute

'108

instead of reside in the county, Consequently,the foreseeable

land.use impacts of this operation will be upon.the.conversion

of Woods to pasture.and pasture to harvested cropland, not vacant

land converted for new industry or new subdivisions.

Future Land Needs

in generalf future trends appear to increase land under

cultivation to approximately 60 percent or about 131,560,acres

by 1985. Most of this is expected in the Newland Road area of

the county, Urban growth can be expected along the Albemarle

Sound beaches, the fringe areas around Plymouth,.:the Macedonia

area in between Roper and Plymouth along Highway 64, and in

.Roper hnd Creswell in response to increased farming activities

requiring new agri-industry. The demand for water.front.lots for

second homes--a national trend--is likely to double the number,

of residences from an estimated 100 dwellings atpresent.to 200

dwellings by'1985. This will increase shoreline development from

a two mile strip now in sections in between crop lands,to a four

mile strip from Albemarle Beach to Leonard's Point and also

around Lake Phelps.

Land demands for the county's estimated population in 1985

are based,upon its ten-year population projections. These

acreage demands are only for residential housing. Also, they

are only shown for the areas of the county with a projected

increase in population.

109

I a ne ,ern@@n@!

Number of Number of
1975 1985 People Hous'eholds

Washington County 14,060 14,500 +440 +138
Plymouth Township 7,800 8,550 +750 +2@4
Plymouth 4,900 5,250 +350 +109
Lee's Mill Township 3,370 3,380 - 10 - 3
Roper 840 + 47 + 15
Skinnersville Township 1,280 1,140 -140 - 44
Scuppernong Township 1,610 1,430 -180 - 56
Creswell 670 710 40 + 11

1one household is estimated.to equal 3.2 persons.

New Density2 maximum
Households Per Acre Land Demand

Plymouth Township +234 1 hseh1d/3-,.acI-�-e's. 702 acres
Plymouth 4- 10 9 1. hsbhld/l.acre 109 acres
Roper 15 1 hsehld/l acre 15 acres.
Creswell 11 1, hsehld/1 acre 11 acres

2
Stan'dards for density ate based-upon the N.C. Land Classification
Systems standards of 2,000 population/sq. mi. for "developed"
and "transition" land classifications and 640 population/sq. mi.
for,"community" land cla.ssification.

Actual development could.occur on much less land than the

amounts shown, but the maximum acreage indicates the land that

ought to be available for development throughout the jurisdiction.

Thus 109 new households, for example, in Plymouth could be housed

to
,gether in 1985 on a.25 acre.subdivision having 10,000 sq@ ft.@

lots with Public water and sewers. However, these 109 families

represent mixed income levels and housing peeds,creating needs

for different prices of housing located in different areas. Also

vacant land available is not uniformly suited for development:

some of it has poor soils or would require economically

unfeasible utility extensions. Thus,the amount of land needed

in any area is computed for vacant land demands over the entire

area,and not altogether in one location. The areas of the

county not shown to have a land demand were omitted because,

there was no population increase shown for the ten year period

ending 1985. Thus,where no projected growth is shown, existing

reserves of platted land are presumed to satisfy the needs in
these areas@*,-',-' c.. r@,@ 7

Maximum land demands shown. for the three towns and Plymouth

Township can be adequately satisfied from the supply of vacant

land in each jurisdiction, however in the case of Plymouth a d-

Creswell, very little 1 and would be left for other purposes beyond

1985 unless these two towns take steps between now and then to

extend their town limits.

Future growth -in Plymouth is sharply limited by its past

history of annexation. Only four percent of the present incor-

porated area, or about 77 acres, has been annexed since 1947. Of

the estimated developable land within the town limits (about 413

acres) only 30 percent (124 acres) is within a few hundred feet

of existing streets and utilities. Consequently,the inventory of

available, vacant land that can be developed economically is in

considerably short supply to meet future economic needs@ However,

the 124 acres would be an adequate inventory for the maximum land

demand of 109 acres by 1985.

4.11

The seven square mile extraterritorial area surrounding

Plymouth,in Plymouth Townshiphas.the following pattern.-.52
TD
percent, forest (including the floodplain); 41 percent, aqri-

culture; seven percent buildings androads (up 12 percent from

1964). it is presumed that agricultural lands have the highest

potential.for conversion to urban land use because they are al-

ready cleared and drained. Even if no other housing were to

locate outside the extraterritorial.,limits of Plymouth, the 41

percent. of land devoted to agriculture in this zone (about

.1837 acres) would more than adequately.satisfy the maximum land

demand for 702"a'cres.

The Town of Roper (.9 sq. mi.) also has a more than adequate.

reserve of vacant land to satisfy its urban land demand.. The

principal kinds of existing land use in town are residential,

.16 percent; commercial, four percent; government and semi-publici

five percent; forest and swamp, 27 percent; row crop, 44 percent;

an'd barren areas not.under cultivation, follif'-L cent. The 44

percent of land for cropland equals approximately 25@ acres

..which is more than an ample stock of land for the estimated 15

acres of urban land demand by 1985.

The major constraint On future development in Creswell

(6 sq. mi.) is the lack of an adequate method-of drainage from
sWaMpy and fibod prone areas. Floodprone areas presently

constitute about 56 percent of the town's incorporated,limits.-

Cleared and drained cropland only comprises seven percent or

about 21 acres of the total land area ithin. the existing town

limits. This acreage is adequate for the estimated eleven acre

112

land demand, but leaves very little land available for other

uses.

Community Facilities Demand.

1985 Projected Utilization

Because the county's population is widely scattered, future

demand for water, sewer and schools will hecessarily.be dependent

upon the capacities of existing facilities in the Towns of

Plymouth, Roper, and Creswell. The following evaluation of

facilities in these three towns is taken from water and sewer

studies prepared by Moore-Gardner Associates (1.975) and L. E.

Wooten and Company (1976). Separate sections following these

describe school and highway needs based upon data provided by the

office of the Washington County School Superintendent and the

N. C. Department of Transportation.

At the present,time,the Plymouth water system is utilized-at

50 percent-of its capacity and its sewer system is utilized at

41 percent of its capacity. Water flow rates from the'town's three.

wells average 467 gallons per minute which is less than-the flow

rates recommended for fire-fighting purposes in a town of Ply .mouth's

size. However,the town has a large,-surplus of water from its

850,000 gallon storage capacity upon which to draw.

The present population of Plymouth with per capita water

demands of 80 GPD requires approximately 400,000 gallons of water

daily. It is expected that per capita usage will increase to 100

GP D by the year 2000. The projected population of Ply mouth by the

year 2000 will be 6, 000, which should result in an average day

demand of 60,000 gallons. The maximum day demand at 1.75 times

average day demand should.be 1,050,000 gallons.

113

WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

N
Figure 29

PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM
Hoore-Gardner Study, L975

SYSTEM IN USE OR IN
PLANNING BY 19
SYSTEM BY 1985
SYSTEM BY 1990
SYSTEM
By 1995
4::, SYSTEM AFTER 1995

ALL OTHER ROADS-NO SERVICE PLANNED
AT PRESENT

MY, 1976

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

isting system of,wells and elevate d-s torage are
-'Plymouth's ex

sufficient to meet the projected water demands of the municipality

beyond the year 2000, at which time Plymouth should be able to.

furnishan average of 150,000 gallons per day to County users

without exceeding 12 hours pumping time. When this rate is

reached, Plymouth should expand its water production capacity so

normal dail y operations do not exceed 12 hours. It is anticipa-

ted that Plymouth will have the capacity to continue to fulfill
area water needs. Those areasserved by Plymouth outside the

corporate 1 imits would be eligible for County participation in

financing where feasibility isdemb ns'trated.,"@...

(Source: Moore-Gardner Assos. Water Feasibility Study-,

1975).

.The.Roper water. system is being utilized at 41 percent of its
capacity with a flow rate of 150 gallons per minute from a single

@well. -Present plans for improving the Roper system includel-the

add ition of a filter to remove impurities.and a second well - t-o'

increase the rate of flow.

'When Creswell completes the improvements outlined above,

water demands through the year 1990 should be met with no

difficulty. However, there will be no reserve capacity for.
serving- areas o.utside@thefcorporate limits. As the needs-,,arise,

Creswell should-expand its water system to meet them. Those areas

outside the corporate limits served by Creswell would be eligible

for County participation in financing,when feasibility is demon-

strated, as required under the Washington.Co:unty Water Plan.

'Raw water supplies should continue to be developed from

groundwater sources, existing wells, treatment facilities, and

elevated storage in Plymouth, Roper, and Creswell should provide

adequate flows and pressures until 1985 when the projected average

day demand should be 1,046,880 gallons.per day. After this, or

sooner if demand exceeds projections, additional wells, treatment

facilities, and elevated storage will be needed. Elevated

storage and booster pumping stations can be located where demand

requires. Existing municipal well fields and-treatment facilities

should be expanded to maximize economy of operations. However,

thi.s economy could-be offset if long, large diameter water mains.

with few users along them are necessary to serve relatively

isolated population concentrations In these situations, it may

be more economical to develop independent groundwater supplies,

treatment facilities, and elevated storage tanks.

It is expected that per.capita usag(@ will increase to 75 GPD

by the year 2000. The projected population of Roper-by the year

2000 is 800,,,,@7hich would result in an average day demand of 60,000

gallons. The maximum day demand at 1.5 tim(@s average day.demand

would be 90,000 gallons.

Vhen Roper completes the improvements outlined above,, water.
demand projected through the year-2000 should be met with no

difficulty. in.addi@,tion, there will be exce ss capacity for

supplying areas outside thecorporate limitsi. If actual demands

do exceed projections, supplies can be increased through addit-

ional wells. The-treatment plant is being designed to facilitate

future expansion.-

116

ItIt is anticipated that Roper will continue to fulfill area

water needs. Those areas outside the corporate limits served by

Roper would be eligible for county participation in financing

when feasibility is demonstrated.

"Creswell has not had a water system on which to estimate

consumption. Engineers for the Town of Creswell estimate average

day demands by the year 2000 to be 75 gallons per capita per day

(GPCD), with maximum day demands at 125 GPCD. The population of

Creswell is projected to be 725 by the year 2000. This should

result in an average day demand of 54,375 gallons and a maximum

day demand of 25 Percent greater, or 67,969 aallons (Moore-Gardner studV).

"The Town of Plymouth operates a 0.8 MGD extended aeration

type wastewater treatment facility that discharges the final

effluent to the Roanoke River, a class tic Swamp" stream. The

facility is well maintained and is producing an effluent BOD5

and suspended solids of secondary quality. However, because the

treatment facility does not have disinfection facilities, the

assigned water quality standards of the Roanoke River are not

protected. Also, the treatment facility does not have adequate

sludqe treatment and disposal facilities and other fail-safe

measures such as provision of multiple units for major components

of the treatment Processes as required by the State, standby

power facilities at the treatment plant and at the main pump

stations, etc.- Accordingly, the Town of Plymouth will be required

to upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities to achieve the

current and future water quality goals of the Planning Area.

Furthermore, the existing sewer sYstem of the Town of Plymouth is

subject to excessive infiltration and inflow.

117

@In order to determine an estimated volume for infiltration,

wastewater volumes must be compared during low,groundwater and

high groundwater conditions. Flows during low groundwater

conditions in December, 1975 averaged 0.285 MGD, while high

groundwater flows in March, 1975 averaged approximately 0.566

MGD. From the data, it is estimated that there is about 0.280 MDG

of infiltration seeping into the sanitary sewer system,,;---

"-The present individual disposal system (septic tanks).at the

Town of Roper are causing a water pollution problem by means of

discharging untreated wastewater to nearby water courses. This

is considered to be a significant nuisance in the area. Also

the long-term.use of septic tanks and high groundwater conditions

in the area,may contaminate groundwater And create-a. possible

health hazard. To achieve the water quality;objectives and to

promote the,health, safeth, morals and general welfare of the

inhabitants, the Town of Roper will be required to@piovide waste-

water collection and treatment facilities.@

"Thedomestic wastewater loadings for the Towns of Plymouth

and Roper are based on 20-year population projpIctions, the'

operating data of the existing wastewater treatment.facility and

the data assembled from the existing reports. The' selected

design period of 20:@,years (1978'to 1998) Was chosen-as a reflection

with the
of reasonable life [email protected]@'the equipment associated
treatmed@lfacilities and of a reasonable time period. for payment

of bonds required to build the facilities. The design waste loads

and. flows are summarized in.F,-'@gu-r-,'e'-_30-.

FIGURE 30

... DES'IGY'.WASTE "LOADIS AND- FLOWS
@Present (1975) Future (1998)
Plymouth:-- Rope r - Total, Plymouth -Roper Total

Population 4,950 833, 5,783 6,500 910 7,410
Flow:l

Average Daily Flow, MGD 0.410 0.410 0.710 01090 0.800
Maximum Daily Flow, MGD. 1.157 1.157 1.420 0.180 1.600
Peak Daily Flow, MGD 1.400 1.400 1.775 0.225 2.000

BOD5-, lbs/day 1000 1000 1510 180 1690

TSS, lbs/day 850 850 1250 155 1405

lBasis of Average Design Flow:
Existing Average.Daily High Groundwater Flow 0.566 MGD
Future Domestic (1-500 P.E. @ 100 qpcd) 0.150 MGD
Sub-Total 0.716 MGD
10% Industrial Allowance 0.072 MGD
Inflow.Volume (See P. 8 of Appendix 1) 0.100 MGD:
Total 0.888 MGD-

Roper Wastewater Volume
Domestic (910 P.E. @ 90 gped) 0.082 MGD
10% industrial Allowance 0 * 008 MGD
Sub-Total 0. 090 MGD
Total Wastewater Volume 0.9478@MGD
I/I Rehabilitation 0.178 MGD
Design Capacity Existing Plant _0 . 8 0 0_ MGD

"A volume of 80,000 gpd is being incorporated into.treatment

plant design to provide for industrial growth. Such a volume is

considered minimal in view of industrial development activities in

the Planning Area in recent years.

"Referring to the zoning map (Figure 31) of the Town of

Plymouth the areas west and.'east of the Town have been planned for

future light and heavy industrial developments. In order to imple-

ment the land use objectives and to enhance the socio-economic

,conditions of the area, the requested 80,000 gpd volume for

industrial growth is warranted." (Source: Wooten Stud@'y 1976-),

The Town of Creswell has not had anything,more than a pre-

liminary report and sketch design (1970) on a sewage system.

Consequently,there are no engineering.details from which to determine

specificneeds. However, residents and officials of the town have

substantia-lized.the need for'-"'�;anitary and storm sewage to alleviate

the compounding problems froit the high water table, poor soils,

and poor drainage..

The need for future school sites is-based upon enrollment

projections and,in North Carolina., the design standards prepared by

the.Council of E ducation Planners, Based upon these criteria the

present needs seen for school facilities in the.,'@Obunty through 1985

call for two.new school sit6s, one elementary.,_. one junior high,

totaling about 175 acres and.in addition, 25 acres for new improve-
ments to the senior high school at Creswell (total: 200 acres of

improvements). Thus,the trend is towards phasing out old and

overcrowded facilities to build'hew facilities where land is

availablerather than to try to expand existing facilities by

eminent domain. No specific sites.are in planning at.-this time

Figure 31 Legend:

CONSERVATION-AGRICULTURAL
C A-2 CONSERVATION-AGRICULTURAL

JZ - ZdD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL'
7 MIXED RESIDENTIAL (WITHOUT TRAILERS)
9- 7A MIXED RESIDENTIAL (WITH TRAILERS)..

OFFICE &.INSTITUTIONAL

CENTRAL BUSINESS
C- -Z. GENERAL B6SINESS

HIGHWAY BUSINESS
C - 3

INDUSTRIAL-LIGHT
1-14 INDUSTRIAL-HEAVY

AtA

MOUTH, N. C.

-Ao

ZONING
MAP
C.

1975
SEPT.

f rom: L. E. Wooten Stjj@L

since the related bond issues would have to pass a vote of the

people.

.Department of Transportation traffic counts for 1973 and 1974

(see Figure 32) indicate that the average number of vehicles
traveling over the,s@reets in Plymouth and.the major roads in the

county are well within design standards for peak capacities.

However, this capacity is gained at the expense of reducing speed

limits over sections of highway that cannot be widened economically,

such as some narrow streets in Plymouth; or are not under consider-

ation for widening at the present time, such as U. S. Highway 64.

So 45 miles per hour speed limits become the rule over-sections

that once were 55 miles per hour, and 25 miles per hour speed

limits become the rule over sections that, once were 35 miles per

hour.

The Town of Plymouth has a Sketch Thoroughfare Plan p3@epared

by the Department of Trans@ortation in. 1972 which, however,@ does

not have engineering value@. No additional improvements are
proposed in Washington County in the Department of Transportation's

seven year plan for the county's only principal artery, U.S. 64.

Cost of New Facilities.

Detailed costs analysis are beyond the scope of this plan,

however, the following information is provided to qualify an

improve-
evaluation of the county's financial capability to make

ments. The county's Baa bond rating, while not outstan(ling, is

average for this region.

"Baa - Bonds are considered as lower medium grade obliga-

tions, i.e., they are neither highly protected nor poorly

1-22

WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROUNA DR4- fiRtv
1070

ASID

1300

t
0 3000
oo 230
to* Figure 32
43
200
- AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS
340 Its. 4 %.- (ADT)
ISO 0 ISO 1974 ADT
May 1976
100

1.4
SOURCE: N. C. Department of
N, T ansportation, Office
IN or
150
N. f Thoroughfare Planning
5D_
200 90

secured. Interest payments and principal security appear adequate

for the present but certain protective elements may be lacking or

may be characteristically unreliable over any great length of

time. Such bonds lack outstanding investment characteristics

and in fact have speculative characteristics as well."(From:

Moody's Bond Rating Service)

On an authorized debt limit of $11:4,000,000 the county

currently has bonds outstanding in the amount of $1,430,00 0.

Water and sewer bond issues do not figure @n this total if they

were,revenue bonds,. Bonds of this type are underwritten on the

basis of their ability to sell on the open market. (General

obligation bonds, however, are backed by the full faith and

credit of the county.)

124

VI. PLAN DESCRIPTION

Description of Land Classification System

"A land classification map shall be,prepared according to the

specifications set.forth in this'section. The following codes

shall be used:

Optional Codes
Class color Z!-ode Letter Code

Developed Solid rust D
Transition Hatched rust T

Community Cross-hatched rust C
Rural White R

Conservation Dot Green P

"Land classif ication shall be represented at least with

boundary lines around each category mapped, and with a single letter

code to indicate which category is intended. However, the map(s)

may optionally be submitted using color patterns to differentiate

between categories.

"The North Carolina Land Classification.$ystem contains five

classes of land:

a. Developed--Lands where existing populationdensity is

moderate to high and where,,there are a variety of land

uses which have the necessary public services..

b. Transition--Lands where local government plans to

accommodate moderate to high density development during

the following ten year period and. where necessary public

services'will be provided to accommodate that growth.

C. Community--Lands where low density development is

'grouped in existing settlements or will occur in such

settlements during the following ten 'iod and which
ye.ar:per

will not require extensive public services now or in the

future.

df Rural--Lands whose highest use is for*.agriculture,

forestry, mining, water supply, etc. based.on the'irnatural

resources potential.. Also, lands for future needs not
currently recog'niz .ed.

e. Conservation-FriagIle, hazard and other la nds necessary

to maintain a healthy natural environment and'.@necessary,

to provide for the public health, safety, or wel-fare.

These five classes provide a framework to be used by...local

governments to identify the general use of all.lands in each-
county. Such a system presents an opportunity for th.e*loca-1

government to provide for its needs as well as to consider those.

of the whole state. Also, they can make a statement of policy

on where and to what density they want growth to occur, and

where they want to conserve the county's natural resources by

guiding growth:.

As a statement of local policy consistent with statewide

needs and goals, the county land classification map will serve

as a basic tool for coordinating numerous policies', standards,

regulations, and other governmental activities at the local,

state and federal level., 8uth-coordination may be described

by five applications:

12.6

a. The Land Classification System encourages coordination and

consistency between local land use policies and those of State

Government.. Lands are classified by the local 'governments.

The Coastal Resources Commission then reviews those c.lapsifica-

tions to ensure conformance with minimum guidelines for the

system. The coastal county,maps@--taken together will be the

principal policy,guide for governmental decisions and activities

which affect land uses in the coastal area.

b. @_The System provides a guide for public investment in land.

For,ex4mple, state and local agencies can anticipate the need

for early acquisit ion of'lands and easements in.the Transition

.class for schools, recreation, transportation, and other public

facilities.

c.-The System can also provide a useful framework for budgeting

.and planning for the construction of community facilities such

as water and sewer systems, schools, and roads. The resources

of many state and@federal agencies, as well as those 'Of the

local,government which-are used for such facilities, can4,,then

be more efficiently allocated.

d.-In addition, such a System will aid in.-better coordination

of regulatory policies and.decisions. Conservation and Rural

Protection lands will help to focus the attention of state and

local agencies and interests.concerned with the valuable natural

resources of the state. On..the other hand, lands in the

Transition and Community classes will be of special concern to

0 those agencies and interests who work for high qua,lity@develop-

@ment through local land use controIs such as zoning and sub-

division regulations.

1:27

e. Finally, [email protected] can help to provide guidance for a more

equitable distribution of the land tax burden.

Private lands which are in the Rural and Conservation

classes should have low taxes to reflect the policy

that few, if any, public services will be provided to

these lands. In contrast, lands in the Transition class

should be taxed to pay for the large cost of new public

services which will be required'to support the density

of growth anticipated.

The local land classification. maps must be updated every

five years. Each class is designed to be broad enough so that

frequent changes in maps are not necessary. In extreme cas es,

such as when a large key facility, causing major repercussionsf

is unexpectedly placed in a county, the Coastal Resources

Commission can allow a county to revise its classification

map before the five year period is over,.

In addition, the Land Classification System allows a

-variety of detailed land use such as residential., commercial,

industrial, recreational, etc,,to occur within these classes.

There is flexibility under existing zoning enabling statutes

to change these detailed land uses whenever necessary.

Policiesi rules, and.actions concerning Areas of Environ-

mental Concern shall take precedence over.policies, rules, and

actions concerning the Land Classifications, in the event of

any conflicts."

T
ron, CA."@

128

Population Allocations to Transition, Community,
and Rural Land Classification

Population allocations to the transition, community and

rural land classifications in Washington County are based upon the

1975-1985 population estimates and gross land demands established

in Part III. The following table summarizes those allocations.

(See Figure 33)
40
Discussion of Allocated Population Densities

In Plymouth Township, the Transition areas consist of the

Liverman Heights subdivision (approximately 90 acres) and a 160

acre tract fronting U. S. 64 where it is intersected by Rankin

Lane in Plymouth, extending the length of a branch of Conaby

Creek. Both areas are built upon at present. Approximately 50

acres of Liverman Heights are now occupied by single-family
I
dwellings, housing approximately 160 people. The Rankin Lane%-

'U.S. 64 area is a commercial and light industrial strip a djoining

the existing town limits of Plymouth and is now approximately 50

percent developed with the Washington County Hospital-, the Plymouth

Garment Company, the East Carolina Supply Company, and other

smaller businesses, The Liverman Heights area is seen as an

-expanding residential area. The area adjoining U,'S. 6-4 is.seen

as an exp.anding commercial and @ndustrial area. Both of'-these

areas are within the capability of the Town of,.Plymouth to extend

water and sewer service by 1985 according to the town manager.

Consequently, these areas were assigned population densities of

2000 people per square mile as,Transition areas.

129

Figure 33/ LAND DEMAND ESTIMATES

@stimate Pop, Growth
of @975-85 1 Assigned Assigned
Known Vacant Pop, Pop, Density Vacant
Acreage Acreage Growth Per Sq. Mi, Land

Plymouth Twp, +750

Transition Areas 250 120 2000 375
Community Areas 6SO 340 640 340
Rural Areas - - 35

Plymouth +3SO

Developed Areas 1920 20 2000 62.5
Transition Areas 60 60 2000 187.5
Community Areas so so 640 SO.

Lee's Mill Twpi 10

Community Areas' 850 830 640 none
Rural Areas - - -

Roper + 47

Transition Areas 180 80 2000 47
Community Areas 290 260 640 -

Skinnersville Twp, -140

Community Areas 540 490 640 none
Rural Areas - - -

Scuppernong Twp. -180

Community Areas 950 930 640
Rural Areas - - - none

Creswell + 40

Community Areas 320 120 640 40

130

The Community Land Classification Areas.in Plymouth'Township

consist of the extension of Riverside:Plantation subdivision

(approximately 120 -acres), the residential strip development beg-

inning at Trowbridge Road@and extending west along U.S. 64 to the

Rolling Pines Subdivision two miles fromPlymouth (approximately

320 acres); the residential area fronting the Wilson Street

Extension north of U.S. 64 (approximately 30 acres);-the residential

area fronting N.C. 3,2 South one mile from.Plymouth (approximately

50 acres along a 500*foot wide strip divided by N. C. 32)_. And

another 500 foot wide strip beginning at East Main Street-U.S. 64).

intersection and extending east approximately 3.3 miles to the town-

ship boundary just west of Basnight Crossroad .(approximately 130

acres). The existing land use of all these areas,@except the,

Riverside Plantation area, consists of mixed rqsidentip@-@.:and.
commerc@al development, interspersed with small tracts.0i fields

a-nd woods. The extension of Riverside Plantation now covers open
fields" but this area is anticipated@for plating for residential

.lot sales in-the foreseeable future. The existing population of

these "Community" designated areas is approximately 640 peop1eppr

squaremile. Vacant land conversion to urban,land.uses are expected

to occur in each of these areas since all the areas except Riverside

Plantation front primary arterials (U.S. 64 N.C. 32) in the fastest

growing part of the county -the urban fringe surrounding Plymouth.

Furthermore each of these areas can be feasibly served by the

Plymouth water system. Thus, because these areas are expected to

continue their low-density growth, they have been designated as

7Community" areas.

131

The Town of Plymouth has approximately 1,020 acres (1,6 square

miles) "developed" by definition of the Developed Land Classifica-

tion. All of this land is built-upon except for approximately 20

acres of vacant lots scattered throughout the-town. In Plymouth

there are approximately 60 acres of Transition land which are

adjacent to the Riverside Plantation subdivision, north of East

Main Street. This area has been platted for a number of years and

has slowly been developed,for single family homes on half acre

lots. This deveIPpment is expected to be co,-ripletely filled by

1985 with all utilities from the town. The only Community areas

in Plymouth are in the western part of town, known locally as,the

"Sandhills" community. About 45 acres of this neighborhood.is

barren at present,occupied only by a few scattered homes totaling
approximately five additional acres (total: 50 acres). -l"his area.

is expected to develop as a lower middle income community having

water service from the town. by 1985.. It should be noted that.

Plymouth's projected population is 50 persons more than the amount

of "Developed," "Transition." and Community" lands available,-

,using the population densities incorporated in these definitions.

However,'F because all these figures are.estimates only,the general

pattern is more significant than the theoretical values. In

Plymouth's case, this population could be allotted to "RurcAl" Land

Classification areas.in Plymouth. Farm lands presently,comprise

about eight percent or approximately 154 acres.of the total areas

inside the town limits. These.lands havenot been projected for

conversion io,non-farm use in the next ten years,; however, they

could be developed if market'.conditions warranted a greater.return

13q

from lot sales instead of harvested cropland. The more signifi-

cant fact from these patterns is that the Town of Plymouth has a

very limited supply of land available for development beyond 1985.

Consequently, a local objective h as been adopted to-conduct an

annexation study of the fringe areas surrounding the town.

Lee's Mill Township has two "Community",areas-: approximately

550 acres of vacation homesites in a 500 foot strip from the mouth

of the Roanoke River to west of Pleasant Grove,and the strip high-

way development adjacent to U.S. 64-N.C. 32 from the Plymouth@Township
line approximately 4.7 miles to the western town iiktts of Roper.

This strip is also 550 feet wide,, divided by U.S. 64. It totals

approximately 300 acres of which 200 acres Are now vacant. Although

no population growth is projected for Lee's Mill, this estimate is

only for numbers of perm@anent@residents, -Seasonal population growth

is expected in.the future in the areasadjoining Albemarle Beach.

The U.S. 64-N.C..32 corridor is already occupied by the Macedonia

community with an average density estimated at one person per

acre, Current and previous plans havexecommended a public water
system along this U.S. 64-N.C,. 32 corridor,-citing @he current
population density of the area as the system's justification.

Thereforelthis area and the Albemarle Beach area have been

included as "Community" areas in this Plan.

The Town of Roper has ample "Transition" and "Community"

land areas upon which to allocate its projected population growth

of 47 persons by 1985. All 47 Persons have been allocated to the
"Transition" areas of the town which already have water service

and which would be the areas most likely to receive sewer service

when such a system is designed and constructed. "Community"

133

areas designated on the land classification map for Roper are

now vacant and are the principal areas for new subdivision

growth in town for the future. Two '@Conservation'l areas are

designated within the town for it's two school sites. in-the

event that these facilities are phased out, these sites may be

designated for use as public recreation areas.

Skinnersville Township has a projected population decline

for the period 1975-1985. However, as in Lee's Mill Township,

this decline does not mean that no one would move to the town-

ship in the@next ten years, but onlythat a greater number of

people would leave than would settle. At the same time, the

resident population decline does not take into account seasonal

population growth. In Skinnersville Township, seasonal popula-

tion growth is expected to be the principal source of new

residents in the area during the 1975-1985 period. This growth

,is expected to occur at-the Township border west of Pleasant

Grove to Newby's-Ditch east of the Sound Bridge (approximately

540 acres)-. At the present, thislarea ha:3 about 490 acres of

land undeveloped within a 500 foot border from the high water

mark, however, a number of lots have alreadv been.surveyed

with roads open to them. Zoning and subdivision regulations have

been recommended for this area to limit overcrowding of dwellings

in a small area and to reduce fire and septic tank problems.

In Scuppernong Township there are two "Community" areas.

The first adjoins the eastern town limits of Creswell, extending

approximately three-quarters of a mile east of the town limits

134

along U. S. 64 in a corridor 500 feet wide (that is, 250 feet

each side of the highway). This area is primarily seen as a

slowly developing commercial district. Approximately 40 acres of

the 50 acres in this area are Undeveloped at present, but are.

expected to develop in the future. Future population growth has

not been shown be cause it is expected to be negligible and very

easily accommodated on the vacant land already available, The

second "Community" consists of about 900 acres in a 50.0 foot wide

strip surrounding Lake Phelps, from the Tyrrell County line clock-,

wise to the boundary of Somerset Place.. There are approximately

60 lots of record with an estimated dozen,dwelling:@',existing at

present. Further building activity is expected to,,6ccvr here at a

slow but steady rate in the future.

All of the Town of Creswell is designated as a "Communityll

area, except,,,.fbr the two school sites which have been,classifie'd@

."Conservation." About 120.acres of the 320 acres in this ."Community"

classification are undeveloped at present, however'because mUch of

the land now vacant is floodprone, the actual.,,.inventory of

land.available which,does not require ektensive.drainage improve-

ments is on ly about 27 acres. While the limited population growth

estimated for 1985 can be accommodated on this 27 acres, very little
acreage would be available for other activities. Consequentiy there

is a need for Creswell to expand its town limits thesame as the

Town of Plymouth in order to provide for its future land use needs

and population growth beyond 1985. To,fiitther this end, the

adoption.of zoning and extraterritorial jurisdiction were included

in the set of local objectives for Creswell.

135

VII. PROPOSED INTERIM AREAS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

The 1974 Legislature found that "the coastal area, and in

particular the. estuaries, are among the most biologically produc-

tive regions of this State and of the nation" but in recent years

the area "has been subjected to increasing pressures which.are

the result of the,often conflicting needs of a society expanding

in,industr.ial development, in.population, and in the recreational

aspirations of its citizens."

"Unless these pressures are controlled by coordinated manage-

ment," the Act states, "the very.features of the coast which make

it economically, aesthetically, and ecologicallyrich will be

destroyed."

7'To prevent this destruction the Act charges the.Coastal

.Resources Commission with the responsibility for identifying

types of areas,.and designating specific areas--water as well as

land--Inwhich uncontrolled or incompatible development might

result in irreparable damage. It further instructs the Commission

to determine what types of use or development are appropriate

within such areas, and it calls on local governments to give

special attention to these environmentally fragile and important

areas in developing their land use plans.

'-The identification and delineation by local governments will

not serve as a designation of.AECs for the purposes of permit

letting. The designation of AECs for purposes of,-the permit

program shal:l be by a written description adopted by the

Commission, and such designations will be equAlly applicable

-136

to all local governments in the coastal area. At the present

time the Commission will not attempt to map AECS with sufficient

detail to enable a permit 16tting agency in all cases to

determine solely on the basis of such a map whether a particular

area falls within an Area of Environmental Concern. The determin-

ation as to whether a particular area is within an AEC will be

based on the written description of the Area of Environmental

Concern which will be adopted by the Commission. The Commission

will continue to study the possibility of mapping AECs with

sufficient detail.to serve in this permit program and may base

the permit program on maps if the capability exists to do so.

These amended Guidelines specifically require that. the

preliminary local plans should include identification of each

proposed.AEC. The plan must also include written statements.of

specific land uses which may be allowed in each of the proposed

classes of AECs. These allowable land uses must be consistent

with the policy objectives and appropriate land uses found in

this chapter. In addition,'local governments may submit maps

delineating proposed AECs with the preliminary Land Use Plan.

Such maps are not a part of the land use plan but should be
submi:@ted concurrently with it..

Local planners should note that there are a few instances

where one category of Areas. of Environmental Concern may overlap

with another. Where this is found to occur, the policy of the

commission is to require the local plan to adopt allowable land

uses within the area of overlap consistent with the more

restrictive land use standard,

-137

"No development should be allowed in any AEC which would
I @@
result in a contravention or violation of any rules, regulations,

or laws of the State of North Carolina or of local government in

which the development takes place.,

"No devel opment should be allowed in any AEC which would

have a substantial likelihood of causing pollution of the waters

of the State to the extent that such waters would be closed to

the taking of shellfish under standards set by the Commission

for Health Services pursuant to G. S. 130-169.01.11

--From: CAMA "Guidelines"

138

Proposed AECs in Washington County

The following seven categories of environmentally sensitive

areas have been proposed by the Washington County Board of

Commissioners as Interim Areas of Environmental Concern: estuarine

waters, historic places, complex natural areas, public trust.waters,

state parks,t"cQastal wetlands, and sound erodible areas.

Estuarine Waters

Description. Estuarine waters are defined in G.S. 113-229 (n)

(2) as, "all the water of the Atlantic Ocean within.the boundary

of North Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds, rivers

and tributaries thereto seaward of the dividing line between

coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters, as set forth in

an agreement adopted by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the

Department of Conservation and Development filed with the Secretary

of State entitled I Boundary Lines, North Carolina Commercial

Fishing-Inland Fishing Waters, revised March 1, 1965,1" or as it

may be subsequently revised by.the Legislature.

.Location. In Washington County,'e.s tuarine-waters consist

of Albemarle Sound and Bull's Bay.

Significance. Estuaries are among the most productive

natural environments of North Carolina. They not only support

valuable commercial and sports fisheries,,.but are also utilized

for commercial navigation, recreation,'and aesthetic purposes.

Species dependent upon estuaries such as menhaden, shrimp,

,139

flounder, oysters and crabs makiaup@over 90 percent of the total

value of North Car olina's commercial catch.. These species

must spend all or some part of,their life cycle in the estuary.

The high level of comniercial and sports fisheries and the

aesthetic appeal of coastal North Carolina is dependent'upon the

protection and sustained quality of our estuarine waters so as

to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic and

aesthetic values.

Appropriate Ifses, Appropriate uses shall be those consis-

tent with the above policy objective. Highest priority shall be

allocated to the conservation of estuarine waters. The development

of navigational channels, the use of bulkheads to prevent erosion,

and the building of piers or wharfs where no other feasible alter-

native. exists are examples of-land uses appropriate within

estuarine waters, provided that such land uses will not be detri-

mental to the biological and physical estuarine functions and

public trust rights. Projects which would directly or indirectly

block or impair-existingnavigation channels, increase.--shoreline
erosion, dep8sit'spoils below mean high tide, cause adverse.water

circulation patterns, violate water quality standards, or cause

degradation of shellfish waters are generally considered

incompatible with the management-of estuarine waters,
Fitagile, Historic or Natural Resource Areas Historic Places

Description. Defined as historic places that are listed,

or have been approved for listing by the North Carolina

Historical Commission, in the National Register of Historic

14-0

Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966; historical, archaeological, and other places and properties

owned, managed, or assisted by the State of North Carolina

pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 11966;

.historical, archaeological, and other places and properties

owned, managed, or.assisted by the State of North Carolina

pursuant to G. S. 121; and properties or areas ttat are

designated by the Secretary of the Interior as National Historic

Landmarks.

Location. In Washington County the following historic places

have been proposed: Somerset Place.on Lake Phelps, St. David!s
Chapel in Creswell, Rehoboth Churchnear SIdnnersville on

U.S. 64, line of cypress trees near Lake Phelps adjoining the

30 footcanal (historic vegetation), Morratuck Church near

Plymouth and Garrett's Island Home near Plymouth,,

@Significanoe. Historic resources are both non-renewable

and fragile. They owe their significance to.their association

with American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.

Properties on or approv6d for the National Register of Historic

Places may be of national, state,.or local significance.

Policy Objective. To protect and/or preserve the integrity

of districts, sites, building-s,.and objects in the above

categories.

Appropriate'Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those

consistent with the above stated policy objective. Land use
which-will result in substantial irreversible damage to the

historic value of the area is inappropriate.

Fragile, Historic or Natural Resource Areas Complex Natural
Areas

Description. Complex natural areas are defined as lands

that support native plant and animal communities and provide

habitat conditions or characteristics that have remained@

essentially unchanged by human act ivity. Such areas are

surrounded by landscapes that have been modified but that do

not drastically alter the conditions within the natural areas or

their scientific or educational value. Such areas will be

determined by the Commission, after consideration of written

reports or testimony of competent experts, to be rare within a

county or to be of particular scientific or educational value.

Location. In Washington County.the Pungo Nat ional Wildlife

Refuge has been proposed for classification.as a complex natural

area,

Significance. Complex natural areas provide the few

remaining examples of conditions that existed within the coastal

area prior to settlement by Western man. Often these natural

areas provide habitat conditions suitable-for rare or endangered

species or they support, plant and animal communities

representative of pre-settlement conditions. These areas help

provide a historical perspective to changing natural conditions

in the coastal area and together are important and irreplaceable

sc ientific'and educational resources.

Policy Objective. To preserve the natural conditions of

the site so as to safeguard its existence as an example of

naturally.occurring, relatively undisturbed plant and animal

142

communities of major scientific or educational value.

Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those

consistent with the above policy,objective. Lands within the AEC

shall not be planned for uses-or kinds of development that will

unnecessarily jeopardize the natural or primitive character of

the natural area directly or indirectly through increased

accessibility. Additionally, lands adjacent to the complex

natural area should not be planned foradditional development

that would unnecessarily endanger the recognized value of the

AEC. The variability between kinds of complex natural areas and

between land uses adjacent to those natural areas means that the

range of permissible uses and intensity of use must be carefully

tailored to the individual area.

Areas Subject to Public Rights -,Certain Public Trust Areas

Description. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands

thereunder from the mean high water mark to the seaward limit of

State jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject to measur-

able lunar tides and lands thereunder to.the mean high water mark;

all navigable natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to the

mean high water mark or ordinary high water mark as the case may

be, except privately owned lakes to which the public has no righ t

of.access; ail waters in artificially created bodies of water in

which exists significant public fishing resources or other public

resources, which are accessible to the public by navigation from

bodies of water in which the public has rights of navigation; all

waters in artificially created bodies of water in which the public

has acquired rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedication or

-143

any-other means. In determining whether the public has acquired.

rights in.artificially created bodies of water, the following

factors shall be considered: (i) the use of the bo& of water by
y

the public; (ii) the length of time the public has used the area;

(iii) the value of public resources in the body of water,; (iv)

whether the-public resources-in'the body of water@are mobile to

the extent that they,can move into natural bodies of water; (v)

whether the creation of the artificial body of water required

permission from the State; and (vi) the value of the body of water

to the public for navigation from one public area to another

pqblic area.

For purposes of the description in,5.0 and 5.1, the following

definitions shall apply:

1) Mean High water Mark means the line on the shore
established by the average of all high tides. It is
established by survey based on available tidal datum.
In the absence of such datum, the mean high water mark
shall be determined by,physical markings or comparison.
of the area in question with an area'having similar
physical characteristics for which tidal.datum,is
readily available.

(2) Navigable,means navigable-in-fact.

(3) Navigable-in-fact means capable of being navigated in its
natural condition by the ordinary modes of navigation
including modes of navigation used for recreational
purposes...'The natural condition of a body of water for
purposes of determining navigability shall be the condition
of the body of water at mean high water or ordinary high
water as the case may be, and the condition of the body
of water without man-'mmade obstructions and without tempo-
rary natural.obstructions. Temporary natural conditions
such as water level fluctuation and temporary natural
obstructions which do not permaneptly-or totally prevent
navigation do not make an otherwise navigable stream non-
navigable.

144

@(4) Ordinary High Water Mark means the natural or clear line
impressed on the land adjacent to the waterbody. it may
be established by erosion or other easily recognized
characteristics such as shelving, change in the character
of the soil, destruction of terrestridl-- vegetation or its
inability to grow, the presence of litter and debris, or
other appropriate means which consider the characteristics
of the surrounding area. The ordinary high water mark
does not extend beyond the well defined banks of a river
where such banks exist@.

Location,. In Washington County, the following waters have been,

proposed-as public trust waters: Albemarle Sound, Bull's Bay, Lake

Phelps, Pungo Lake%,-Welch's Creek, Conaby Creek, Mackey's Creek,

and the S.cuppernong River.

S.ignificance. The public has rights in these waters including,

navigation and recreation. In addition, these waters support

valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have aesthetic value,

and are important potential resources for economic development.

Yoli,cy Obj.ective.. To protect public rights for navigation

and recreation and t.o.preserve and manage the public trust waters,

so as to safeguard @tnd perpetuate their biological, econom ic and

aesthetic value.

.Appropriate Uses' Appropriate uses shall be those con-

.sistent with the above po liq-y objective. Any.land use which intera-

feres with the public@right of navigation, or other public trust

rights, which the public may be found.to,..have in these waters,,

shall not be allowed. The development of navigational channels,

drainage ditches, the use of bulkheads to prevent erosion,and

the building of piers and wharfs are.examples of appropriate

land use.

145

Fragile, Historic or Natural ResourcesAreas - Existing National
or State Parks

Description. Defined as existing sites that have been

acquired for use a,s:,national or-state parks,,, as identified by the

Secretary of Natural and Econo mic Resources.

Location. In Washington County, Pettigrew State Park has

been proposed for this classification.

Signi ficance. Existing national or state parks are areas

containing environmental or natural resources of more than local

significance where uncontrolled or incompatible development could

result in major or irreversible damage to important historic,

cultural, scientific, or scenic values; or natural systems; or

would be detrimental to the recreational uses of natural systems.

These sites provide. (1) areas of unique or scenic value;

(2..)recreational uses of natural resources; (3) portrayal and

,interpretation of plant and animal life, geology and natural

features; and (4) presermation of scientific sites and natural

areas of s'tatewide importance.

Policy Objective*. To protect and preserve the scenic,

historic, cultural, scientific and natural values of national or

state parks.

Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those

consistent with the above policy objective, All.development in

parks shall be planned and executed so as to in no way.impair,

damage"'or detract from the values for which the areas were estab-

lished to preserve and protect. In parks or parts of parks that,

do not contain natural areas or scientificsites, facilities for

suchoutdoor activities as picnicking, swimming, boating, fish-

146

ing, hiking, nature study, and camping; and facilities normally

associated with simple play fields incident to picnicking and

organized camping are examples of appropriate land uses.

Facilities for recreational activities such as organized camping

are examples of appropriate land uses. Pacil ities for recreational

activities such as-organized sports and athletic contests are

examples of inappropriate uses. In parks or parts of parks con-

taining natural areas or scientific sites, minimim developed paths

and trails are examples of appropriate land uses., Facilities for

recreational activities such as swimming, camping, picnicking,

and the like are examples of inappropriate land uses in these

areas.

Coastal Wetlands General

Coastal wetlands are defined as "any salt marsh or other

marsh. subject.to regular oroccasional flooding by tides,

including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the

marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses),

provided this.shall not include hurricane or tropical storm tides.

Salt mars.hland or.othermarsh shall be those areas upon whiah,

grow somel but not.necessarily alli of the following salt marsh

and marsh plant'species: Smooth or salt water Cordgrass (Spartina Ink

alterniflora); Black Needl.erush (Juncus roemerianus@); Glasswort

(Salicorn' p.); Salt Grass (Distichlis--@S
ia sp ppd-.@cata) ; Sea Lavender

(Limonium spp.1); Bulrush (Scirpus spp.); Saw Grass,(Cladium

Jamaicense); Cat-Tail (Typha spp.); Salt Meadow Grass (Spartina

cynosuroides-).." Included in this statutory definition of wet-

lands is "such contiguous land as the Secretary of NER reasonably

i4l

deems necessary to affect by any such order in carrying out the

purposes of this Section." (G.S. 1113-230 (a))

Coastal Wetlands - Other Coastal Marshland

Description. All other marshland which is not low tidal

marshland and which contains the species of vegetation as listed

in the first paragraph under Section 1.

Location, In Washington County, the coastal wetlands proposed

as an area of environmental concern are approximately 37 acres of

freshwater marsh surrounding the mouth of Deep Creek where it

enters Bull's Bay and approximately ten: acres of marsh on Albemarle

Sound approximately 300 yards east of the end of N.C. 132 near

Albemarle Beach.

Significance. This marshland type also contributes to the

detritus supply necessary to the highly productive estuarine system

essential to North Carolina's economically valuable commercial

and sports fisheries.

The higher marsh types offer quality wildlife and waterfowl

habitat depending on the biological and pliysical conditions of

the marsh. The vegetative diversity in t1ale higher marshes

usually supports a greater diversity of wildlife types than the.

limited habitat of the low tida.1 marsh. This marshland type also

serves an important deterrent to shoreline-erosion especially in

those marshes containing heavily rooted species. The dense system of

rhizomes and roots of Juncus roemerianus are highly resistent to

erosion. In addition, the higher marshe s are effective sediment

traps.

Policy Objective. To give a high priority to the preserva-
tion and management of the marsh so as to safeguard and perpetuate
their biological, economic and aesthetic valuesi

148,

Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consi-s*tie-n-t with the above '.-_p.olicy objective. Highest priority shall

be allocated to the conservation of existing marshlands. Second

priority for land use allocation of this type shall be given to

development wh@-ch requires water access and cannot function anywhere

else, such as portsi docks and marinas, provided that the actual

location of such facilities within the marsh c6nsider coastal,

physical and biological systems and further provided that feasible

alternatives regarding location and design have been adequately

considered and need for such development can. be demonstrated. Such

allocation may only be justified by the projected land-use demands

and by community development objectives, but in no case shall..the

allocation exceed the capacity of the marshland system to sustain

losses without harm to the estuarine eco,system unless the losses

would be offset by a clear and substantial benefit to the public.

F cessivp, Enosion Are@@p ..7.Astuarine and-.
Natural Hazard Areas,.. x
,,I@iver Erodible._Areas

Description. Defined as the area above ordinary high water

where'excessive erosion has a high probability of occurring. In
delineating the landward extent of this area a reasonable 25-year

recession line shall be determined using the best available infor-

mation. The information necessary to@identify these areas will be

supplied by the State Geologist.

Location. In Washington County,proposed sound erodible areas

are defined by a strip of land 75 feet wide from the mean high

water mark of Albemarle Sound and Bull's Bay at the mouth of the

Roanoke River where it enters Albemarle.S.ound and extending,to the
county line where it intersects Bull Is Bay.

149

Significanae. Th e-estuarine and sound river erodible areas

are natural hazard areas especially vulnerable to erosion. Develop

ment within this type AEC is subjected to the damaging,process of

erosion unless special development standards and preventive

measures are employed.

Policy Obj.ec'tive. To insure that development occurring

within these areas is co .mpatible with the dynamic nature*of the

erodible lands thus-minimizing the likelihood of significant loss

of prope.-ty..

A
ppropriate Land Uses Appropriate land uses'-shall be those

consistent with the above policy objective, Permanent or sub-

stantial residential,commerc-,al, institutional or industrial

.structures Are not appropriate uses in estuarine and sound and

river erodible areas unless stabilization has been achieved a-long

the affectedreach. Recreational, rural and conservation

activities represent appropriate land uses in tho.se erodible

areas where sh or eline.protective constructionhas not been

completed.

i50

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Part I. INTRODUCTION

(pamphlet) "Coastal Area Management: A New Look on the
Horizon," North Carolina State University Agricultural
Extension Office. 1974.

'Part II. DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS

U. S. Census, Department of Commerce, 1960.
U..S. census, Department of Commerce, 1970.
Economic Study of the Dare Beaches, St,ephens.As'soc.iates,
Raleigh, N. C., March, 1973.
Washington County.Land Utilization and Crop Acreage
Survey, 1961-1974, Office of Crop Statistics, N. C.
Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Labor Force Estimates, Bureau of Employ-
ment Security Research, N.C. Employment Security
Commission, Nov. 1975
Community Audits, Division of Community, Assistance;
Northeastern Field Office, N. C. Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, 1975.
County Business Patterns, Department of Commerce, 1973.
Gross Retail Sales, Sales Management-F 19,74.
Land Use Analysis: Washington County, N.C. DNER:
Division of Community Assistance, 1974.

Part III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
Historic Washington County, Washington County.Historical
Society,: Plymouth, N.C., 2nd edition.
Norfolk Southern Railroad, Old Dominion Line an'd Connections
(Chapter 6: JO*hn,L. Roper Lumber Company) by Richard Prince,
..Wheelwright.Lithographing Company, Salt Lake City, UT, 197.2.
Ed Craft, Soil Conservation District, Plymouth
Guy Whitford, Agricultural Extension Office, Plymouth
Housing Survey and Work Program: Washington County, N.C.
0 DNER,.1973.
Watershed Map: Washington County, N@C. SCS, Raleigh (1973),
.Topographic.Maps, U.S. Geological Survey, 1951.
Shoreline Erosion Inventory: Washington County.
Soil Conservation Service: Plymouth Office, 1972.
Orthophotographic Aerial Maps, USGS, 1914,

Part IV. CONSTRAINTS

General Soil Map, Washington County,N.C. USDA-SCS, Oct. 1972.
Shoreline Erosion Inventory: Washington County, N.C. USDA-SCS,
.1972.
Darrell Windslow, District Sanitarian, Washington County Health
Department, Plymouth.
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters
@of the Pasquotank River Basin, DNER--Divisi.on of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section, Feb., 1976.
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters
of the Roanoke River Basin, DNER--Division of Environmental
Managementf Water Quality Section, Feb., 1976.
Geology and Ground Water Resources.of the Swan Quarter Area, N.C.
N.C. Department of.Water Resources (DNER)-7Divisi.on of Ground
Water, 1964.
Hydrology of the Albem'arle-Pamlico Region, USGS, 1975.
1974 Land Utilization and Crop Acreage for Washington County.
Department of Administration--Crop Statistics.l.
Agricultural Sales Estimates,from Guy Whitford, N.C.S.U.,
ASCS
Washington County Overall Economic Development, Plan, Economic
Development Committee, T.R. Spruill, Chairman, 1971.
1975-76 Hunting and Fishing Maps for North Carolina Gamelands,
Wildlife Resources Commission,-Division of Game, 1975.
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division.,of Game, 1975.
Outdoor Recreation Potential for Washington County, N.C.
USDA-SCS, 1973.
Water Feasibility Study for Washington County, Moore-Gardner.
Associates, Greensboro, August, 1975.'
201.Facilities Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Improvements, Plymouth-Roper Facility,Planning Area, Washington,
County, N.C.--L.. E. Wooten and Company, Raleigh, February 1976.
Comprehensive Water'and Sewer Planning Report, Washington County,
N.C.,--L.E. Wooten and Company, 1971.
Community Audits, DNER-Division of Community Assistance Develop-
0 ment Section, 1976.
Washington County School Survey, 1972-73, Department of Public,
Instruction--Div-ision of School Planning, 1973,,
Office of Business-Economic Research Service (OBERS) Series "Ell
population proj,,ections, 1980-2000, Department of Administration,
0 State Office of Personnel, 1975.
Census Enumeration District Maps, Washington County ECU-RDI,
1975.

152
0

North Carolina Leisure Industries Manualf Department of Natural
and Economic Resources-Division of Commerce and Industry (now
Division of Economic Development), 1972.

CAMA Guidelines, January, 1973.

S. D. O'Niell, Washington County School Superintendent, 1975.

1974 Average Daily Traffic (ADT).Counts: Washington County,,N.C.

DOT-Division of Highways, Planning and Research Branch, 1975.

Moody's Bond Rating Service.

Wa shington County Audit, Pittard and Perry, CPAs, 1975.

Bill Hattmano Washington County Manager: Plymouth, 1976.

"North Carolina Highways: Highway Improvement Program, 1974-1981"
N. C. DOT - October, 1974,

Wildlife and Land Use Planning With Particular Reference to Coastal
Counties" N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, April, 1975.

"151

Ix. Plymouth-Washington County Plan Relationship

Both land useplans for the.Town of Plymouth and Washington

County (which includes the Towns of Roper and Creswell) were

prepared by the same staff and.citizenl,s Steering Committee to

insure the greatest amount of agreements between local objectives

for the town and the county. This Committee consisted of seven

local residents from the incorporated and unincorporated areas of

the county and met throughout 1975, Both.the Planning Board for

the Town of Plymouth and the.Planning Board for the County'met

jointly to review the draft plan and land classification maps

prior to the first submission of the draft plans in November,

1975. The final plans for Plymouth and the county were

reviewed in a joint public hearing on May 7, 1976 by members of

the Board of County Commissioners and Plymouth Town Council.

154

X. APPENDIX

Results of Attitude Survey Taken May, 1975

(County-Wide Summary Shown Below)

LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOALS

1. Where do you live (check one)

29% Town of Plymouth 9% Skinnersville Township
19% Plymouth Township 9%, Town of Creswell
15% Town of Roper 7% Scubp(@rnong Township
13% Lee Mills Township

2. What is your occupation? (check.one that best describes yourself)

10% Farmer .12%- White collar job- 21% Housewife
18% Student 28% Blue collar job '3% Retired
7% Unemployed 1% No Response (Other Write-in)

3. Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(approximately acre)

52% Yes 42% No

4. Do you have your own well?
64% Yes 22% No 10% 1 am on city water.

5, Do you have your own individual septic tank?
70% Yes 23% No 4% (using privy)

6. Are you satisfied with the quality of water?

75% Yes 22% No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?,
16% Yes 66% No 10% Not applicable
(using privy or city sewer)

8. Do you feel that different types of land uses such as
residential, commercial, and industrial should be .... (check one)
62% Separated as much as possible, or
22% Allowed to develop unre8tric.ted.

-15 5

9.. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational
facilities?

25% Yes 68% No
It not, what type would you like to see developed (fill in)-
52%, responding with additional comments

10.- Do you want additional residential growth in your community?,
52% Yes 17% No 27% Not sure

11. Do you want additional industrial growth in your community?

66% Yes 14% No -18% Not sure

12. Do you want additional commercial growth in your community?
65% Yes 10% No 21% Not sure

13., Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood?

53% Yes 40% No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
33% responding with additional comments

14. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase the
health programs and services?

63% Yes 25% No
if yes, what types of programs and services? (,.fill in)
28% responding with additional comments

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase,
educational programs and services?

Yes 8% No
16. Do you.like your county and neighborhood as it is now?

53% Yes 36% No
What do you want changed? (fill in)
What should be protected or maintained? 39%.responding-with
additional comments

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in the area?

34% Yes 55% No

18. Do you feel that water pollu.tio n or,poor fishi--.ig is. a problem
in the area?

43% Yes 48% No

k56

19. Would you rather... 22% A. limit growth, or 53% B. promote the
development of additional services such asTublic water and.
sewer systems in areas where development could not take place
.without such services?

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer improve-
ments?

24% Yes 33% No:, 32% Not sure@

21. Below is a list of some services and-functions provided by
local government. Please check or fill in those services or
functions which need'improvement:

38% police 30% hospital 44% garbage pick-up
35% fire 21% library 20% historic pre-
51% dog control 25% public housing servation
2% responding with additional comments 36% building
inspection

22. Additional comments. (attach s,eparate sheets if necessary)
16% responding with additional comments.

157

SCHOOL SURVEY RESULTS

SKINNERSVILLE TOWNSHIP

LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOALS

1. Where do you live? (check one)

Town of Plymouth 72% Skinnersville Township
Plymouth Township Town of Creswell
Town of Roper Scuppernong Township
Lee Mills Township

2. What is your occupation? (Check one that best describes yourself)
(15%) 11 Farmer (6%) 4 White collar job (24%) 17 Housewife
(13%) 9 Student (29%)21 Blue collar job (6%) 4 Retired
(7%) 5 Unemployed Other (write in)

3. Is your home located on a lot larger t1lan 20,000 square feet?
(60%) 43 Yes (35%) 25 No

4. Do you have your own well?
(81%) 58 Yes (15%) 11 No

5. Do you have your own individual septic tank?
(76%) 55 Yes (24%) 17 No

6, Are you satisfied with the quality of water?
(75%) 54 Yes (22%) 16 No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?
(13%) 9 Yes (81%) 58 No

8. Do you feel that different types of land uses such as residential,
commercial, and industrial should be... (check one)

(54%) 39 A. Separated as much as possible, or
(24%) 17 B. Allowed to develop unrestricted.

9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreation
facilities?

(18%) 13 Yes (78%) 56 No
If not, what type would you like to see developed? (fill in)
39 responses (54%)

158

10. Do you want additional residential growth in your community?
(50%) 36 Yes (19%) 14 No (29%) 21 Not sure

11. Do you want additional industrial growth in your community?
(58%.) 42 Yes (24%) 17 No (17%) 12 Not sure

12. Do you want additional commercial growth in your community?
fa
(60%) 43 Yes (15%) 11 No (25%) 18 Not.sure

13. Are the roads'and streets adequate in your neighborhood?
(56%) 40 Yes (35%) 25 No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
21 comments (29%)

14. Do you feel that.the county should strive to increase the
health programs and services?
(63%) 45 Yes (25%) 18 No
If yes, what types of programs and services? (fill in)
24 comments (33%)

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase educa-
tional. programs and services?
(85%) 61 Yes (6%) 4 No

16. Doyou like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
(54%) 39 Yes (40%) 29 No
What.do you want changed? (fill in) 32 comments (44%)
Whatshould be protected or maintained?

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in the area?
(31%) 22 Yes (64%) 46 No

18. Do you feel that.water pollution or poor fishing is a
problem in the area?
J40%) 29 Yes (56%) 40 No

19. Would you.'rather.- (25%) 18 A. limit growth, or (44%) 32
promo
te.the@development of additionalservices such as
public,water and sewer systems in areas where development
could not take place without such services.

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer
improvements?
(21%) 15 Yes (38%) 27 No (33%) 24 Not sure

15,9

Below is a list of some services and functions provided by
local government. Please check or fill in those services or
functions which need improvement:
(35%) 25 police (31%) 22 hospital (39%) 28 garbage pick-up
(51%) 37 fire (11%) 8 library (19%) 14 historic pre-
servation
(49%) 35 dog control (26%) 19 public housing
(19%) 14 Building
inspection
Land inspection, tax & energy controls, bulkhead permits,
(4%) 3 Other.

22. Additional comments. (Attach separate sheet if necessary)
13 comments (18%)

160

SCHOOL SURVEY RETURNS

SCUPPERNONG TOWNSHIP
LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOALS

1. Where do you live?
Town of Plymouth Skinnersville Township
Plymouth Township Town of, Creswell
Town of Roper 60 Scuppernong Township

Lee Mills Township

2. What is your occupation? (check one that best describes yourself)
(23%) l4 Farmer (15%) 9 White collar job. (17%)10 Housewife
(12%) 7 Student (25%)15 Blue collar job ( 2%) 1 Retired
( 7%) 4 Unemployed

3. Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(approximately 1/2 acre)
(82%) 49 Yes -.7 No

4. Do you have your own well?
(93%) 56 Yes (7%) 4 No

5. Do you have your own individual septic tank?
(92%) 55 Yes (8%) 5 No.

6. Are you satisfied with the quality of water?
(85%) 51 Yes. 9 No
(15%)

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?,
(17%). 10 Yes (80%) 48 No

8. Do you feel that different types of land uses such as
residential, commercial, and industrial should be ... (check one)
(70%) 42 A. Separated as much as possible, or
(22%) 13 B. Allowed to develop unrestricted.

9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational
facilities?
(28%) 17 Yes (42%) 42 No
If not, what type would you like to see developed? (fill in)
36 comments (60%)

161

10. Do you want additional residential growth in your community?
(58%) 35 Yes (18%) 11 No (.23%) 14 Not sure

11. Do you want additional industrial growth in your community?
(72%) 43 Yes (18%) 11 No (10%) 6 Not sure

12. Do you want additional commercial growth in your community?
(60%) 41 Yes (17%) 10 No (13%) 8 Not sure

13. Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood?
(65%) 39 Yes (33%) 20 No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
14 comments (23%)

14. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase the
health programs and services?
(62%) 37 Yes (.27%) 16 No
If yes, what types of programs and services? Hill in)
17 comments (28%)

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase
educational programs and services?
(87%) 52 Yes (5%) 3 No

16. Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
(60%) 36 Yes (32%) 19 No
What do you want changed? (fill in)
What should be protected or maintained? 19 comments (32%)

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in the area?
(18%) 11 Yes (75%) 45 No

18. Do you feel that water pollution.or poor fishing is a
problem in the area?
(43%) 26 Yes (45%) 27 No

19. Would you rather (20%) 12 A. limit growth, or (53%) 32.
B. promote the development of additional services such as
public water and sew@r systems in areas where development
could not take place without such services?

162

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer improve-
ments?

(32%) 19 Yes (38%) .23 No (22%) 13 Not sure

21. Below is a list of some services and functions provided by
local government. Please check or fill-in those services
or functions which need improvement:
(33%) 20 police (33%) 20 hospital (48) 29 garbage pick-
up
(32%) 19 'fire (45%) 27 library
(l8%) 11 historic
(43%) dog control (17%) 10 public-housing preservation
(22%) 13 building
inspection

22. Additional comments. (attach separate sheet if necessary)
11 comments (18%)

163

SCHOOL SURVEY RESULTS

TOWN OF CRESWELL

LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOALS

1. Where do you live? (check one)
75 Town of Creswell

2. What is your occupation'? (check one that best@describes yourself)
@(12%) 9 --.,FArmer 8%) 6 White collar job (239p@@--@ 17 Housewife
(21%) 16 Student (25%) 19 Blue collar job 3%) 2 Retired
8%) 6 Unemployed

3. Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(approximately @, acre)
(55%) 41 Yes (44%) 33 No

4. Do you have your own well?
(7 (@i) 57 Yes (21%) 16 No

5. Do you have your own individual septic tank?
(83%) 62 Yes (16%) 12 No

6. @Are you satisfied with the quality of water?
(60%) 45, Yes (37%) 28 No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?
(23%) 17. Yes (65%) 49 No (80.@) 6 No septic tank.

8. Do you feel that different types of land uses such as
residential, commercial, and industrial should be
(check one)
(64%), 48 A. Separated as much as possible, or,
15 B. Allowed to develop unrestricted.

9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational
facilities?

(16%) 12 Yes (81%) 61 No
If not, what type would-you like to see developed? '(fill' in)
31-comments (49%)

16 4,_

10' Do you want aaditional residential growth in your community?
(51%) 38 Yes (15%) 11 No (29%) 22 Not sure

.11. Do you want additional industrial growth in your community?
(72%) 54 Yes (8%) 6 No (16%) 12 Not sure

12. Do you want additional commercial growth in your community?
(72%) 54 Yes (5%) 4 No (200-6) 15 Not sure

13. Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood?
(43%) 36 Yes (45%) 34 No-

If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
31 comments, (41%)

14. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase the
health programs and services?
(72%) 54 Yes (19%) 1.4 No
If yes, what types of programs and services? .(fill in)
29 comments (39%)

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase
educational programs and services?
(89%) 67 Yes (5%) 4 No
16. Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
(53%) 40 Yes (35%) 26 No
What do.you want changed?@(fill in). 27 comments (36%)
What should be.protected or maintained?

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in t- area?
(23%) 17 Yes (55%) 41 No
0
18. Do you feel that water pollution or poor fishingis a
problem in the area?
(45%) 34 Yes (48%) 36 No

19. Would you rather ... (13%) 10 A. limit growth, or (69%) 51 B.
promote the development of additional-services such as
public water and sewer systems in areas where development
could not take place without such services,>

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer improve-
ments?

(32%) 24 Yes (23%) 17 No (32%) 24 Not sure.

165

21. Below is a list of some services and functions provided by
local government. Please check or fill in those,services
or functions whIch need improvement:
(44%) 33 police 1.(4.7%) 35 hospital (43%) 32 garbage pick-up
(33%) 25 fire (49%) 37 library (21%) 16 historic preser-
vation
(60%) 42 dog:control. (29%) 22 public
(35%) 26 building inspection
housing

22. Additional comments. (attach separate sheet if necessary)
7 comments (9%)

166

PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP

LAND DEVELOPMENT.POLICIES AND GOALS

1. Where do you live? (check one)
160 Plymouth Township

2. What, is your occupation? (check one that best describes yourself)
(4%) 7 Farmer (14%) 22 White collar job (16%) 26 Housewife
(22%) 35 Student (39%) 62 Blue collar job (3%) 4 Retired
(1%) 1 Unemployed (1%) 5 Other (write in)

3. Is your home-located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(approximately h acre)
(61%) 98 Yes (36%) 58 No

4. Do you have your own well?
(83%) 133 Yes '(10%) 16 No 9J am on city water

5. Do you have your own individual septic tank?
(86%) 137 Yes (9%) 14 No 6 1 am on city sewer

6. Are you satisfi ed with the quality of water?
(78%) 124 Yes (19%) 31 No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?
(15%) 24 Yes (78%) 124 No 5 Not applicable-I am on city sewer

8.. Do you feel that different types of land us 'es such'as
residential, commercial, and industrial should bef'..(check one)
(74%) 118 A7 Separated as much as possible, or
(18%) 29 B. Allowed to develop unrestricted.

9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational
facilities?

(28%) 45 Yes (68%)@ 108 No
If not, what type would you like to see developed? (fill in)
95 comments (59%)

1.67

10. Do you want additional residential growth in your community?
(44%) 71 Yes (33%) 52 No (18%) 29 Not sure

11. Do you want additional industrial growth in your community?
(62%) 99 Yes (19% 30 No (18%) 29 Not sure

12. Do@you want additional commercial growth in your community?
(63%) 100 Yes (13%) 20 No (24%) 38 Not sure

13. Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood?
81 Yes (39%) 63 No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
63 Comments (39%)

14. Do you feel that the county.should strive to increase the
health programs and services"
(54%) 96 Yes (29%) 47 No
If yes, what types of programs and services? (fill in)
43 Comments (27%)

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase
educational programs and services?
@(79%) 127 Yes (9%) 15 No

16. Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
(56%) 90 Yes 46 No
What do you want changed? (fill in) 60 comments (43%)
What should be protected or maintained?

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in@the area?
(44%) 71 Yes (44%) 70 No

18. Do you feel that water pollution or poor fishing is a
.problem, in the area?
(43%) 69 Yes. (43%) 68 No

19. Would you rather (36%) 57 A. limit growth, or (42%) 67 B.
prom6te the.development of additional services such as
public water and sewer systems in areas where development
could not take place without such services?

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer improve-
ments?

(9%) 15 Yes (44%).: 70 No (29%) 46 Not sure

168

21. Below is a list of some services and functions provided by
local government. Please check or fill in those services or
functions which need improvement:
(46%) 73 police (21%) 33 hcrspital (46%) 74 garbage pick-up
(24%) 38 fire (6%) 9@ library (27%) 43 historic preser-
(5 6%) 90 dog control (20%) 32 public vation
housing (25% 40 building inspection
4 comments(other)

22. Additional comments (attach separate sheet if necessary)
29 comments (18%)

169

TOWN OF PLYMOUTH RETU4--NS

LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOALS

1. Where do you live? (check one)

237 Town of Plymouth

2. What is your occupation? (check one that best describes yourself)
0 Farmer (24%) 58 White collar job (19%) 45 Housewife
(22%) 51 Student (27%) 63 Blue collar job (1%) 3 Retired
(5%) 12 Unemployed

3. Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(approximately @2 acre)
(28%) 67 Yes (66%) 156 No

4. Do you have your own well?
30 Yes 167 No 50 1 am on city water

5. Do you have your own individual septic tank?
38 Yes 170 No 45 1 am on ctty sewer

6. Are you satisfied with the quality of water?
(80%) 189 Yes (19%) 44 No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?

16 Yes 61 No 164 Not applicable-I amon city
sewer.

8. Do you feel that different types of land uses such as
residential, commercial, and industrial should be,','(check one)
(63%) 150 A. Separated as much as possible, or
(24%) 56 B. Allowed to develop".,@-unrestricted.

9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational
facilities?

(24%) 56 Yes (76%) 179 No
if .not, what type would you like to see developed? (fill i n)
144 comments (61%)

10. Do you want additional residential growth in your community?
(56%) 133 Yes (15%) 36 No (28%) 66 Not sure

17 0,

11. Do you want additionaLindustrial growth in your community?
(70%) 167 Yes '(10%) 24 No (18%) 43 Not sure

12. Do you want addi tional commercial growth in your community?
(70%) 167 'Yes (7-06) -16, No (21%) 50 Not sure

13. Are the roads and streets-adequatein your neighborhood?
0 (46%) 109 Yes (48%) 114 No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
98 comments (41%)

14. Do you fe el that the county.should strive to increase the
health programs and services?
(64%) 151 Yes (25%). 59 No
If yes, what types of programs and services? (fill in)
63 comments (27%)

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase
educational programs and services?
(85%) 202 Yes (10%) 23 No

16. Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
(55%) 130 Yes (39%) 92 No
What do you want changed? (fill in) 100.comments (42%)
What should be protected or maintained.

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in the,,.area?
(50%) 119 Yes (39%) 92 No

18. Do you feel that water pollution or poor fishing is a problem
in the area?

(41%) 96 Yes (50%) 118 No

19. Would you rather (19%) 46 A. limit growth, or (58%) 138 B.
promote the development of additional services such as
public water and sewer systems in areas where development
could not take place without such services?

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer
improvements?
(21%) 50 Yes (27%) 63 No (42%) 99 Not sure

-171

21. Below is a list of someservices and functions provided by
local government.Please check or fill in those services or
functions which need improvement:
(44%) 104 police (21%) 49 hospital (50%) 118 garbage pick-up
(23%) 54 fire (6%) 14 library (23%) 54 historic preser-
(58%) 138 dog control. (25%) 60 public vation
housing (27%) 65 building inspec-
tion

22. Additional comments. (attach separate sheet if necessary)

44 comments, (19%)

172

LEE'S MILL TOWNSHIP

LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOALS

.1. Where do you live: (check one)

105 Lee Mills Township

2. What is your occupation? (check one that best describes yourself)
(10%) 117armer (10%) 11 White collarjob (18%) 19 Housewife
(14%) 15 Student (37%) 39 Blue collar job (1%) 1 Retired
(9%) 9 Unemployed

3. Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(approximately,@, acre)
(48%) 50 Yes (44%) 46 No

.4. Do you have your own well'>
(68%) 71 Yes (2'5%) 26 No 1(3%) 3 1 am on city water

5. Do you have your own individual septic tank?
(74%) 78 Yes (18%) 19 No (2%) 2 1 am on city sewer

6. Are isfied with the quality of wa-Eer?
you sati
(76%) 80' Yes (18%) 19 No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?
(17%) 18 Yes (66%) 69 No ..(8%) 8 Not applicable-no sept,3',c tank

8t Do you feel that different types of,land uses such as
residential, commercial, and industrial should be ... (check one)

(54%) 57 A. Separated as much as possible,, or.
(22%) 23 B. Allowed to,develop unrestricted,

9. Do you feel that your nei4hborhood has adequate recreational
facilities?

(22%) 23 -Yes (70%) .74 No

If not, what type would you like to see developed?'(fill in)
51 comments, (49%)

10. Do you want additional residential growth in your community?
(52%) 55 Yes (12%) 13 No (27%) 28 Not sure

173

11. Do you want additional,industrial growth in your community?
(64%) 67 Yes (10%) 10 No (18%) 19 Not sure

12. Do you want additional commercial growth in your community?
(67%) 70 Yes (7%) 7 No (18%) 19 Not sure

13. Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood?
(49%) 51 Yes (44%) 46 No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
37 comments,.(35%)

14. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase the
health programs and services?
(64%) 67 Yes .,(24%) 25 No
if yes, what types of programs and services? (fill-in-)

15. Do you feel that,the county should strive to increase
educational programs and services? J
(87%) 91 Yes (7%) 7 No

16. Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
(47%) .49 Yes (36%) 38 No
What do you want changed? (fill in)
40 comments, (38%)
What should be protected or maintained?

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem,,i.n the area?
(30%) 32, Yes (59%) 62 No
18. D.o you feel thatwater pollution orpoor fishing is a
problem in the area?
(39%) 41 Yes (50%) 52 No

19. would you rather (22%) 23 A. limit growth, or (52%) 55 B.
promote the development of additional services such as public
water and sewer systems in areas where development could not
take place without such services?

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer
improvements?
(24%) 25 Yes (28%) 29.No (36%) Not sure

21. Below is a list of some services and functions provided by
local government. Please check or fill in those services
or functions which need improvement:

(29%) 30 police (24%) 25 hospital (43%) 45 garbage pick-up
(33%) 35 fire (12%) 13 library (12%) 13 historic preser-
(43%) 45 dog control (20%) 21 public vation
(23%) 24 building
housing
inspection

22. Additional comments. (attach separate sheet if necessary)

comments (12%)

175

TOWN OF ROPER

LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOALS

1. Where do you live? (check one)

121 Town of Roper

2. What is your occupation? (ch eck one that best describes yourself)
(7%) 8 Farmer (10%) 12 White collar job (28%) 34 Housewife
(23%) 28 Student (13%) 16 Blue collar job (2%) 2 'Retired
(11%) 13 Unemployed

3. Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000,square feet?
(approximately --@ acre)
(33%) 40 Yes (59%) 71 No

4. Do you have your own well?
(31%) 37 Yes (26%) 31 No (42:%) 51 1 am on city water.

5. Do you have your own.indivi,dua 1 septic tank?
(62%) 75 Yes (34%) 41 No 0%) 5 1 ayn on city sewer.

6. Are you satisfied with the quality of water?
(72%) 87 Yes (25%) 30 No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?
(19%) .23 Yes- (68%) 82 No (7%) 9 N/A-No sewer; privy..

8. Do you feel that different types of land uses such as
residential, commercial, and industrial should be ... (check one)

(55%) 66 A. Separated as much as possible, or
(24%) 29 B. Allowed to develop unrestricted.

9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational
facilities?

(36%) 43 Yes (59%) 71 No
If not, what type would you like to see developed? (fill in)
42 comments (35%)

10. Do you want additional residential growth in your community?
(51%) 62 Yes (8%) 10 No (36%) 43 Not sure

176

11. Do you want additional industrial growta in your community?
(613%) 76 Yes (7%) 9 No (26%) 31 Not sure

12. Do you want additional cIoMmercial growth in your community?
(62.%) 75 Yes (6%) 7 No (27%) 33 Not sure

13. Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood.?
(53%) 64 Yes (38%) 46 No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
32 comments (26%)

14. Do-you feel that the county should strive to increase the
health programs and services?
(64%) 77 Yes (26%) 32 No
If yes, what types. of programs and services? (fill in)
28 comments (23%)

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase
educational programs and services.
(78%) 94 Yes (12%) 15 No
16. Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
(45%) 55 Yes (42%) 51 No
What do you want changed? (fill in)
48 comments (40%)
What should be protected or maintained?

17, Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in the area?
(42%) 51 Yes (49%) 59 No

18.. Do you feel that water pollution or poor fishing is a
problem in the area?
(47%) 57 Yes (41%) 50- No

19. Would you rather, (19%) 23 A. limit.growth, or (52%) 63. B.
promote the development of additional services such as public
water and sewer systems in areas where development could--not
take placewithout such services?

20. Would you be!willing.to pay for such water and sewer improve-
ments?
(31%) 37 Yes (31%) 37 No (27%) 33 Not sure.

17J

21. Below is a list of some services and functions provided
by local government. Please check or, fill in those services
or functions which need improvement:
(33%) 40 police (34%) 41 hospital (36%) 43 garbage pick-up
(46%) 56 fire (21%) 25 library (19%) 23 historic preser-
vation
(50%) 60 dog control (38%) 46 public
housing (30%) 36 building
inspection
1, schools, (2%) 2, more stores, (1%) 1, roads

2. Additional comments. (attach separate sheet if necessary)

20 comments (17%)

178

This report was.financed in part by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the State of
North Carolina, and meets the requirements
of the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act of 1.974.

DATE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A.

3 6668 14108 67E
OA