Land Use Plan-1987

DCM COPY'R " DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management Cony
� BEAUFORT COUNTY
1987 LAND USE PLAN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

A
o'I
R
o
T
SC
_�s. Pe" Grwa a,
n
J5'
.�.h..
Cr d
I.1 !
i °nten Creek Ch.
Lri fII
lll.� t+ll
7
1 J took
o;
ro. f
z � .
fisro, la 1 1
Latham
I.
l.,n,L�ri
� 1
i
w! 11X
J7 i
~ 7
Wilmar
99
n\ 1.7
W2 `\
p � '!: '.'.• . t' v (. (i S 1 <>t �-' Is\ of x
110$
RURAL WITH SERVICES
(' �'7
s�
q Rural with Services classification is set aside for
areas Of Beaufort Count �/ \(
Y that arc within seven planned water
districts. The systems are designed to avert potential
health problems caused by contaminated wells. Capacity will e
support existing development and limited growth.
An area four hundred feet wide along both sides of each �.
nd
-- �5 — state road within the seven water districts is classified \
- oI= \
Rural with Services. Areas previously classified Developed, \
-
a / Urban Transition, \
;i Limited Transition, or Community
are not
Rayal �t�ffected b -� Y this classification.
«_ NOTE: THIS CLASSIFICATION WAS ESTABLISHED BY A �j)�
USE PLAN AMENDMEN-r P Vi
�UELY ADOPTED BY BEAUFORT c COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 5, 1991 AND APPROVED BY THE Cnn�rA, RF ;O(II>rrl-1'-•I',-v?,Wd
. n
i3r l ��i
� M1I
S
II •rr) :i,Nl lL�l! 1�1,L
1 r
�I
�I
it, A
Free Unim
10 2, Lox
// ✓� /L.
_�
_ �. �;. f ---�, � - ,'' '�+e<kv,flh Yeme,•.ale'•y.
76 _
E.•e, Crossroado � U Ijl e
s%n 690 e ' 'e12,
,I
1799
133,
Q 1
4
it. !-39I 1 A
S IV I At
IJ9t
Iles ,•�` \�
11.. lY1 L_s laJ• is
I.. si" puck
i lied
ld
V
1 )^
R edy01.
im
i /
Wades P.W
= 5 .�. 1P3>ll- Lyle_ = o 70^� n `}.C>•�.e: ;Y —+�'h v^
306
U ,%, .ti• {L' ,L / % •� n`,
oil 7ss r \ Il Iv=•AA
>~ �'I 9 " • low: - `7� ,r=� •r�.'aPy.,
3 F15' NOTE: MAP INCLUDES ONLY STATE MAINTAINED ROADS
OR IMPORTANT NON -SYSTEM ROADS.
C./ MILEAGE NOT SHOWN ON FRONTAGE ROADS.
ROADS SHOWN AS OF IAN. 1, 1988.
31
I �
O
k _-� A :I

B E A U F O R T C O U N T Y
t1 9 8 7 L A N D U S E P L A N
Adopted by the Board of Commissioners November 99 1987
Certified by the Coastal Resources Commission December 4, 1987
' Prepared for:
' Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Ledrue Buck, Jr., Chairman
Frank T. Bonner
Cecil V. Cherry
Marion Dilday
Mrs. Arthur L. Moore
Donald L. Davenport, County Manager
John Morgan, County Clerk
1
Prepared by:
Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee .
Douglas Mercer, Chairman Dr. David McNaught
Topper Bateman John Morgan
Donald Davenport David Norwood
Chris Furlough Henry Riddick
' Bo Lewis
' Planning assistance provided by:
Mid -East Commission
' 1 HardingSquare
Washington, NC 27889
(919) 946- 8043
' Robert J. Paciocco, Planner -in -Charge
Libby Anderson, Technical Assistant
' Preparation financed in part by:
A grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management
' Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Ocean and Coastal. Resource Management, National
"' Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

'
BEAUFORT COUNTY
'
1987 LAND USE PLAN
'
CONTENTS
PAGE
'
I. INTRODUCTION
II. BACKGROUND
'
A.
Population ..................................
6
B.
Housing .....................................
7
'
C.
Economy .....................................
8
III. LAND
USE
'
A.
Existing Conditions
B.
.........................12
Future Development. .20
C.
Land Use Concerns ...........................23
D.
Development Controls ........................27
'
E.
Development Constraints.. ... .30
'
IV. POLICY
OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION
A.
Review of 1981 Policy Effectiveness .........
45
B.
Resource Protection .........................47
'
C.
Resource Production and Management ..........
51
D.
Economic and Community Development ..........
55_
E.
Public Participation ........................58
'
F.
Storm Hazards...............................66
V. LAND
CLASSIFICATION
'
A.
Purpose.....................................69
B.
Classification Scheme......................69
C.
Intergovernmental Coordination.............74
1
Appendix
A - Media Releases
Appendix
B - Public Survey
'
Appendix
C - Results Beaufort County Land Use Plan
Public Survey ,
Appendix
D - State and Federal Regulatory Devices
'
Appendix
Appendix
E - Beaufort County Transportation Projects
F - Agencies Coordinating Storm Prepardeness
Appendix
G Beaufort County Planning Program; Schedule
of
Meetings
'
Appendix
H - Policy Alternatives, Policy Choices from
Before the Storm in Beaufort County
Bibliography

Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Map
1
2
3
4
ILLUSTRATIONS
North Carolina Counties ......................11.6
Beaufort County Population 1880-1985......... 11.7
Regional Population 1960-1985................11.8
Beaufort County Population Distribution ...... 11:9
Per Capita Income 1970-1984..................11.10
Unemployment Rate 1976-1986..................11.11
Beaufort County Land Use 1986................44.12
Harvested Cropland...........................44.13
Permits Issued 1981-1986.....................44.14
Existing Land Use.... ......................44.15
Natural and Cultural Resources...............44.16
Beaufort County SLOSH Map....................68.12
Land Classification ..........................74.2

U
'
TABLES
1
Regional Population..............................11.1
2
County Population..............................11.1
'
3
Population Age Structure .........................11.2
4
Housing Characteristics 1980...... ..............11.2
5
Manufacturing Firms..............................11.3
6
Beaufort County Employment 1980............... ..11.4
'
7
8
Retail Sales .::::::::•., •.........................11.4
Labor Force..
.11.5
9
Harvested Cropland .............................. .44.1
'
10
Beaufort County Building Permits 1981-1986.......
44.1
11
CAMA Development Permits ................ .......44.2
'
12
Land Classification..............................44.3
13
Major Soil Types.................................44.4
14
Surface Water Classification .....................44.5
15
Unique Natural Areas.........,...................44.7
'
16
Structures of Historical or Architectural
Significiance...............................44.8
17
Prime Farmland Soils.............................44.9
'
18
Future Regional Population .......................44.9
19
County Population Age Structure 1985-1995........
44.9
'
20
School Enrollment.......::::.....................44.10
21
Municipal Water Systems. .44.11
'
22
23
Municipal Wastewater Systems .....................44.11
Severity Risk
of ................... ............68.10
24
Magnitude of Risk; Inventory of Structures in
'
Hazard Area.................................68.10
25
Utilization of Primary Roads ...... ..............68.11

I. INTRODUCTION
'
In the fall of 1986, the County Commissioners appointed an
ad hoc Advisory Committee to update the County's Land Use Plan.
'
A nine -person committee was specially selected to represent
p a
'
wide range of backgrounds, interests, and professions. The
planning process commenced with a workshop session given by
'
Division of Coastal Management personnel. State officials
'
introduced Committee members to the planning process and to
several special issues that would be addressed during the
'
course of the planning program. Beginning in November 1986, the
group began meeting monthly to work on the plan update. A
'
series of bimonthly meetings were held in the early summer of
1987 as the Committee entered the policy planning stage of the
update process.
' Committee members agreed early in the process that solicit-
ing public input should be made an important part of the planning
' program. Notices of all committee meetings were submitted to
four local radio stations for broadcast: WKJA, WWGN, WITN-TV,
' and WDLX. Meeting notices were also published in the Washington
Daily News, and articles summarizing the information and issues
' discussed at each comm
ittee meeting were submitted to the paper
' for publication. Copies of all radio public service announce-
ments and articles submitted} to or appearing in the Daily News
' are included in Appendix A. .

The Committee realized that the 1987 Land Use Plan would be
dealing with a number of important development issues. Thus,
the Committee decided to conduct a public survey - to gather
public opinion on development issues as well as to educate the
public as to the nature of important land use issues facing the
County. The group spent a considerable amount of time and
effort in developing and compiling the questionnaire. As shown
in Appendix 8, the Committee designed the survey instrument to
address the concerns of a variety of interest groups. The
planning survey was added as an insert to the March 19 edition
A
of the Washington Daily News. Additional copies were given to
leaders of a number local civic clubs for distribution to their
membership. Committee members estimate the survey was distri-
buted to approximately 9,500 persons. About 940 responses were
received, indicating a 10% response rate. Not all respondents
answered all questions; the question on ideal population received
an especially low response. Given the method of distribution,
compilation, and response rate, the Committee makes no pretense
that the survey was statistically valid. Rather, the survey was
viewed as informative - to respondents and Committee members
alike - and the survey helped the group generate many of the
topics covered by the policy objectives contained in the 1987
Land Use Plan.

The.1987 Land Use Plan Public Survey indicated that most
' people like living in Beaufort County and that residents like
living here primarily for two reasons: they value the river for
the amenities it provides, and they enjoy the rural character of
' the area. Thus, the majority of respondents feel it is of utmost
importance to protect the river and to preserve the quality of
' life in the area; preserving water quality and preserving natural
'
resources were named as the two most important issues facing the
County.
Only about half of all respondents answered the question on
ideal population. Of those that answered, slightly more than
'
half indicated,that the County had its
already reached optimal
'
population. However realizing that development is inevitable,
most residents advocated a policy of controlled growth. . At the
same time, most respondents expressed a desire for increased
economic development: the need for more jobs was rated as the
'
third most important issue facing the County. Over half of all
'
respondents indicated that attracting new jobs and preserving
commercial fishing operations were extremely important issues the
County should be addressing. Over half of all respondents also
rated failing septic systems, pollution of waterways by farming
and forestry activity, pollution of waterways by industrial
activity, and loss of County airspace to military operations as
'
extremely important land use concerns. But the priority issue

for 75% of all respondents was resource protection: three out
of four persons responding ranked protection of the County's
natural resources as an extremely important land use concern.
Complete survey results are contained in Appendix C.
4

'
II. BACKGROUND
'
Beaufort County occupies an
827 square mile
area of central
coastal North Carolina (Figure 19
pg. 11.6).
It is the eighth
'
largest
county in the State.
Originally
called Pamptecough
Precinct when it was formed from
Bath County
in 1705, the name
was changed to Beaufort in 1712 to
honor Henry
Somerset, Duke of
'
Beaufort.
Beaufort County is an area rich
in natural
and cultural re-
sources Early settlers built
a strong local
economy based
' on the County's environmental resources. Prosperous port
communities developed along the County's navigable waterways.
Stately residences, office and commercial buildings were built to
service a wealthy merchant population; many of these remain
' today to distinguish the region.
11
Water resources are a major presence in the County.
Water accounts for about 88,000 acres (14.2%) of the County's
total 618,200 acres. Numerous creeks drain the land. Many empty
into the Pamlico River which bisects the County in a northwest -
southeast direction. The Pungo River forms a portion of the
County's eastern boundary, and the Pantego, Dismal, and Great
Swamps occupy a large portion of the County's northeastern area.
Precipitation in the County averages about 51 inches per year.
Mean January temperature is 45LIF; mean July temperature is 79-F.
The County has seven incorporated areas: Aurora, Bath,
Belhaven, Chocowinity, Pantego, Washington, and Washington Park.
5

As most of these communities have elected to prepare their own
land use plans, development issues within these localities will
be addressed only as they affect land uses in the unincorporated
areas of the County.
A. Population
Population within the County has increased steadily since
1880 except for the period 1960-1970 when total population
declined slightly (Figure 29 pg. 11.7). Population grew fairly
rapidly (averaging 1.8% per year) until 1940. Between 1940 and
19709 growth slowed and the County experienced little change in
population. Since 1970 however, the County has again experienced
moderate growth. Between 1970 and 19809 the population increased
by 12.2% and between 1980 and 1985 population increased by 7.2%.
Beaufort County is the second most populous county in the
planning region (Figure 39 pg. 11.8). The state has been divided
into 18 regions for planning purposes. Beaufort County is
included in Region Q, together with Bertie, Hertford, Martin and
Pitt counties. Population growth in the County has consis-
tently been greater than all other counties except Pitt, and the
growth rate between 1980 and 1985 (7.2%) even slightly exceeded
that for the State as a whole (Table 1, pg. 11.1).
Currently, over half of all County residents live in
unincorporated areas. Between 1970 and 1980, most of the
6

County's total population growth occurred in rural'(unincor-
'
(Table 29 11.1). Although the
porated) areas pg. several of
'
County's municipalities have experienced moderate growth in
population since 1980 (notably Chocowinity, Bath, and
'
Washington), more than two people live in the rural areas of
the County for every one that lives in an urbanized place (Figure
'
4, 11.9).
pg.
'
Following the national trend, the population of the County
is aging. Since 19709 the percentage of the population under 17
P 9 P P
years has declined from 35 to 27% (Table 3, pg. 11.2). At the
same time, the percentage 65 and older has increased slightly
'
from 11 to 14%.
'
Unlike some of the coastal counties in the state, Beaufort
County is not greatly affected by seasonal fluctuations in
'
population. The local County economy did however realize
$9,760,000 in travel -related expenditures in 1984 compared to the
'
statewide average of $4,1929000. While some migrant workers
'
find employment in the area, their numbers do not produce
significant seasonal changes in population. According to the
Employment Security Commission, there were approximately 250
migrant workers in the County in 1985, down from 300 in 1984.
B. Housing
The County's 1980 population was housed among 15,800
'
dwelling units (Table 4, pg. 11.2). Eighty percent of all
7

dwellings in the County are single-family units; the remainder
are mobile homes and multifamily dwellings. Almost one in four
dwellings in the County are rental units. In 1980, about 10% of
all existing units were vacant. Ten percent all residences were
without complete plumbing, about average for the five -county
region. In 1980, single -person households (typically elderly and
young unmarried persons) accounted for over 20% of all house-
holds.
C. Economy
New construction over the past decade in Washington, the
county seat, indicates the willingness of the public and private
sector to invest in the area. Donnelley Marketing, a direct mail
h
enterprise, in 1984 became the County's largest new employer,
offering employment to about 225 persons. Public investments
have had considerable impact within the City of Washington. The
City has realized a new Visitor's Center - a replica of North
Carolina's historic Newbold -White House; a new post office; and
the City's old train station has been thoroughly renovated as a
cultural and civic center and is now the home of the Beaufort
County Arts Council.
Per capita income in the County has increased steadily
since 1970 (Figure 5, pg. 11.10). Local changes in per capita
income have closely paralleled those for the State as a whole,
8

11
1
although historically, per capita income has been less than per
1
capita income statewide. The median income of families in the
1
County has increased, though again lagging the increase state-
wide. In 1969 median family income (MFI) in the County was
1
$6,435 compared to $7,774 for the State as a whole. By 1979 (the
latest year for which information is available), MFI in the
1
County had more than doubled to $14,461; statewide, MFI had
1
risen to $169792. As local income has risen, the percentage of
residents with incomes below the poverty line has decreased. In
1
1969, one in three individuals, and one in every seven families
were considered living below the poverty line. In 1979, this
1
figure for the County had dropped to 21% of all individuals and
12% of all families. Statewide, 15% of all individuals and 12%
1
of all families had incomes below the poverty line.
1
The County has a relatively strong economy. Major employ-
ers include Texasgulf, located outside. Aurora, and National
1
Spinning and Hamilton Beach in Washington. There are currently
46 manufacturing firms in the County which employ a total of
1
from
anywhere 5,000 to 12,000 persons (Table 51 pg. 11.3). About
1
one in four employed persons is employed by a manufacturing
enterprises (Table 6, pg. 11.4). Eighteen percent of all
'
employed residents are involved in wholesale and retail trade,
and about one in ten persons is employed in either agriculture,
1
forestry, fishery,
and mining operations. Retail sales in the
1
1
9
1

County in fiscal year 1986 totalled almost $31590009000 (Table 75
pg. 11.4) and were well above sales in any other county in the
region except Pitt.
The labor force currently numbers about 19,500 persons
(Table 8, pg. 11.5). Historically, the rate of unemployment in
the County has approximated that for the state as a whole, though
since 1981, the local unemployment rate has been greater than
that statewide (Figure 69 pg. 11.11).
Agriculture plays a major role in the Countywith over,one
quarter of all land being devoted to agricultural uses. Har-
vested cropland accounted for 1289600 acres of. County land, up
from 115,900 in 1983. Although the total number of farms has
been declining (from 1,047 in 1970 to 815 in 1982)9 the average
size of farms in the County has been increasing, from an average
of 162 acres in 1978 to 194 in 1982. Notably, Beaufort County
ranked number one in the State in 1984. in the production of
oats, and second in the production of wheat and soybeans. At
the same time, the value of local farm products has been increas-
ing. Between 1978 and 1982, the average market value of agricul-
tural products per farm increased�.by over 50% - from $41,800 per
farm in 1978 to $64,700 per farm in 1982.
10

Implications
As the County's population continues to grow, the need for
sound land use and services planning increases. As the County's
population increases and local income rises, more people will
find themselves with time and money to spend on leisure acti-
vities. The need for services for the County's older population
will increase. Residential development in outlying areas will
compete with agricultural, water -related, and open space uses
for use of the land. Development in rural and urban areas will
have impacts on water quality in the County and beyond.

Table 1
REGIONAL POPULATION
County
1960
1970
---------------------------------------o--------o
1980
1985
% Change %
70-80
Change
80-85
BEAUFORT
Bertie
36,014
35,980
40,355
43,260.
12.2%
7.2%
Hertford
24,350
22,718
20,528
23,529
21,024
23,368
21,341
23,924
2.4%
-0.7%
1.5%
2.4�
Martin
Pitt69,942
27,139
24,730
25,948
26,653
4.9%
2.7%
--------------
------------------------------------
73,900
83,651
95,862
13.2%
14.6%
Region---__----180,163
-------------
178,667
----------------------------------------
194,346
211,040
---------------
8.8%
8.6%
State
---------------------------------------------
4,556,155
5,082,059
5,681,766
6,253,951
15.7%
6 3%
Source: U.S Census; Office of State Budget and Management
Table 2
COUNTY POPULATION
----------
1960
------------------------------------------
1970
1980
1985
% Change %
70-80
Change
80-85
Aurora
Bath
449
620
698
719
12.6%
3.0%
Belhaven
346
2,386
231
2,259
207
2,430
237
2,496
-10.4%
7.6%
14.5%
2.7%
Chocowinity
Pantego
580
566
644
828
13.8%
28.6%
Washington
262
9,939
218
8,961
185
8,418
181
9,419
-15.1%
-6.1%
-2.2%
11.9%
Washington Pk
----------------=------------
NA
517
-- ----------------------------------
514
553
-0.6%
7.6%
Unincorp. area
----------------------------------------------------------
22,052
22,608
27,259
28,827
20.6%
5.8%
Total County
36,014
---------------------
35,980
40,355
-------------------
43,260
--------
12.2%
7.2%
NA= not available
Source: Office of State Budget and Management

Table 3
'POPULATION
AGE
---------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------
STRUCTURE
1970
1980
1985
'------------------------------------------N-------------------------------
0-4 years
2,905
8.1%
3,148
7.8%
3,305
7.6%
5-17 years
9,835
27.3%
8,857
21.9%
8,579
19.8%
18-24 years
3,577
9.9%
4,408
10.9%
4,548
10.5%
25-44 years
7,828
21.8%
•10,429
25.8%
12,380
28.6%
45-64 years
8,067
22.4%
8,337
20.7%
8,612
19.9%
'65
and older
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,768
10.5%
5,176
12.8%
5,836
13.5%
Total
35,980
100.0%
40,355
100.0%
43,260
100.0%
ISource:
U.S. Census;
N.C. Statistical Abstract,
1984; and
Office
of State
Budget and
Management
1
Table 4
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 1980
'
--------------------------------------------------------
County
Region
---------------------------
----------
--------
---------
--
Total Households
14,253
-
67,460
-
Single -person Hshlds
3,021
21.2%
14,083
20.9%
Total Housing Units
15,792
-
73,810
Single-family Units
12,501
79.2%
57,853
78.4%
Vacant Units
1,539
9.7%
6,348
8.6%
Occupied
3,786
24.0%
23,782
32.2%
'Renter
Condominium Units
70
0.4%
412
0.6%
Units w/out plumbing
1,544
9.8%
7,722
10.5%
'Persons/household
--------------------------------------------------------
2.82
2.97
Median Value unit
$31,200
_
Median Rent.
$101
-
-
-
Source: U.S. Census
7
11.2

Table 5
MANUFACTURING FIRMS (as of 1/1/87)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Firm Name Product Employment Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora
Aurora Packing Co.
Crab products
20-49
Aurora
Bay City Crab Co.
Crab products
20-49
Aurora
Carolina Seafood
Crab products
20-49
Aurora
Daniels Seafood Co.
Crab products
20-49
Aurora
Henries Fishing Sup.
Wire crab pots
10-19
Aurora
Texasgulf, Inc.
Phosphate prod.
1,000-2,499
Bath
Charcoal Services
Carbon filters
20-49
Belhaven
Blue Channel Crab
Seafood prod.
100-249
Belhaven
Baker Crab Co.
Seafood prod.
50-99
Belhaven
Belhaven Feed Mills
Feed & fertilzer
5-9
Belhaven
Belhvn Fish & Oyster
Seafood prod.
100-249
Belhaven
Gwinn Engineering
Marine equip.
1-4
Belhaven
Harris Furniture
Furniture
5-9
Belhaven
Sea Safari
Seafood prod.
100-249
Belhaven
Younce & Ralph Lumber
Pine lumber
50-99
Chocowinity
Fountain Power Boats
Boats
20-49
Chocowinity
Osprey Seafood
Seafood products
50-99
Chocowinity
Outer Banks Indust.
Metal fabric.
20-49
Chocowinity
Privateer Manufac.
Boats
20-49
Chocowinity
Singer Co.
Furniture
250-499
Chocowinity
Tidewater Equip.
Logging equip.
20-49
Pantego
Pungo Machine Shop
Metal Shop
5-9
Pinetown
F.C. Howell & Sons
Hardwood
20-49
Washington
Atwood Morrill Co.
Valves
50-99
Washington
Bafer, Inc.
Plastics
10-19
Washington
Carver's Machine Works
Machine.products
20-49
Washington
Coca Cola Bottling
Soft drinks
20-49
Washington
Donnelley Marketing
Direct mail ad.
100-249
Washington
Flanders Filters,
Filters
50-99
Washington
Gregory Pool
Equipment
20-49
Washington
Hackney & Sons
Truck bodies
250-499
Washington
Hamilton Beach
Applicances
1,000-2,499
Washington
Hampton Shirt Co.
Shirts
250-499
Washington
J.S. Hill Corp.
Concrete
10-19
Washington
Jackson Bedding
Bedding prod.
1-4
Washington
Lowe's Inc.
Building supp.
20-49
Washington
Maola Ice Cream
Ice cream
20-49
Washington
Mason Lumber Co.
<.Lumber
20-49
Washington
Moss Planing Mill
Lumber
100-249
Washington
National Spinning Co.
Yarn
1,000-2,499
Washington
Stanadyne, Inc,
Auto parts
250-499
Washington
Washington Beverage
Soft drinks
10-19
Washington
Wash. Crab Processing
Seafood products.20-49
Washington
Washington Garment
Clothing
50-99
Washington
Washington News
Daily newspaper
50-99
Washington
Washington Packing
Pork prod.
10-19
Source: 1985-86 Directory of N.C. Manufacturing Firms;
revised by Land Use Advisory Committee
11.3

i�
n
Table 6
BEAUFORT COUNTY EMPLOYMENT 1980
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
% Total
State
Employment Sector
--------------------------
Employment---------%-
------Employees
Manufacturing
-------------------
4,699
24.0%
32.0%
Wholesale & Retail Trade
3,459
17.6%
18.0%
Agriculture, Forestry,
2,123
10.8%
3.6%
Fisheries, Mining
Educational Services
11099
5.6%
8.3%
Construction
1,048
5.3%
6.1%
Health Services
876
4.5%
6.0%
Public Administration
645,
3.3%
4.0%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate,
839
4.3%
6.9%
Business, Repair Services
Transportation, Communications,
675
3.4%
6.0%
Other Public Utilities
Personal, Entertainment,
621
3.2%
3.7%
Recreational Services
Other Professional and
400
2.0%
3.2%
Related Services
Not reported
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3,136
16.0%
2.3%
Total
19,620
100.0%
100.0%
Source: N.C. Statistical Abstract, Fifth Edition, 1984
Table 7
RETAIL SALES ($,000's)
---------------------------------------------------------
County
Fiscal Year BEAUFORT Bertie Hertford Martin Pitt
---------------------------------------------------------
1975 135,562 36,101 76,279 73,027 278,382
1976 159,530 40,880 87,539' 82,899 318,493
1977 177,795 43,819 100,540 93,249 349,837
1978 191,566 46,491 102,848 93,359 372,759
1979 219,683 52,440 -108,696 97,633 426,912
1980 223,745 50,996 120,747 103,241 462,937
1981 254,858 54,336 123,021 109,607 516,284
1982 258,037 57,818 133,807 114,041 542,045
1983 249,857 59,865 141,145 116,978 578,843
1984 277,511 61,667 162,367 123,998 694,144
1985 289,045 64,487 166,839 125,435 735,826
1986 314,513 62,199 169,259 137,241 831,083-
---------------------------------------------------------
Chg. 75-85 113.2% 78.6% 90.6% • 71.B% 164.3%
Source: Office of State Budget and Management (1975-84)
and N.C. Department of Revenue (1985, 1986)
11.4

Table 8
LABOR FORCE
----------------------------------------------------
Labor
Total
Unemployment
Rate
Year
----------------------------------------------------
Force
Employment
County . State
1976
18,760
17,610
6.1%
6.2%
1977
19,170
18,090
5.6%
5.9%
1978
20,310
19,450
4.2%
4.3%
1979
19,710
18,760
4.8%
4.8%
1980
20,750
19,620
5.4%
6.5%
1981
21,870
20,470
6.4%
6.4%
1982
21,550
19,310
10.4%
9.0%
1983
20,720
18,520
10.6%
8.9%
1984
21,000
19,430
7.5%
6.7%
1985
19,320
18,130
6.2%
5.4%
1986
---------------------------------------
19,490
17,870
8.3%
-------------
5.3%
Source: Office
of State Budget and Management;
updated
by Employment Security Commission
11.5

Figure 1
N. C. Counties

Figure 2
Beaufort County
Population 1880-1985
46
44
42
40
38
36
..
34
c co
r � �
:p C
�j v
32
w
a o
30
0r
�u
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
1880 1890 1900 1 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year
Source: U.S. Census; Office of State Budget and Management

100
90
80
70
C fA
0-0
! , c
60
a0
O .c
0-
v
50
40
30
20
Figure 3
Regional Population
1960-1985
Pitt
5
B EAU FO RT
Martin
Hertford
Bertie
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
Source: U.S. Census; Office of State Budget and Management

35
30
25
c N 20
o_0
c
_v a
5
Qo
� L
I-
15
v
10
5
C
Figure 4
Beaufort County
Population Distribution
1960 1970 1980 1985
Year
® Urban . ® Rural
Source: Mid -East Commission computations based on
_ Wis"f jWe JiWetgod WWgeMt

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
�.
Figure 5
Per Capita Income
1970-1984
10,852
gg�
8,655
,187
8,232
7,10 ,854
5,777 6,355
4,860
4,241 5,068
4,378
3,803
1970 1972. 1974 1976 1978.
Year
O Beaufort County.
1980 1982 1984
+ State
1 ---
Source: Office of State Budget and Management

c
0
E
0
Q
E
o
c
.L1'_,Ui Cr U
Unemployment Rate
1976-1986
12.0%
11.0%
10.0 %
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3:0%
2.0%
1.0
0/10
0.0%
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Year
County I
State
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Source: Office of State Budget and.Management, and
Employment Security Commission
}

III. LAND USE
' A. Existing Conditions
Beaufort County has experienced modest growth over the
last decade. The County's population has increased. Several
'
industries have located within the County limits. Some commer-
cial enterprises have expanded. Nonetheless, the County remains
'
rural in Undeveloped land for 92% land
nature. accounts of all
in the County. Most of this acreage is forestland (340,500
acres, 64% of total); the remainder is crop and pastureland
'
(145,000 acres, 28% of total, Figure 7, pg. 44.12). Developed
land - incorporated communities, industrial areas and the like -
'
account for 12,000 acres (2% of total). Rural developed land
'
- residential areas beyond city and town limits - account for
31,300 acres (6% of total).
'
Much of the forestland in the County is maintained for
commercial forestry. National lumber corporations own over 20%
'
of all land in the County and one-third of all the County's
forestland. International Paper, Georgia Pacific, and the
'
Weyerhaeuser Corporation all own land in the County, though
Weyerhaeuser owns the largest share by far. A 1986 report by
the Institute for Southern Studies notes Weyerhaeuser as being
'
the County's largest landowner. About one of every five acres
of land in the County is reported to be in Weyerhaeuser owner-
'
ship.
12

Agricultural operations utilize the second largest share of
all land uses in the County. Just beyond the limits of any of
the County's incorporated areas, agricultural activities appear
to dominate the landscape. The pattern of agricultural activity
was first established based on geologic conditions. The Suffolk
Scarp, which generally parallels N. C. 329 divides the County
into eastern and western halves. Soil conditions on either side
of Scarp differ and effect local growing conditions. The
County's primary agricultural products include corn, oats and
soy beans. A few tobacco farms remain in the western half of
the County in the Washington area and many animal farms have
developed in the eastern half of the County based on the avail-
ability of crops for feed. In 1984, Beaufort County ranked
number ten in the state in the production of hogs. Most of these
hog farms are found in the Pantego area of eastern Beaufort
County.
Urban development has effected the pattern of agricultural.
activity in recent years as farmland has been converted to
residential uses. Now, more land is devoted to agricultural
uses in the eastern half of the County (the Belhaven/Pantego
area) than in the western half in the Washington region.
Further, more farming activity is noted in the northern half of
the County than in the southern half where much of the commercial
forestry land is found. Though the number of farms has declined
13

in recent years, many large farming operations remain. According
'
to the findings of the Institute for Southern Studies, there are
'
currently four property owners maintaining farms over 3,000
acres and four landowners with farms over 2,000 acres. Together,
these eight landowners own 5% of -all land in the County and 17%
of all the County's crop and pastureland.
'
As shown in Figure 8 (pg. 44.13), Beaufort County has more
'
harvested cropland than any.other county in the region except
Pitt County. The amount of land harvested for crops has fluctu-
ated over the years, depending in part on market conditions,
weather, and local reporting. In relation to other counties in
'
the region, the amount of harvested cropland in Beaufort County
'
(excluding the period 1982-83) appears to be increasing gradually
(Figure 8). Beaufort County was the only county in the region to
have more land harvested for crops in 1984 than in 1978 (Table
9, pg. 44.1). Statewide, harvested cropland decreased by 2.5%
'
between 1978 and 1984.
Residential construction has increased the amount of
1
developed land in the County. Between 1981 and 1986, over 1,000
'
building permits were issued for single-family dwellings (Table
10, pg. 44.1) in Beaufort County excluding the City of
'
Washington. During this same period, permits for the location of
300 mobile homes were issued. Single-family dwellings and mobile
'
homes
are the predominate type of dwelling in the County and
14

development between 1981 and 1986 followed the building pattern
set over the years. Permits for multifamily dwellings (two or
more units per structure) accounted for only 5% of all residen-
tial permits, a total of 68 units over a six -year period.
Single-family development has proceeded at a fairly steady
pace in the County over the past six years (Figure 99 pg. 44.14).
On the average, 177 permits were issued for single-family units
between 1981 and 1986, with a high of 199 issued in 1983 and a
low of 125 issued in 1982.
Most County residents live in urbanized areas surrounding
the County's incorporated communities, however a considerable
number of residents live in outlying regions. As shown on the
Map of Existing Land Use (pg. 44.15), urbanized areas include the
incorporated areas of all seven cities and towns in the County
and the high density development that adjoins these communities.
Urbanized areas contain a mix of land uses - single and multi-
family residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and
recreational. Areas of "rural concentration" adjoin the County's
major highways, define "crossroads communities", and as shown on
the Map of Existing Land Use, are found at various locations
along the waterfront.
Rural concentrations are primarily residential in nature,
however limited commercial development also is noted. Commercial
operations are primarily highway or service oriented - gasoline
stations and convenience and small grocery stores.
15

As noted previously in Table 29 over half the County's
' population lives in unincorporated areas outside of cities and
' towns. Historically, residential development has occurred at the
intersection of major roads. Beaufort County has a number of
' crossroad communities including Bunyan, Pinetown and Yeates-
ville. Most recent residential development has been strip
' development along existing roads although some subdivisions have
been constructed. New subdivisions in the County include
Captain's Walk, Hillcrest and Slatestone Trails. Over 300 mobile
'
home permits were issued between 1981 and 1986. New'mobiie homes
were located on individual lots and within mobile home parks.
The County has several mobile home parks including Ash -Ma -Tau
Mobile Home Park, Mimosa Mobile Manor and River Road Estates..
Waterfront property has attracted residential development
'
since the County was formed over 200 years ago. Five out of the
seven incorporated communities in the County are located on
'
navigable waterways. Much residential development has also
occurred along the waterfront beyond city and town limits.
'
Summer camps (cottages) and increasingly, year-round dwellings
'
are found on the banks of the County's rivers and creeks..
Bayview, Pamlico Beach, Pungo Shores and Woodstock Point are
'
several of the older developments found along the County's
waterfronts. Sawmill Landing, River Hills, and Schooner Point
are several of the new waterfront developments that have occurred
' in recent years.
16

Most residential development has been for.single-family
dwellings. In the past five years however, two new townhouse- '
type projects have been developed. The Weyerhaeuser Corporation '
is planning to build 80 townhouse units as part of its Pamlico
Plantation project. In addition, another developer has recently
'
completed eight townhouse units in Bayview, just south of Bath.
Residential construction since 1980 has occurred primarily
,
in the western half of the County in the Washington area.
'
According to a county building inspector, most new development
has occurred in the area of Route 264, west to the county line
'
and east to Broad Creek. River Road from the Washington Park
city limits to Broad Creek, has also experienced growth in the
'
past five years, following the development pattern established
over the past decade.
As shown on the Map of Existing Land Use, the major ,
industrial land use in the County is the Texasgulf operation on
the Pamlico River north of Aurora. The company is one of the '
largest producers of phosphate rock in the nation. Phosphate
rock is mined on company landholdings along the river, and much '
of it is.processed into fertilizer at the facilities on -site. t
The plant produces more than a million tons of fertilizer a year
and employs about 1,200 people; many of these are local resi-
dents. In 1985, Texasgulf merged with the North Carolina
Phosphate corporation, and increased its.landholdings by almost ,
17,

20,000 acres. Texasgulf now owns approximately 65,000 acres of
1
land in Beaufort County making it the County's second largest
landowner.
'
The County's fifth largest landowner is the Pennsylvania -
based FMC Corporation. FMC owns about 4,000 acres of land in
the County on the north side of the river. It is assumed that
'
the firm purchased the property with the intent of mining the
'
phosphate that lies deep underground. No plans for initiating
mining activity has been put forth in recent years, and company
landholdings remain undeveloped.
In addition to residential and industrial development, the
County has two major public recreation areas noted asp"Public
Open and Recreation" on the Map of Existing Land Use. Goose
Creek State Park, owned by the State Department of.Natural
'
Resources and Community Development, occupies 1,300 acres on the
north side of the Pamlico River between Washington and Bath. The
'
park offers hiking, swimming, picnicking, and a boat launching
facility. The state of North Carolina is in fact, the sixth
'
largest landowner
in the County, with almost 4,000 acres of
'
County land under its ownership in 1986. In addition to its
large holdings at the state park, the state also holds title to
'
Goose Creek Wildlife Management Area.. This site, part of which
is located in Pamlico County, is located on Goose Creek on the
'
south side of the Pamlico River. Another
large publically-owned
1Q

parcel is found in the northwestern corner of the County as
shown on the Map of Existing Land Use; the Voice of America site
on S. R. 1001, is the County's largest institutional land use.
There are also a number of pPivate recreational camps.in the
County. The East Carolina Council of the Boy Scouts of America
operates Camp Bonner at two locations in the County. Recreation
and camping facilities have been developed on a 250 acre parcel
on Blounts Bay on the south side of the Pamlico River. A 390
acre tract near Broad Creek on the river's north side remains
undeveloped. The Girl Scout Council of Coastal Carolina operates
Camp Hardee on the Pamlico River south of Chocowinity. The
Roanoke Christian Service Camp is found on the north side of the
Pamlico, east of Washington Park off River Road.
19

1
1
B. Future Development
LDevelopment
in the County over the next decade is likely
to follow the pattern established in the preceding ten years.
Most new development will be residential in nature. New resi-
dential uses are likely to be developed along existing roads
although several new subdivisions are currently under develop-
ment. Completion of the major transportation project in the
County - the widening of Route 264 from Greenville to Washington
'
is expected to increase the pressures for development in the
'
Washington area. Local officials appear to agree that the major
impact of the project will be new residential rather than
'
industrial development. If the Greenville area of Pitt County
continues to grow as anticipated, western Beaufort County,
especially the Washington area, may well become a bedroom
'
community of Greenville. New commercial development serving the
residential population could then follow residential growth.
'
The potential for industrial growth might be increased when the
U. S. 264 project - a series of bypasses and widening from
Raleigh to Washington - is completed. There are currently no
'
known plans for industrial expansion in the area. Texasgulf,
the County's largest industrial concern, recently expanded its
'
operation. At this time, the firm has no announced plans for
further expansion.
'
20

Two other transportation projects currently underway in
the County are also likely to result in new residential develop-
ment. The widening of N. C. 32 from Washington Park to S. R.
1300, and the widening of U. S. 264 from Washington to N.C. 32,
may increase residential development in the Washington area. It
is unlikely however, that new development in these areas will
have major impacts on the County as these areas are already
fairly well -developed.
Single-family construction is likely to dominate new
residential development, however several projects in recent
years have included townhouse -type development. Two groups of
four attached single-family dwellings have been constructed at
Bayview, east of Bath. The Pamlico Plantation project, located
on the eastern shore of Broad -Creek, will include 80 townhouse
units when completed. One-half of these units had been built as
of December 1986 and the remainder are expected to be completed
by 1988. In addition to townhouse development, the Pamlico Plan-
tation project includes 200 lots targeted for single-family
homes. In January 1987, about 20% of the lots had been built
upon. Complete buildout of the 280-unit project is expected
within ten years.
The focus of residential development in recent years has
been along waterfront areas. In 1986, Beaufort County ranked
fourth among the twenty coastal counties in the number of
21

permits issued for major develoments in Areas of Environmental
tConcern and first in the number of general development permits
' issued (Table 11, pg. 44.2).
The pressures for shoreline development are likely to
increase in the next five
years. A number of waterfront develop-
ments are already underway. The Weyerhauser Corporation is
'
currently developing three
projects in addition to Pamlico
Plantation and expects
to initiate several others in 1987.
Weyerhauser's River Hills
development is a single-family subdivi-
sion of 33 lots on the
Pamlico River, approximately six miles
south of Chocowinity.
About 25% of the lots had been built
upon as of December 1986.
Schooner Point near Belhaven will have,
32 single-family units when
completed. In January 1987, about
'
the lots
one-half had been
developed. Mixon Creek, located west'
'
of Bath off N. C. 92, is
Weyerhaeuser's most recent development.
The project is expected to
have 55 single-family residences when
fully developed.
Many of the residential projects proposed in the next
' decade are likely to be for "resort residential" projects. Such
' projects provide amenities such as private boat slips, tennis
courts, swimming pools, clubhouses, and when possible, commercial
' marinas. It is likely that many of these projects will be geared
toward the retirement and second -home community. Officials at
' the State Division of Coastal Management note that as of February
22

1
1987 there were six proposals for residential development which,
because of their waterfront location and proposed amenities, ,
would require development permits from the state. These pro- '
posals include the Harbor Point project - (100 single-family
lots, marina, swimming pool, tennis courts) proposed for develop- '
ment on the Pungo River outside Belhaven; and Blounts Landing.
The Blounts Landing project proposes over 1,000 residential units '
on Blounts Creek on the southside of the river. Forty apartment '
units are included in the project with about 40% of all dwellings
proposed as townhouse units. ,
C. Land Use Concerns
'
Beaufort County is growing.' Growth has been slow compared
'
to some other areas in the state, but it is likely that the rate
of growth and the pressures for development, especially along the
'
waterfront, will increase. The effects of development on the
natural environment are an increasing concern. There are
t
several specific concerns. First, development in areas outside
'
cities and towns will be served primarily by septic systems.
In -ground systems improperly installed or maintained threaten
'
public health and the quality of surface and ground water.
Second, as the County develops, the solid waste load will
'
increase. The County already faces a problem with disposal
of
,
solid waste as officials estimate that the current landfill
'
23

will reach capacity by 1989. Where and how to safety dispose of
'
an increasing solid waste load are questions the County must
resolve within the next five years. In 19869 the County
entered into a study with seven nearby counties to begin investi-
gating landfill alternatives. The study, funded with assistance
from the state Department of Energy and the Division of Coastal
Management, will analyze, among other options, the possibility
'
of constructing one or more resource recovery facilities to
serve the eight -county region. Finally, as land is develop-
ed, impervious surfaces replace open undeveloped land. Recharge
of ground water supplies diminishes and run-off increases. Often
'
urban run-off contains sediments and hazardous materials which
will enter the County's creeks and rivers. Taken individually,
most development projects expected in the next five years present
'
only minor land use concerns. It is the cumulative impact of all
projects developed over the next decade that now concerns the
'
County.
Point -source water pollution has been a'land use concern in
'
the County
for a number of years. State and federal programs
have addressed the problem since the early 1970's, however the
effectiveness..of water quality regulations - both stringency and
'
enforcement - has been subject to debate. Given the sensitivity
of the County's estuarine waters, point -source pollution contin-
ues to be a concern. Industrial discharges and municipal
24

wastewater treatment plants both contribute to the problem.
Several of the County's major industries have permits to dis-
charge wastewater into the Pamlico River or its tributaries.
Discharge from the Texasgulf operation is of special concern as
some of the wastewater contains the nutrient phosphorus, a
major pollutant of estuarine systems. Municipal waste treatment.
systems also contribute phosphorus to the County's estuarine
waters. As the County's urbanized areas grow, system demand and
wastewater. discharges will increase. In unsewered outlying
areas, large projects are likely to propose use of.small package
treatment plants to treat sanitary waste. These small private
systems are of special concern as they discharge nitrogen and
phosphorus as do large public systems. However experience in
other areas has shown that the professional maintenance and
monitoring needed to ensure proper functioning of these systems
is often lacking.
It has only been in recent years that the seriousness'of
the non -point pollution problem has been recognized. Non -point
pollution stems from both urban and rural areas. Given the
extent of agricultural and silvicultural activity in the County,
(agricultural and forest land comprise about 92% of all land in
the County), it is likely that farming and forestry operations
are the major non -point pollution sources.
25 x,

Non -point
pollution occurs
when sediments run-off from
'
tilled farmland.
The
problem is
exacerbated when fertilizers
'
(nutrients) and
herbicides become
absorbed on sediment material.
Fertilizers and
pesticides applied
to commercial forestland can
wash off and enter surface waters. In Beaufort County, animal
farms are thought
to contribute as
much or more to water quality
as run-off
from
problems
crop
and pasture land. Heavy rains
'
often result in
overflow of animal
waste lagoons. Deterioration
or collapse of
a poorly -maintained
lagoon would pollute nearby
waters and would
seriously threaten
fish and shellfish as well.
'
Implications
The County values its land and water resources.
Residents
'
and visitors alike enjoy the aesthetic amenities and
recreational
opportunities the County holds. Many residents
earn their
'
livelihood from the County's natural resource base:
thirty
'
percent of the manufacturing firms listed in Table 5
are involved
in resource development; farming and forestry employ
many local
'
citizens; tourist and recreation -related enterprises
employ many
others.
'
In its land use planning, the County should
consider the
effects of new development and develop policies and
regulations
as necessary to mitigate the negative impacts
of growth.
26

The County should support development and enforcement of regula-
tions which control point -source pollution. The County should
continue to support state efforts to reduce agricultural non -
point pollution by encouraging use of Best Management Practices
and participation in the Agricultural Cost Share Program. In the
summer of 19869 the state legislature took major actions toward
addressing the problem of agricultural non -point pollution by
increasing funding available in the Agricultural Cost Share
Program. Under this program, 75% of the costs of projects
designed to reduce the input of agricultural non -point sources
will be reimbursed by the state. Projects eligible for cost -
sharing include conservation tillage, filter strips, field
borders, water control structures, and animal waste systems.
According to officials at the Soil Conservation Service, the
agency administering these state monies, the program has gene-
rated considerable interest in the County. Almost $1139000 was
available and encumbered to Beaufort County farmers in program
year 1987 to support projects. reducing agricultural non -point
run-off.
D. Development Controls
Land development in the County is controlled by a variety
of local, state and federal regulations. Plans and policies
enacted by the County and various state agencies influence local
land use decisions as well.
27
1

1. Regulatory Controls
'
Local ordinances controlling land use decisions are de-
scribed below. The County has not adopted all the land use
'
regulatory controls within its authority and some of these are
'
listed below as well. State and federal regulations that control
land uses are listed in Appendix D.
'
Zoning Ordinance. The Count has no comprehensive Y p i e zoning
ordinance. A zoning strategy for the River Road area was
'
proposed in 1986 but not adopted.
Subdivision Regulations. A comprehensive subdivision
ordinance for the County was developed in 1980 but has not
been adopted.
'
Mobile Home Park Ordinance. The County's current Mobile
Home Park Ordinance was adopted in 1975. The regulations
were updated although not adopted in 1986. Local officials
believe the updated ordinance will be adopted by the
'
County Commissioners in 1987.
i
Floodplain Regulations. In February 1987, County Commis-
sioners voted to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance
Program. Within the 1007year floodplain,. new residen-
tial buildings must now be elevated above the base.flood
level; non-residential buildings may be flood -proofed
instead.
Building Regulations. County building inspectors enforce
'
the County's building code. The County adopted a building
code conforming to.the North Carolina. Building Code in July
1985.
Noise Ordinance. A ordinance prohibiting loud, disturbing
and unnecessary noise was adopted in 1981.
'
Housing Code. No local housing code has been adopted.'
Septic Tank Regulations. The County Health Department
enforces regulations (Title 10 of the North Carolina
'
Administrative Code) controlling the construction and
siting of in -ground disposal systems.
'
Historic District Ordinance. No .historic districts have
been established in the unincorporated area of the County.
'
28

2. Local Development Policies
Utilities Extension Policy. The County has an unofficial
policy to work 'with any municipality to assist in extending
utilities to new development. For project funding, the
proposal typically must demonstrate that projected tax
revenues will return the County's investment within a
five-year period.
3. Development Plans
Storm Hazard Mitigation Plan. The County's hurricane
evacuation plan - Before the Storm in Beaufort County:
Avoiding Harm's Way -.was prepared in 1984.
Land Use Plan. The County's current land use plan'was
prepared in 1981 according to the guidelines of the state's
Coastal Area Management Act.
Transportation Plans. The County's current transportation
plan was prepared in the early 1980's and is being updated
in 1987. the plan coordinates transportation services for
human service organizations including the County Health
Department, the County's developmental centers, the Tideland
Mental Health Center, the Council on Aging and the Depart-
ment of Social Services. Local residents with transporta-
tion needs. - elderly, infirmed, handicapped or transporta-
tion disadvantaged - are served by this plan.
The state's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
published in December 1986 lists three major transportation
projects in Beaufort County (Appendix E): the widening
of U. S. 264 from two to four lanes between Greenville
and Washington completion expected by the fall of 1987);
the widening of N. C. 32 from Washington Park to S. R.
1300; and the widening of 5.3 miles of U. S. 264 from S.
R. 1501 in Washington to N. C. 32. Also included in the
state's transportation program is replacement of four
bridges and improvements to automatic warning devices
at four rail crossings.
Capital Improvement Plan. The County's Capital Improvement
Plan was prepared in 1979 and is currently being updated by
the County Manager. It is anticipated that the plan will be
adopted once the update is completed.
Open Space and Recreation Plan. When the 1981 Land Use
Plan was prepared, the County had a recreation advisory
committee which directed the spending of funds for recrea-
tion improvements. The committee has since been disbanded.
Currently, the County has no open space and recreation plan.
29
E

E. Development.Constraints
'
1. Land Suitability
'
Land development in the County will be limited by a
number of factors both natural and cultural. These constraints
'
to development can be classified into one of three categories:
physical limitations, fragile areas, and areas of resource
potential.
Physical Limitations for Development. A variety of factors
determine the suitability of land for development. These
include soils and subsoil conditions, topography, potential for
flooding, and existing land uses in the development area.
The presence of poor soils will limit development in many
parts of the County. There is a wide variation of soils in
'
the
County, ranging from highly permeable sands to shallow
'
eroded clay areas; well drained to very poorly drained soils;
mucks, mucky peat, alluvial land, and fresh water and salt water
marshes. Before land is developed the stability, bearing
capacity, and erodability of the soil should be determined; some
soils have severe construction limitations. Some soil types are
'
unsuitable for the location of septic tank absorption fields. As
the County is not. serviced by public sewers, the suitability of
'
the land for. in -ground systems should be considered. The
percolation rate of certain soils may be too rapid and threaten
'
groundwater resources with improperly treated waste, or too
30

slow and failure of septic tank systems may occur. In many
places in the County the groundwater is close to the soil
'
surface; some places are actually flooded at certain times
'
of the year. As shown in Table 12 (pg. 44.3) , in an unimproved
virgin state, 85% of all land in the County has severe limita-
tions for development, primarily dtae to its wetness or seasonal
high watertable.
,
The County has 43 different soil types. Seventeen of these
soils
,
comprise 78% of all land in the County. Table 13 (pg.
44.4) details the characteristics of the County's major soils.
As noted in Table 139 all seventeen of these soils, i.n an
unimproved natural state, have severe limitations for the siting
'
of inground sewage treatment systems. In general, in the eastern
half of the County,
,
limitations for development are more severe
than in the western half. It should be noted however, that great
,
differences in soil properties can occur within short distances
and on -site investigation is needed to determine the soil
'
characteristics of a particular parcel.
Steep
,
slopes may limit development in some areas. The
topography of the County is generally flat to gently rolling.
'
Winton soils, a soil type often found
YP and on steep grades, comprise
less than 1% of all land in the County. However, steep slopes
'
are found along some creeks and there are some steep bluffs along
the southside of the Pamlico River, particularly in the 8lounts
'
'
31

Bay area. Development on steep slopes is usually more costly
'
than construction on level terrain. It may be more difficult
'
to site septic systems on sharp inclines, and soils on steep
slopes are susceptible to increased erosion unless proper
'
stabilization methods are undertaken.
Much of the land that borders the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers
'
and most of its tributary creeks and streams are subject to
periodic flooding. The County participates in the National
Flood Insurance Program and in February 1987, the County adopted
floodplain regulations. The Federal Insurance Administration
(FIA) has defined the Zone A floodplain as those areas which
have a 1% or greater chance of flooding in -any year. Regula-
tions now control new building in the Zone A (100-year) flood -
plain: the lowest floor of residential buildings must be elevated'
'
at or above the base flood level as determined by FIA; non-resi-
dential structures can be flood -proofed instead.
'
There are few man-made hazards in the unincorporated area
of the County. Except for the Texasgulf operation which has
several chemical plants on -site, most of the local industries
which might utilize, produce or store hazardous materials are
located in incorporated communities. Two landfill sites are
'
located on the north side of the river. The old County landfill,
now secured according to state regulations, is located just.
Creek. The County's landfill is
east of.Tranters current west of
'
Bath off S. R. 1334.
32

A potential hazard facing County residents is the possible
establishment of a Military Operating Area (MOA) over Beaufort
County. In 19869 the Marine Corps Air Station. Cherry Point
proposed to establish a MOA, which included Beaufort County, to
provide an area for performance of military training activities.
Such activities would include air combat maneuvers, aircraft
acrobatics, and air intercepts. As such activities could have
negative impacts on local farming activites, tourism, and
wildlife, the County has officially expressed its opposition to
this proposal.
Fragile Areas. Beaufort County is rich in both natural and
cultural resources. The .extent and location of these resources
should be considered as development decisions are made.
The Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA) established
the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) and specified that the
CRC identify and designate "areas of environmental concern" -
AECs. AECs are areas with natural or cultural resources which
are of statewide concern. State officials have determined that
unregulated development in AECs has a high probability of causing
irreversible damage to public health, property, and the natural
environment. To protect those valuable resources the •CRC
developed guidelines for development in AECs. According to the
guidelines established by the CRC, most projects in AECs require
a CAMA permit. Projects in AECs generally must meet specific
33

development standards, outlined in Title 15, Subchapter 7H of
'
the North Carolina Administrative Code. "Minor" development
'
permits are necessary for projects altering less than 20 acres or
involving structures less than 60,000 square feet. Permits for
'
minor CAMA developments in the County are issued by the County
Building Inspector (132 Market Street, Washington). "Major"
'
development permits are issued by the Division of Coastal
Management (1424 Carolian Avenue, Washington).
Four categories of AECs have been developed: the estuarine
system; the ocean hazard system; public water supplies; and
natural and cultural resource areas. The AECs in Beaufort County.
'
are part of the estuarine system. Four types of natural areas
'
are included in this system: public trust areas, estuarine
waters, estuarine shorelines and coastal wetlands. Public trust'
'
areas are submerged lands in the coastal region where the public
has traditionally had.the right of use, including the right of
'
navigation. All navigable waterways in Beaufort County are
considered public trust'AECs.
Estuarine waters are brackish waters where the freshwater
'
from -upstream rivers mixes with saline tidal waters. The
high biological productivity of the estuarine system depends on
'
the unique water circulation" patterns of the estuarine waters.
The shoreline of estuarine waters, up to 75 feet from the mean
high water land has also been designated a AEC. Estuarine
34

I`j
shorelines are an important part of the estuarine system because
of their connection to the estuarine waters: improper develop-
'
ment in these areas can degrade adjacent waters and harm or
destroy adjoining wetlands. Thus, all land within 75 feet of the
'
County's coastal and joint fishing waters (Table 14, pg. 44.5)
,
are AECs.
Coastal wetlands are also AECs. CAMA has defined coastal
,
wetlands as any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or
occasional flooding
by tides. Coastal wetlands can be distin-
guished from inland wetlands (which are not considered AECs), by
the plant life that inhabits the area. Coastal wetlands border
the County's estuarine waters in many areas, especially in the
,
northern half of the region. Mapping such areas is difficult
as the coastal estuarine system is dynamic, being subject to
,
the action of tides and wind. On -site investigation is necessary
I
before the exact location and extent of coastal wetlands can be
determined.
'
Many creeks and streams tribuary
to the Pamlico
and Pungo
rivers have upstream areas which
are important to the
lifecycle
,
development of a number of fish and
shellfish species.
Maps of
the primary and secondary nurser Y
in
areas Beaufort
County are
available from, the state Division of
Marine Fisheries.
In these
'
primary nursery areas, juvenile
populations of economically
important seafood species spend
the major portion
of their
35
,

initial growing season. According to environmental officials,
'
these areas are necessary for the early and
nursery growth
development of virtually all the area's important seafood
species. Officials note that these areas need to be maintained
as much as possible, in their natural state and the population
within them must be permitted to develop in a normal manner with
'
as little interference from man as
possible.
'
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has identified
five unique natural areas in Beaufort County (see Map of Natural
and Cultural Resources, pg. 44.16 and Table 15, pg. 44.7); four
of the five are in the unincorporated area. Seventeen species of
'
rare birds (including the Bald Eagle) have been observed in the
'
County. Three species of
rare amphibians have
been noted and
three types of rare mammals have been observed.
Six rare plant
'
species including the Venus
F,ry-Trap, have also
been found in
the County.
'
The County also has a
number of structures
of historical or
architectural
significance (Table 16, pg. 44.8). Eleven of
the
'
twenty-six sites
identified by the State Division of History
and
'
Archives are
within incorporated communities; the remainder
are
found in the
unincorporated area. Six of the sites have
been
'
listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. The County
has a number
of archaeologically sensitive areas. Much of
the
activity of
the County's early inhabitants focussed on
the
36 ,

waterfront. All of the archaeological areas identified are found
along the water: in the area of Tranters, Bear and Broad Creeks;
Blounts Bay; Bath, Durham, St. Clair and South Creeks; and Indian
Island. In addition, seven underwater archaeological sites have
been identified: two in the area of Tranters Creek; four in
Bath Creek; and one in St. Clair Creek.
Areas of Resource Potential. About 28% of all land in the
County is currently being used as pasture or cropland. Some of
this land and other areas as well have soils that make them
areas of prime farmland. Agricultural officials have observed
that prime farmland will be of major importance in providing the
nation's short and long range needs for food and timber. Thus,
conservation of prime farmland has become a national objective
and an important state agricultural goal as well.
Prime farmland is defined by its current use (urban,
built-up and water areas cannot be considered prime farmhand),
and by the soils that comprise it. These soils have properties
that are favorable for the production of sustained high yields
of crops. According to agricultural officials, these soil
produce the highest yields with minimal inputs of energy and
economic resources, and farming these soils results in the least
damage to the environment. Seven of the County's 43 soils are
considered prime farmland soils. As shown in Table 17 (pg.
44.9)9 areas of prime farmland soils total over 679500 acres and
comprise almost 13% of all land in the County.
37.z

State forests and wildlife management areas are also
considered areas of resource Beaufort County has two
potential.
'
such areas: Goose Creek State Park located on the north side of
the river east of Bath, and the Goose Creek Gameland Area located
'
on the south side of the river on the Beaufort/Pamlico county
line.
'
The potential of some of the County's mineral resources is
'
already being realized. Tex.asgulf is currently mining a portion
of the County's phosphate reserves on the south side of the
river near Aurora. Deeper phosphate deposits also occur along
the north side of the river near Bath however no mining activ-
ity has been initiated. Phospate is not the County's only
mineral resource. Limestone, suitable for use as crushed rock,
'
underlies phosphate deposits. Heavy mineral sands are found
'
along the Suffolk Scarp. Those sands contain a variety minerals
including ilmenite, pyroxene, rutile, and sillimanite. Scattered
'
deposits of galucanite, often used as a chemical filter, are also
found. In addition, the County contains some deposits of peat,
a highly organic soil of decomposed vegetable matter, which when
cut out and dried, can be 'used as fuel. At this time however,
phosphate appears to be the only mineral resource for which
'
extraction is economically feasible.
2. Facility Limitations
'
The County
is growing. As new residents and business move
'
into the area, service demands will increase. More police and
38

i
1
fire protection will be needed; additional classrooms or schools
may be necessary. Demand for urban services such as public water
i
and sewer service will increase. Planning for future service
demands helps avoid shortfalls in
i
provision of public services.
Development can be severely constrained when the demand for
i
vital services such as water, schools and police and fire
protection exceeds supply. When demand for services such as
1
wastewater treatment exceeds system capacity, public health and
safety could be threatened; environmental degradation could
1
occur.
1
According to the North Carolina Office of State
Budget and
Management, the population of the County is expected
to increase
1
by over 9% between 1985 and 1990; by 1995, the population is
projected to have increased by over 17%. As shown
in Table 18
1
(pg. 44.9), the rate of population growth in Beaufort County is
1
expected to exceed the growth rate of adjoining Pitt
County, and
the regional and state rate as well. By 1990, the
County is
1
expected to have over 4,000 new residents to reach a
population
of over 47,000. By 1995, the County is forecast to
have almost
1
51,000 residents.
The
1
trends in population ...change noted in the
past decade
will continue through the 1990's: percentage -wise,
the County
1
will have more older persons and less young persons
than it'has
in the past. In 1985, 30% of the County's population
was under
1
39 1

nineteen years of age. That percentage is expected to decline
slightly to about 28.5% by 1995 (Table 19, pg. 44.9). In con-
trast, the percentage of the population 65 and older is expected
to increase slightly from 13.5% in 19859 to 14.5% by 1995.
Public Schools. There are two public school systems in the
County. The City of Washington School System generally serves
Washington Township while the Beaufort County system serves
the remaining municipalities and the unincorporated area. As
shown in Table 20 (pg. 44.10)9 enrollment at nine of the area's
fifteen schools is 90% of design capacity. Both Chocowinity High
School and Pinetown Elementary School were using trailers in 1987
to accommodate total enrollment. In 1986 County residents passed
a $12 million bond referendum, which when added to the County's
capital reserve fund begun in 1982, will be used to construct a
new consolidated high school in Yeatesville, a new high school
facility for Washington City Schools, and renovate several other
County school facilities. The new high school at Yeatesville
will serve students in the Bath, Belhaven, Pantego, and Pinetown
areas. All construction related to the bonds is targeted for
completion by the winter of 1989.
Given current trends in population growth, the capacity of
the County's public schools should not pose major constraints to
growth. Enrollment at some local schools exceeds capacity,
however school enrollment is expected to decline slightly over
the next decade.
40

Water Services. Five. of the County's seven incorporated
communities provide water service to their residents. Pantego
and Washington Park do not have a public system. Virtually all
County residents living outside the five communities with water
systems rely on private wells. Total water use by those not on
municipal systems in 1980 was estimated at 2.7 million gallons
per day (gpd). As shown in Table 21 (pg. 44.11)9 demand on all
municipal systems is currently well below capacity. Given the
moderate growth rate projected for the County, water supply will
not limit growth within these municipalities in the next decade.
Sewer Services. Four communities have public sewer systems
(Table 229 pg. 44.11). Pantego and Washington Park have no
public sewer system. Residents of Chocowinity currently rely on
private systems, however the Town is attempting to obtain funds
for construction of a public treatment system. Most residents
in outlying areas rely on in -ground septic systems. The Pamlico
Plantation project has a small. package treatment plant. All
four communities with public sewer systems are currently involved
in or have recently completed improvements to their treatment
systems. Both Aurora and Belhaven have problems with infiltra-
tion of water from outside the system. Thus, system demand is
weather -dependent; during periods of wet weather, average demand
can more than double, exceeding capacity of the treatment
plants. In 1986, Aurora entered into an agreement with state
41

officials to make improvements at the plant's discharge point and
'
to submit a 201 Facilities Plan. Improvements to Belhaven's
'
system are expected to be finished by late 1988. When completed,
system capacity (currently 5009000 gpd) will double. For a number
'
of years, the Town had a moratorium on sewer hook-ups. As system
improvements are now in progress, the moratorium has been lifted.
'
As of April 1987, Bath's system had been in operation less than
'
one year. The City of Washington began improvements.to its
system in 1985. If infiltration problems are corrected and all
'
system improvements are completed as anticipated, the capacity of
the County's municipal plants should prove adequate well'into the
'
1990's. However, given the difficulty of siting in -ground
septic systems, it is likely that sewer extensions will be
requested. Before major extensions can be accommodated in any
'
municipal system, it is likely that additional system improve-
ments will be necessary.
'
Solid Waste. According to estimates by County officials,
the County's current landfill on S. R. 1334 near Bath will reach
'
by the
capacity end of 1988. The County has a permit from the
'
State.of North Carolina to increase the height of the current
permitted landfill by 16 feet. In July 1987 the Texasgulf
'
Corporation, owner of the 60-acre landfill site, donated the land
as well as a contiguous 35-acre parcel to the County. In June
'
1987 the County 40-acre
purchased an adjoining parcel from the
,; 42

Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Development• plans call for expansion
of the landfill onto these tracts assuming -necessary state
permits can be secured.
County officials are also investigating landfill alterna-
tives. In the spring of 1987, North Carolina's Department of
Energy and the Division of Coastal Management funded Beaufort
County, seven other counties and two marine bases, to study
the feasibility of initiating a resource recovery program in the
eight -county region. One or more plants would be constructed to
handle the regional waste load. Recyclable materials would be
incinerated to produce electricity to power the plant; surplus
electricity and steam would be sold.
Roads. Lack of service by a major interstate highway is
often cited as one of the major factors limiting the growth of
eastern North Carolina. U. S. 17, a major north/south route in
the eastern part of the state, widens to four -lanes in urban
areas, but for the most of its length, is a two-lane highway.
U. S. 264 from Raleigh to. Washington will eventually be widened
to four -lanes according to state transportation plans. The
Washington -Greenville segment is scheduled for completion in the
fall of 19ee.
The County has over 1,000 miles of roadway, totalling road
mileage inside and outside municipalities. The state Primary
Highway System in Beaufort County totals 170 miles; the state
43

Secondary Highway System totals 680 miles. In 1986, 270 miles
(30%) of the counties state -maintained highways were unpaved.
A .number of highway improvements are planned for the
Beaufort County area as described earlier in Section D. 3. In
addition, two bridges are to be replaced and improvements to
automatic warning devices are scheduled at four railroad cross-
ings. Highway improvements are also scheduled within the City
of Washington.
44

Table 9
HARVESTED CROPLAND
'
(acres)
---------------------------------------------------
County BEAUFORT
Bertie
1
---------------------------------------------------
Hertford
Martin Pitt
1978 124,600
90,100
.50,800
78,300. 156,000
1979 141,100
89,400
52,000
83,300 160,000
'
.1980 136,000
93,000
50,200
81,500 159,000
1981 145,000
94,000
54,700
86,000 157,000
1982 150,300
91,900
49,000
87,000 154,000
'
1983 115,900
76,600
43,800
69,500 132,200
1984 128,600
84,900
47,300
75,600 145,100
------------------------------------
Chg. 78 3.2%
-5.8%
---------------
-6.9% -3.4% -7.0%
'
Source: N.C. Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service
'
Table 10
BEAUFORT COUNTY BUILDING
---------------------------------------------------
PERMITS
1981-1986
'
Type of
Structure
1981
-------------------------------------------------
1982
1983 1984 1985
1986
Total
81-86
'
SF units
190
125
199 198 188
170
1,070
MF units
14
0
0 14 9
33
70
'
Mobile home
59
36
36 2 78
105
316
Non-residential
------------------------------
80
95
101 83 79
23
461
Total Residential
--------------
263
-------------------------------------
161
-----------------------------------
235 214 275
308
1,456
1
Total Permits
-------------------------------------------
343
256
336 297 354
331
1,917
Note: permits are for Beaufort County
excluding City
of Washington
t
Source: compiled
by Mid -East
Commission from County
Building
Department records
'
44.1 '

1
1
F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 11
LAMA DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 9
8 5
1
9 8
6
Development
Permits
Development
Per®'its
Major
General
Major
General
County
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approvals
Rank
Approvals
Rank
Approvals
Rank
Approvals
Rank
BEAUFORT
20
4
150
1
19
4
193
1
Bertie
2
16
6
17
1
18
4.
18
Brunswick
11
7
35
8
15
6
34
9
Camden
4
12
22
9
4
14
19
11
Carteret
45
1
107
3
49
1
153
3
Chowan
5
11
53
6
9
14
53
6
Craven
13
5
16
13
7
12
34
10
Currituck
13
6
87
.4
18
5
79
4
Dare
21
3
139
2
28
2
186
2
Gates
1
18
2
t8
2
17
1
20
Hertford
1
19
0
20
1
19
3
1t
Hyde
3
13
17
12.
10
9
9
16
New Hanover
45
2
12
15
21
3
13
15
Onslow
7
9
7
16
14
7
17
12
Pamlico
to
8
61
5
13
8
69
5
.Pasqutnk
7
to
22
10
$
11
35
8
Pender
3
14
1
19
7
13
7
17
Perquimns
3
15
42
7
3
15
39
7
Tyrrell
1
20
15
14
1
20
14
14
Washingtn
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
17
22
11
3
16
17
13
Total
217
-
816
-
233
-
979
-
note: ranked by permits approved
Source: N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development;
Division of Coastal Management
44.2

Table 12
LAND CLASSIFICATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land
Development
Percent
Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capability
Limitations
Acreage
of Total
Comments
I
Few or none
500
0.11h,
Needs only good
cultural management
...................................................................................
II
Moderate to
Moderate
Moderate conservation
well drained;
581500
11.0%
practices required
erodible;
41200
0.81
highly permeable
41300
0.9%
(subtotal)
(675000)
(12.6%)
...............................................
0 ...
. .. .. ... . . ... . . ... .. . ........ . . .
III
Somewhat to
Special conservation
poorly drained;
Severe
317,800
59.9%
2easures required
highly erodible
20,800
3.9%
(subtotal)
(338,600)
(63.7%)
. . . .. .
... . ... .......... .. . . .. .. . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . ..
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... .. . . . . ... . . . .
IV, V,
'dI
Very careful management
Poorly drained
Very severe
77,000
14.5%
required
........................................... . ...........
.................... a.......
VII
Very poorly
Use restricted to
drained to
Very severe
14,100
2.7%
woodland, grazing,
swanp-like
or wildlife
...................................................................................
Vlll
Use restricted to
Marshlands
Undevelopable
22,500
4.2%
recreation, wildlife,
and beaches
sometimes water supply
.................... 0 .............................. • .... .... ...... .. ... .. . .. . .... • .
Unclassified
Urban built-up - 12,000 2.3�
areas
Total 5311700 100.0%
Source: 'Long Range Program and )Work Plan', Beaufort Soil 6 Water
Conservation District, 1980
44.3
I.

Table 13
'
MAJOR SOIL TYPES
---------------------------------------
Limitations
--------------------------------------
for:
Soil
Buildings a/o
Septic
Runoff
Death to Nigh %
Total
Type
Slope
Basements Tanks (1)
Potential
Water Table
(ft) Co. Land
--------------------------------------
Arapahoe fine sandy loan
0-21A
Severe
Severe
Varies
0.0
- 1.0
4.2%
1
Augusta fine sandy loam
0-2%
Severe
Severe
Moderate
1.0
- 2.0
3.2%
Baybora loam
.,
0=c%
Severe
Severe
High
+1
- 0.5
Cape Fear fine sandy loam
0-2%
Severe
Severe
High
0.0
- 1.5
3.3%
'
Craven fine sandy loam
0-1%
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
2.0
- 3.0
2.4%
Croatan muck
0-2%
Severe
Severe
High
+1
- 1.0
2.2%
Goldsboro fine sandy loam
0-2%
Moderate
Severe
Slight
2.0
- 3.0
2.3%
'
Leaf loam
0%
Severe
Severe
High
0.5
- 1.5
8.2%
Lenior loam
0%
Severe
Severe
High
1.5
- 2.5
6.2%
'
Lynchburg fine sandy loam
0%
Severe
Severe
Moderate
0.5
- 1.5
3.7%
Muckalee loam
0%
Severe
Severe
High
0.5
- 1.5
4.0%
Pantego loam
0-2%
Severe
Severe
Varies
0.5
- 1.5
2.7%
'
Ponzer muck
0-1%
Severe
Severe
High
0.0
- 1.0
1.0
2.8%
6.2%
Portsmouth loam
0-2%
Severe
Seven
Varies
0.0
-
Rains fine sandy loan
0%
Severe
Severe
Moderate
0.0
- 1.0
3.5%
'
Roanoke fine sandy loam
0-2%
Severe
Severe
High
0.0
- 1.0
8.4%
9.2%
Torhunta sandy loam
0-2%
Severe
Severe
Moderate
0.5
- 1.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
78.1%
(1) water table > 4 ft. = severe limitations
' note: 'major" soils comprise 2% of more of all land;
limitations are for soil in virgin state with no improvements
Source: Soil Survey Maps & Interpretations Beaufort County N.C., U.S.D.A., S.C.S., July 1984
1
44.4

Table 14
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION
Watercourse
Pamlico -Tar River
Barris Creek
Bath Creek
Blounts Creek
Broad Creek
Calf Tree Creek
Chocowinity Bay
Duck Creek
Durham Creek
Herring Run
Hills Creek
Hudies Gut
Lower Goose Creek
Campbell Creek
Smith Creek
Hunting Creek
Lower Spring Creek
Peterson Creek
Snode Creek
Mallard Creek
Mixon Creek
Nevil Creek
North Creek
South Creek
Bond Creek
Davis Creek
Drinkwater Creek
Jacobs Creek
Little Creek
Long Creek
Muddy Creek
Short Creek
Tooleys Creek
Whitehurst Creek
Strawhorn Creek
St. Clair Creek
Upper Goose Creek
Classification
Inland Waters
Coastal Water
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Coastal Waters:
Inland Waters
Coastal Waters
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Joint Waters:
Inland Waters
Coastal Waters
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
Inland Waters:
I
above railroad bridge at Washington;
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Public Trust Waters AEC
Eustrine Waters AEC
above Smith Creek;
below
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Eustrine Waters AEC
above Deephole Point;
below
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
Public Trust Waters
44.5
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC
AEC

F
L
7 J
Table 14 (cont.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watercourse
Classification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pungo River
Inland
Waters above US 264 bridge at Leechville;
Joint Waters
below bridge to Smith Creek;
Coastal
Waters
below Smith Creek
Flax Pond Bay
Coastal
Waters:
Eustrine Waters AEC
George Best Creek
Coastal
Waters:
Eustrine Waters AEC
Jordan Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Lower Dowery Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Pantego Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Pungo Creek
Inland
Water above NC 99 bridge;
Coastal
Waters
below
Scotts Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Smith Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Vale Creek
Coastal
Waters
below
Satterwaite Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Toms Creek
Coastal
Waters:
Eustrine Waters AEC
Upper Dowery Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Woodstock Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Wright Creek
Inland
Waters:
Public Trust Waters AEC
Note 1: Indentation indicates the watercourse named is tribu-
tary to the next preceding watercourse named and not
so indented
Source: "North Carolina Fisheries Regulations for Coastal
Waters.", 1997
Note 2: For management purposes, all water in the state has
been classified into one of three categories: inland
fishing waters, where fishing is regulated by the
Wildlife Resources Commission; coastal fishing waters,
where fishing activity is under the jurisdiction of
the Marine Fisheries Commission; and joint fishing
waters, where regulations developed by agreement of
both agencies are in effect. Under CAMA, joint
fishing waters are regulated as estuarine waters.
44.6

Table 14 Addendum
NURSERY AREAS AND WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
The Environmental Management Commission, (EMC) has the
responsibility of assigning the surface waters of the state
specific water quality classifications. These classifications
in turn determine what uses will be permitted in any specific
surface waterbody. A description of water quality classifica-
tions and very generally, the areas where these classifications
are found in the County, are noted below:
Freshwater Classifications
Class WS-II: water protected as drinking water supplies
which are in low to moderately developed watersheds; discharges
are restricted to primarily domestic wastewater or industrial
non -process waters specifically approved by the EMC. Locations:
Cherry Run and Tranters Creek.
Class C: suitable for secondary recreation (e.g. boating)
and fish propagation. Locations: Tar River from Beaufort
County line to U. S. 17 bridge.,
Tidal Salt Water Classifications
Class SA: suitable for commercial shellfishing and all
other tidal salt water uses. Locations:' Pamlico River south of
line drawn approximately from Hickory Point to west side of
North Creek; Pungo River south of Woodstock Point.
Class SB: suitable for swimming and primary recreation and
all Class SC uses. Locations: Pamlico River east of Washington
Park to start of Class SA waters; Pungo River north of Class SA
waters to shallow headwaters.
Class SC: suitable for secondary recreation and fish
propagation. Locations: Pamlico River south of U. S. 17 bridge
to start of.Class SB waters at east end of Washington Park.
44.61

NURSERY AREAS
Maps of the Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas in Beaufort
County are on file with the ;Division of Marine Fisheries. In
comparison to adjoining Hyde County, Beaufort County has few
nursery areas. These lie in the eastern end of the County.
Very generally, the Primary Nursery Areas in Beaufort County are
located in:
the shallow water areas of North Creek
East Fork
Frying Pan Creek
Little East Creek
A Secondary Nursery Area is located in North Creek at its
confluence with East Fork.
Note: See "N. C. Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters 1987"
for specific delineations.
44.62

Table 15
UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Number Site Name
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
1N. Beaufort Sweetgum
Tract of surviving sweetgum-mixed hardwoods,
Swamp Forest
swamp forest, and transition zones to pond
Remnant
pine pocosin and pine savannah. Abundant
wildlife.,including bear.
2N Chocowinity Creek
.
Transition to fresh water marsh which
widens into esturary of Pamlico River.
3N Goose Creek.
�
Broad, tidal section of Pamlico River. Most
Natural Area
significant for large low -salinity marshes.
Swamp forest, shrub thickets, upland pine
thickets, upland pine forest also present.
Many waterfowl, herons, and other bird
species.
IN Indian Island
Eastern portion largely freshwater marsh
with scattered pine, bay, myrtle. Abundant
herons, waterfowl. Osprey nests. Western
upland portion primarily sweetgum and live
oak forest.
5N Suffolk Escarpment
Area along escarpment primarily in bay
forest. At one time area along and below
escarpment had seeps (springs) with
utricularia geminiscapa.
Tote: number cooresponds to map location
source: North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
44.7

' Table 16
STRUCTURES OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
Site Name Site Number Location Comment
'
Archbell House
Athens Chapel Church
1
2
S.R 1339
S.R. 1343
of Christ
Bath Historic District
3
Bath
National
Register
'
Belfont Plantation
4
S.R. 1411
National
Register
Belhaven City Hall
5
Belhaven
National
Register
Bonner House
6
Edward
Colonel James Reading
7
S.R. 1143
'
Grist House
Cutter House
8
S.R. 1332
'
Hardison House
House
9
:} 10
S.R. 1411
Washington area
Lucas -Taylor House
11
Washington area
Mayo House
12
Washington area
Mills House
13
N.C. 33
North Carolina Phosphate
14
S.R. 1946
Corporation
Pantego Academy
15
Pantego
National
Register
'
Pantego Jail
16
Pantego
Study List
Pantego Historic District
16
Pantego
Study List
Respess House
17
S.R. 1325
'
River Forest Manor
18
Belhaven
Rosedale
19
S.R. 1407
National
Rergister
Rutledge House
20
Aurora
Study List
Smaw House
21
U.S. 264
'
St. John's Church
22
S.R. 1932
Trinity Episcopal Church
..23
Chocowinity
'
Washington Historic District
Zion Episcopal Church
24
25
Washington
U.S. 264
National
Register
' Note: number references map location; locations approximate;
"Study List" refers to properties for which preliminary
findings of National Register eligiblity have been made
' but which have not formally been nominated to the Regis-
ter; ommission of property from Study List does not imply
that property is not eligible for inclusion on list.
' Source: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archieves and History
' Please note: two structures appearing on previous listings of historic
structures in Beaufort County- the Bright House in Chocowinity
.and the Bonner House off S.R. 1331- have been destroyed.
44.8

Table 17
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS
-----------------------------------------------
Soil Type
Acres
Percent Total
County Land
-----------------------------------------------
Altavista fine sandy loam
7,977
1.5%
Augusta fine sandy loam
17,082
3.2%
Craven fine sandy loams
26,162
4.9%
Dogue fine sandy loam
1,472
0.3%
Goldsboro sandy loam
11,970
2.3%
State sandy loam
2,705
0.5%
Yeopim loam
-----------------------------------------------
277
0.1%
Total
67,645
12.8%
Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
Table 18
FUTURE REGIONAL POPULATION
----------------------------------------------------------------
Change %
Change
County
----------------------------------------------------------------
1985
1990
1995
85-90
90-95
BEAUFORT
43,260
47,314
50,702
9.4%
7.2%
Bertie
21,341
21,760
21,895
2.0%
0.6%
Hertford
23,924
24,833
25,280
3.8%
1.8%
Martin
26,653
26,463
26,406
-0.7%
-0.2%
Pitt
----------------------------------------------------------------
95,862
101,823
107,409
6.2%
5.5%
Region
211,040
222,193
231,692
5.3%
4.3%
State
6,253,951
6,597,922
6,930,994
5.5%
5.0%
Source: N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, 1986
Table 19
COUNTY POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE 1985-1995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985
1990
-1995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
%
No.
%
No.
0-4 years
3,305
7.6%
3,646
7.7%
3,733
7.4%
5-19 years
9,814
22.7%
10,478
22.1%
10,768
21.2%
20-44 years
15,693
36.3%
16,977
35.9%
17,947
35.4%
45-64 years
8,612
19.9%
9,474
20.0%
10,946
21.6%
65 and older
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,836
13.5%
6,739
14.2%
; 7,308
14.4%
Total
43,260
100.0%
47,314
100.0%
50,702
100.0%
Source: N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, 1986
44.9

Table 20
'
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community
School
Grades
Enrollment
Capacity Enrllmnt
86-87
as %
Cap.
'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora
Aurora High School
9-12
235
350
67%
S.W. Snowden Elem.
K-8
595
650
92%
'
Bath
Bath High School
K-12
780
950
82%
Belhaven
Belhaven Elem. Sch.
K-6
495
525
94%
Wilkinson High Sch.
9-12
440
475
93%
Chocowinity
Choco. High School
5-12
705
675
104%
Choc. Primary Sch.
K-4
430
460
93�
350
63%
Pantego
Beaufort County Sch.
K-6
220
Pantego Jr. High Sch.
7-8
225
400
56%
Pinetown
Pinetown Elem.
K-8
205
180
114%
Washington
Eastern Elem.
K-2
965
935
103%
'
John Small Elem.
5-6
580
650
89%
Jones Jr. High Sch.
7-9
925
1,050
88%
Tayloe Elem.
3-4
615
560
110%
_-
Washington High Sch.
10-12
840_----
------
-_------- 1,07278%
Total
8,255
9,282
89%
'
Source: Land
Use Plans- Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, Washington;
updated
by City of Washington and
County School Departments
1
44.10

Table 21
MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipality
Supply
Total
Estimated
Demand as %
------------------------------------------------------------------
Source
Capacity
Demand (gpd)
Capacity
Aurora
2 wells
288,000
100,000
35%
Bath
2 wells
216,000
30,350
14%
Belhaven
2 wells
504,000
365,000
72%
Chocowinity
2 wells
375,000
157,000
42%
Washington
1 well and
2,920,000
1,500,000
51%
------------------------------------------------------------------
surface supply
Source: Land Use Plans- Aurora, Bath, Belhaven,
Washington; Town of Chocowinity
Table 22
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------
Municipality
Total
Estimated
Demand as %
------------------------------------------------------
Capacity
Demand (gpd)
Capacity
Aurora
120,000
90,300
75%
Bath
40,000
30,350
76%
Belhaven
1,000,000
350,000
35%
Washington
------------------------------------------------------
2,250,000
1,810,000
80%
Source: Land Use Plans- Aurora, Bath, Belhaven,
Washington
44.11

Figure 7
Beaufort County
Land Use 1986
Crop/pasture (
Urban (2.3%)
Rural developed (5.9;
Source: Office of State Budget and Management
orest (64.3%)

fi
170
160
150
140
130
120
11,10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40 -f--
.1978
Figure 8
Harvested Cropland
1978-1984
Pitt
B EAU FO RT
Bertie
Martin
Hertford
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Year
Source:
N.C.
Crop
and Livestock Reporting
Service

r r ■r r r r r r� rr r r r� r r r rr r �r r
Figure 9
Permits Issued
1981--1986
400
350
Total Permits
300
v
a�
0
250
200
a_
c
Single—family
150
CD
100 Mobile homes
50
Multifamily
0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Year
Source: Mid -East Commission computations based on
County Building Department

LOCATIONAL KEY
Land Use Category
Site Number
Name
Municipal Planning
Jurisdiction
1
Washington
2
Washington Park
'
3
Chocowinity
4
Bath
5
Pantego
6
Belhaven
'
7
Aurora
'
Industrial
B
Texasgulf
Institutional
9
Voice of America
Public Open and
10
Goose Creek State
'
Park
Recreation
it
Goose Creek Wildlife
Management Area
'
Private Open and
12
Camp Bonner
Recreation
13
Camp Hardee
'
14
Roanoke Christian
Service Camp
15
Whichard Beach
,
44.15
,
1

r tj yt ..
�� to t
O , W A S 11 1 ♦l \ \• \�• t-
_ EXISTING LAND USE
A
TM Preparation of this uP -aa fiaantad is .. - ..�.}•• ono .• _ •:- - n -
part teroach a sront Prorldod by the forte , •r• ,1• h
Carol tea coastal Maaasaarat Trosrsa, «•' ��y• - ft.`' �.. G A~
throush feWs Pre.ldad2 1 the Coastal :oho .. ,� .•° ..�- i rs J .. Y /�L \
naaaea t Act of 197 as waded. white �• • •+t,� A/ _ " :�;� �•, .�. 7. �t.i/
1■ ad.laleter.d by teo fIU" of Oaaa and
cwstal Mawm Maaaferat. 4tloul - ,r �F 4
OtYule and AtaosPMrle Administration. �^: �, i• `y� ,� ~, +.• , a Y ,—r • C: -
.. � •:} - .. ;.Y� .� �� M r:: yr: ^ i ••'�' if
•: ;.�.. '
dr C
M
AQ
Industrial �- R
l• � + } c .ate -or.. y� £ R _
Institutional
1 Urbanized Area o �� �;=_'' •w.. .�- I
.ram . ,... ors. ,,.•• ` �+`:�
1 Rural Concentration
== ,� s'rrw BEAUFORT COUNTY
Public Open & Recreation I-
� -.� :�•=;: 1 _ •�`=�• ". •= `" NORTH CAROLINA
`•� M •�1 (�"+ Y. n:;y 's a Prepared by the llid-East Commission
1 Private Open & Recreation 1 :.- +� ` r' , . • . • '�� Washington, North Carolina
o:x ::: ~=.o October1987
i 7 % a
' Municipal Planning Jurisdiction _ -W.. • -
f,
PA
• t , .1
'°•15

' 1 •'`°'" `'Q" 7`•. ' NATURAL AND CULTURAL
C.
RESOURCES
—f- - J —X ---A- -t- 9 \I�-- • _ r
J �',+. t rr ,�-� j I p "" L\ ,:� `r `` :, • `:: fie. _ � ,. W�
J W At N p �• .. ... a. '• `ice..
- - t+. � r �, +�� I� r �'r �. t�_�J-sa � \"1 �;,• s.` •- .tom .
.r
te
«. �• � l i s - r r �• t�
``' ,ter. • - P U a U
_ ,� ra nr wi�lsieC,T01•. 1\ r-d:.5' •'/ • ,• oro• �1• ' ,..F,.,,r '!" «.i✓'•\ il.'�� �` -le } n
G
3 N _ .�....
' ` ' •A r • •• **rats ... G
�y + I. a..ra. • _ .r q.—
_.. sr .i_ -- . •y�, • - 'ram _" � •r • "„'o, ` _ � R , -
Ella Orevarrtlo. of this uv o* flesse*d fa 1 ~ part throuch a (rant yroMed Dr the 11ortII
Carol l n* Coaa1.1 Manafe.ent Profru, - M., �+ i / r- 1, 4 N _
' throu[h funds Orovldad Er CM Coastal 2o.e ' .-.
aa
is:Ce.eot Act of 1972. as *mended., rh1¢h ` t r O C O a / r
Ss *d.1.tstered by tile
Office of Ocen *nd f .- /r ,•`+ s
Costal .Resouxe Meaafe.ent. Matlonal-
O¢aul¢ a.d Atwsyherie Ad.Llstr*tie¢. r a t • c . 1•.•
r1•••+ e. �r �.. -
IZZP
.. ,.f i �4.. r,,.• � t- v �► a% mar � � ! ��
• Historic Structure
BEAUFORT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
' Unique Natural Area - t' r
11
� ��� i �,,. 9 • �� 1rso�i„I1in;RoZ7�"�pa�; �' .. � � Prepared by the Mid —East Commission
r �;�I3'!_�_yugil � ��a�ieo�%e-� ,• � - Washington. North Carolina
a� ,� a' - :� ,.. � Only y �G �1 \\ `ic►;+1/..rR.i a I ,itc �-, _•\October 1987
1 T �.'�9�s\\ � i� /`�,//\s I �11,•� .hP a 4 r-. �I=
o�y ,y N•T� II n= 11 11 _wit , _ ��.; O
Archaeologically Sensitive Area - i -^_ • ' 4
to •� p�ii at Rl� I. ;
J'. .VPS
TN=r.�i'u��.•n�o.d ay�P`j7r/..._
1r.� ;R a �7i.i1� `lam le any 11 �n\���:dsa��'�
. \9\ a 1\I •e��.\ •� a U` ! a `` - S C O - fus rw werww.na
M
44. 16 1' {1

' IV. POLICY OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Review of 1981 Policy Effectiveness
' In 1981 the Count adopted a number of policy
. y p p y objectives in
' the areas of resource protection, resource production and
management, and economic and community development to guide land
' development in the unincorporated areas of the County for the
following five years. As a first step in updating the County's
1981 land use plan, the Land Use Advisory Committee evaluated how
far the County had come in achieving the goals set in 1981. By
evaluating the objectives and implementation actions of the 1981
' program, Committee members hoped to make the County's 1987 land
' use plan a more effective document.
f
On a scale of A to F, the effectiveness of the County's
' 1981 plan could be rated about a B+. Most of the implementation
strategies outlined for specific policy objectives have been
' acted -on. The County has, as specified in its 1981 plan,
enforced development standards for minor projects in AECs,
' designated several sites for new industrial development; and
' entered into the regular phase of the Federal Flood Insurance
Program. As recommended in the 1981 plan, the County applied
' for, and has received, funds for housing rehabilitation. In.the
i
fall of 1987, the County was awarded a $6009000 Community
' Development Block Grant for improvements for about 40 houses in
' the Blounts Creek area.
' 45

1
Two of the items not carried -out as part- of the 1981
'
planning program have been incorporated in the 1987 plan. In an
effort to protect historic resources, the plan recommends that
'
the County reinstate the Historic Properties Commission and
,
recommended that this Commission revise the County's inventor y
of historic structures. The 1987 plan also recommends that the
I ,
County update its water system plan, and that a County -wide
water system be advocated if such plan proves feasible.
'
Several of the policies adopted as part of the 1981 plan
-been
'
have restated in the County's 1987 land use plan. The
County will continue to protect its natural and cultural re-
'
sources, and to plan for industrial development and community
improvements. However, due to changing conditions in Beaufort
'
County and in eastern North Carolina, the Town's 1987 plan
'
recommends several new action -items for consideration. A
complete listing of the policy objectives and implementation
'
strategies the County had adopted to guide development in
Beaufort County through 1992 follow.
'
G
t
46
�

B. Resource Protection
Beaufort County is rich in natural resources. Wetlands,
1
woodlands, croplands, and fresh and estuarine waters provide
habitat for avast array of fish and wihdlife. The Pamlico River
is the keystone of the County's development future. Tourism,
residential development, and commercial and recreational fishing
are contingent upon maintaining the integrity of its waters.
The quality of life in every city and town in the County, in
every crossroads community, and throughout the unincorporated
area, hinges on protecting the County's abundant natural re-
sources. The results of the County's public survey set out a
clear agenda for the next' five years: give top priority to
preserving the County's natural resources, especially its fresh
and estuarine waters..
f
0
Many of the County's resources are exhibiting symptoms of
stress and degradation. The County acknowledges this gradual
deterioration and has adopted the following policy objectives in
an effort to reverse this trend.
47

Resource Protection Policy Objectives and Implementation
'
1. protect and enhance water quality in the Pamlico River and its
tributaries
'
a. support innovative wastewater treatment systems that
eliminate discharges of domestic wastewater int-o the
'
surface waters of the state; support use of package
treatment plants only if other alternatives are not `
available; oppose issuance of permits to discharge
,
domestic wastewater into the Pamlico River.
b. support expansion of the Agricultural Cost Share
Program to include the counties of the upper Tar
'
drainage.area.
C. support control of urban stormwater'runoff by local
'
communities.
d. consider adopting subdivision regulations that set
'
maximum runoff standards and encourage use of innova-
tive stormwater controls.
e. encourage regulatory, administrative, and educational
efforts in upstream communities (e.g. improvements to
wastewater treatment, facilities, adoption of land use
controls, instituting stormwater controls, etc.) that
'
will help improve water quality in downstream areas.
2. preserve and protect Areas of Environmental Concern
'
a. support development in AECs only if such development
meets the management objectives in 15.NCAC 7H.0203 and
the use standards in 15 NCAC 7H.0208 and .0209.
,
b. . support construction of 'marinas. according to the
following standards:
'
marinas not to be located in Primary or Secondary
Nursery Areas; ,
marinas in Class SA or WS-I, WS-II, or WS-III
waters to be provided with pump -outs;
timing of marina construction involving dredging '
to be determined by Division of Marine Fisheries.
C. consider adopting subdivision regulations which use
incentives to preserve land adjoining AECs. '
'marina -- boat basin with capacity to moor ten (10) or more
vessels

3. protect the County's present and future water supply
a. support establishment of a state fund to assist
communities in removing leaking underground storage
tanks (USTs) and in cleaning up affected water
' supplies. b. support regulations which control the siting, construc-
tion, and maintenance of USTs; support projects in
' which no USTs will be placed within 100 ft. of surface
waters.
C.
support Capacity Use groundwater monitoring by the
'
Department of Environmental Management (DEM). Should
significant declines in groundwater levels be noted,
urge DEM to limit withdrawals, giving municipal -uses
'
priority over industrial uses.
d.
request that the Coastal Resources Commission designate
Tranters Creek a public water supply AEC should the
creek ever be used to supply.a County water system.
4. protect
the County's historic and cultural resources
a.
support local Historic Commissions in area communities;
encourage strict enforcement of Historic District
'
ordinances.,
b.
consider reinstating the County's Historic Properties
Commission; review and revise the inventory of historic
'
properties in the County. Consider giving properties
of special importance a local historic property
'
designation.
C.
support proposals which will have no negative impacts
on historic or'archaeologic resources.
'
5. provide for safe, environmentally sound development
a. support a demonstration program for septic alterna-
tives.
b. support expansion of municipal water and sewer systems;
' support wastewater projects proposing alternatives to
surface water discharge systems.
C. study the feasibility of a County water and sewer
' system; develop strategy to generate public support for
such systems if projects,appear.feasible.
49

d. consider adopting performance -based subdivision`
regulations where lot size is determined in part by
soil suitability.
6. protect wildlife habitat and preserve scenic resources
a. actively oppose the take-over of County air -space by
military operations.
b. consider the establishment of a'land conservation fund
which would protect areas of environmental; recreation-
al or aesthetic importance by in -fee aquisition or
purchase-in-lessthan fee techniques.
c.. consider adopting subdivision regulations which offer
incentives for preserving environmentally sensitive
areas and scenic landscapes.
d. review development of inland wetlands protection
programs by state and federal agencies so that inland
wetlands are afforded protection similar to that now
afforded coastal wetlands under CAMA.
50

e
C. Resource Production and Management
i
The economic future of the County hinges on protecting the
County's productive natural resources. Many of the County's
manufacturing, retail, and service enterprises are directly or
indirectly involved with resource development. Many residents
work the land:. in 1984 the County ranked seventh in the state
for total harvested cropland. Other residents rely on the water
for their livelihood: in 1985 the County ranked sixth out of
the twenty coastal counties in seafood landings and seventh in
the number of commercial licenses issued.
Many diverse activitiet are affecting the quality and
quantity of the County's productive resources. Farmland is
being lost to residential development; commercial seafood
landings are declining; recreational catches are diminishing.
The County recognizes the importance of preserving its productive
natural resources and has adopted the following policies to
protect and enhance these resources
51

'Resource Production and Management
'
Policy Obiectives and Implementation
1. preserve and enhance agricultural uses in Beaufort County
a. promote and expand the Farmers Market in downtown
Washington. Enlist the assistance and support of the
Agricultural Extension Service and the Chamber of
'
Commerce and work -with other area communities to
develop markets in which all County farmers could
participate.
'
b. support municipalities in designing programs for public
improvements so that financing avoids imposition of
costs on agricultural property whose agricultural use
'
will not benefit from those improvements.
C. encourage farmers owning parcels of 10 acres or more
'
to apply for use -value assessment.
d. consider adopting subdivision regulations to ensure
that land is used efficiently when agricultural
'
properties are subdivided.
2. protect commercial forest lands
'
a. encourage owners of parcels 20 or more acres in size
to apply for use -value assessment.
'
b. encourage operators to leave vegetative buffer between
cleared areas and major (i.e. paved) roadways.
'
C. support a program administered by state or federal
agencies to minimize drainage of wetlands for.silva-
cultural activities.
t
d. encourage immediate replanting of areas cleared for
timber.
,
3. protect and. enhance commercial and recreational fishing
activities in the Pamlico River and its tributaries
'
a. consider adopting criteria for siting of marinas which
.protects important nursery areas.
52 1

' b. support state efforts to reduce nutrient loading in
the County's surface waters
(i) encourage more stringent restrictions on nitrogen
discharges;
(ii) support regulations controlling the disposal of
animal wastes.
C. consider adopting subdivision regulations. which use
' incentives to preserve areas adjoining Primary and
Secondary Nursery Areas.
d.
review -the need for additional public river access
'
sites - a minimum of one on each side of the river.
Apply for funding to conduct a Beach Access Study;
'
based on study results, apply for a Beach Access Grant
from the Division of Coastal Management and apply for
assistance from the Office of Water Resources under the
Civil Works Project Program.
'
e.
support development of a fisheries management program
and regulations for both commercial and sports fisher-
man; support expansion of local operations serving
both commercial and recreational users; request that
the Division of Marine Fisheries investigate the
possibility of closing the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers to
'
commercial ,trawling and hauling.
f.
encourage activites such as "catch and release"
'
programs which attempt to preserve declining species.
g.
request that the Division of Marine Fisheries investi-
gate culling practices at local fish .processing plants
to assure that significant numbers of undersize and
"trash" fish are not being wasted to the detriment of
future stocks.. �.
'
4. preserve areas of prime farmland
' a. consider adopting a policy to preserve prime agricult-
ural land. Submit proposals.for public projects to the
SCS for review. Carefully review projects which in the
' opinion of the SCS, will have adverse impacts on
important areas of prime agricultural land.
b. support development of a comprehensive state program
' for farmland preservation. Support legislation that
proposes to study programs existing in other areas and
to develop appropriate programs and techniques for use
' in North Carolina.
53

5. ensure efficient, environmentally sound agricultural produc-
tion
a. support use of Best Management Practices for agricul-
tural land use and production.
b. work with the SCS to encourage participation in the '
state's Agricultural Cost Share Program.
C. support the Conservation Provisions of the 19B5 Farm
Bill: ,
conservation reserve
conservation compliance '
sodbuster
swampbuster '
6. provide for development that preserves the area's productive
natural resources
a. support additional mini.ng activity only if in the
opinion of appropriate officials at the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, the
project will have no long term significant impacts on
land, air, or water resources; support development of
special review criteria for mining activities involving
rivers and creeks.
b. support only those proposals for industrial development
that demonstrate that their implementation will lead to
no significant adverse impacts on traditional and/or
current uses of land and water resources.
C. support development in accordance with the Land
Classification Map. High density development should
generally adjoin developed areas, however the County
will support projects which involve conversion of farm
and/or forest land if the benefits of the project
clearly outweigh any negative impacts which might
result. In all cases, the County supports preservation
of areas of prime farmland.
54

0
D. Economic and Community Development
In 1987 the County had 459400 residents scattered among
seven incorporated places, many crossroad communities, and a
�I
number of waterfront developments. The County is growing: by
1995, the County is expected to have over 509000 people residing
within its boundaries.
Many of these who live in the County also work there. Many
earn their livelihood from the County's abundant natural re-
sources: farming, fishing, forestry, and mining enterprises
employ a considerable number of area residents. The County has
over 45 manufacturing firms; one-third of these are directly
involved in local resource development.
The County recognizes ,,the importance of providing for a
strong local economy,.ensuring a mix of local employment oppor-
tunities, and for preserving and enhancing the quality of life
for area residents. To that end, the County has adopted the
following policies to provide for the growth and economic
development of the County.
55
9

9
Economic and Community Development
'
Policy Objectives and Implementation
1. provide for commercial and industrial growth and expansion
which meets the objectives of the County's Land Use Plan
I '
a. support the Committee of 100 and the ;Chamber of
Commerce in their efforts to market the County's
'
designated industrial sites.
b. support.groups such as the Mid -East Commission, the
'
Regional Development Institute, and the Small Business
Institute at East'Carolina University, which provide
assistance to new and small businesses and to economic
development projects.
'
c. assist the Committee of 100 in developing a County
Industrial Park and in constructing a building on
'
speculation to house future industrial tenants.
d. support the Economic Development Task Force in its
'
efforts to identify solutions to regional problems
through public/private partnerships.
e. work with municipalities to extend water and/or sewer
,
services to industrial and commercial firms locating
outside municipal service areas in accordance, with"the
Land Classification Map; for residential projects in
,
the unincorporated area, water and sewer service is to
be the responsibility of the developer.
G
f. advocate a County water and sewer system should studies
prove feasibility of such projects.
2. provide for the orderly growth of the County
'
a. consider adopting subdivision regulations; link
density requirements to the. County's Land Classi-
fication Map.
b. consider adopting the revised Mobile Home Park Ordin-
ance.
C. adopt a system for land classification which sets out
an explicit development scheme for the County; adopt a
land classification map which clearly delineates this
d.evelopment scheme.
56

3.
4.
5.
increase access to public trust waters
a. develop additional sites for public access on both
sides of the Pamlico River; contact the state Division
of Coastal Management and Office of Water Resources for
assistance in funding land acquisition and site
development.
b. encourage developers of waterfront projects to contri-
bute .to a land conservation fund; target contributions
to public access projects.
promote and enhance tourism opportunities in the.County
a. develop an annual calendar of all special events to be
held throughout the County; publicize monthly listing
of events in appropriate local, regional, and national
publications.
b. support the development of a museum to commemorate
the life and works of Cecil B. deMille.
C. support regional proposals to promote tourism: support
the concept of initiating a paddlewheel showboat to
tour the North Carolina coast; work with proponents to
ensure that .Beaufort County communities are included
as stopping points.'
preserve and enhance the quality.of life in the County
a. continue to apply for funding for housing improvements'
under the Community Development Block Grant program. o
b. support the development and enhancement of urban
waterfront areas; be prepared to address problems
related to waterfront areas (overcrowding, sanitation
problems, floating homes, etc.) should such concerns
arise.
C. consider adopting subdivision regulations to preserve
the rural character of outlying areas.
57

C
E. Public Participation
The 1987 Beaufort County Land Use. Plan reflects the input
and interests of the County's diverse citizenry. The public
participation component of the planning program is documented in
Chapter I. As noted previously, the Advisory Committee conducted
a public survey - to generate interest in the planning program
as well as to serve as a guide for policy decisions. All
Advisory Committee meetings were advertised via radio and
newspaper as being open to interested persons. Committee
meetings were characterized by lightcitizen attendance, but
those citizens who did attend were encouraged to express their
concerns and comments. A listing of all meetings held as part
of theplanningprogram is contained in Appendix G.
The Advisory Committee and the Commissioners recognize the
importance of keeping the citizenry informed of current planning
concerns and of receiving the comments and concerns oflocal
residents'. Thus, the County has adopted the following policy
objectives. -
59

Public Participation
Policy Obiectives and Implementation
1. solicit citizen input in all planning decisions
a.. advertise all special Board of Commissioners meetings
in the Daily News; periodically advertise the Board's
regular meeting date; emphasize that citizens are
invited and encouraged to attend all meetings dealing
with planning issues.
b. appoint ad hoc committees to address special planning
issues; ensure composition of committees represents
diversity of interest groups; advertise committee
meetings and encourage citizen participation.
2. apprise the public of planning issues as they develop
a. report important planning and community development
issues, decisions, and developments to the Daily News;
provide information and assistance in preparing
feature articles addressing land use and development
issues.
59

F. Storm Hazards
'
North Carolina is well-known for the hurricanes and tropical
storms that batter its coastline and the tornados that ravage
'
inland areas. Typically, the bulk of hurricane storm damage
occurs in coastal areas. Hurricanes and tropical storms have
however, caused severe damage in estuarine and inland areas
'
in the past. The storm of 1913 raised the water level of .the
Pamlico River to a height of 10 feet in the City of Washington,
'
inundating the' community and surrounding area. Similar storms
'
in 1933 and 1938 caused considerable damage to waterfront
communities, and major storms occurred in 19549 19559 1960,
'
and 1970. In 1984 the County adopted a storm hazard mitigation
plan, Before the Storm in Beaufort County• Avoiding Harm's
'
Wad. The plan provides information on areas at risk from storm
damage, outlines policies on storm hazard mitigation, presents a
detailed plan for evacuation of the County should a storm event
'
occur, and includes a reconstruction plan to guide rebuilding
after the storm. The County's storm hazard mitigation plan was
,
the source of the following information on storm hazards,
'
reconstruction policies, and evacuation procedures. A complete
copy of this plan is available for review at the Beaufort County
'
Department of Emergency Management, 112 W. Second Street in
Washington.
'
60
'

t
1. Hazard Areas
' The flooding, wave action, and erosion associated with
hurricanes and other major storms severely threaten three
' categories of land in the County: Areas of Environmental
Concern, areas subject to flooding, and areas with highly
' erodible.soils. The AECs in Beaufort County as described in
' Chapter III, are public- trust areas, estuarine waters and
estuarine shorelines, and coastal wetlands. Floodprone areas in
' the County have been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency; geneeally, flood -prone areas adjoin the County's AECs
' and the County's many small creeks and streams. The County's
' official floodplain maps are on file at the Office of Emergency
Management.
Areas with highly erodible soils are shown in Exhibit 1
(pg. 68.1). Nine shoreline areas where the threat of erosion is
s
especially severe have been identified based on a 1975 study by
' the Soil Conservation Service. As shown in Exhibit 2 (pg. 68.2),
these are reaches 2, 4, 6, 149 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. A com-
posite map of mappable storm hazard areas in Beaufort County is
presented in Exhibit 3 (pg. 68.4).
' The Beaufort County SLOSH Map (pg. 68.12) delineates areas
at risk from various severities of storms. SLOSH (Sea, Lake and
Overland Surge From Hurricanes), simulates the height.of storm
surges from hurricanes of a predicted severity. The National
i
' 61
0

Weather Service ranks hurricanes into categories 1 through 5
based on their wind speed. SLOSH analyzes each hurricane
category scenario and provides a boundary where flooding .is
expected to occur. For example, Category 1 and 2 hurricanes,
with wind speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph), would produce
a storm surge of between 4 to 6.feet, flooding areas closest to
the shoreline. Category 3 storms, defined by wind speeds of
between 11.1 and 130 mph, would produce a storm surge of between 9
and 12 feet and extend flooding further inland. Category 4 and
5 storms are the storms of• greatest intensity. These storms
have wind speeds of over 130 mph and could produce storm surges
of over 19 feet and effect areas well away from the waterfront.
As shown on the Beaufort County SLOSH map, the east half of the
County is more severely threatened by damage from hurricanes of
e
all severities then the western half.
Hazards from flooding, wave action, and erosion are limited
primarily to waterfront areas, however the entire County is
threatened by high winds associated with a major storm event.
As noted in the County's hurricane plan, the County is suscept-
ible to annual extreme fastest wind speeds of between.120 and 130
miles per hour. .(The annual extreme designation means that there
is an one percent or greater chance of that speed being equalled
in any one year.)
1 62

1 2. Vulnerability to Storm Damage
9
' Table 23 (pg. 68.10) ranks the severity of risk in each of
Beaufort County's hazard areas according to the damaging, forces
' likely to occur there. Shoreline areas will bear the full force
of a hurricane since they lie directly on the land -water inter-
face and are among the most dynamic features of the coastal
' landscape. Shoreline erosion poses day-to-day hazards for
coastal development; hurricanes and other major storms accelerate
' these processes so that drastic changes in the local landscape
a
can occur in a few hours. During a hurricane, estuarine shore-
line areas will be subject to severe erosion and scouring, direct
wave action, battering by debris, inundation by the storm surge,
and high winds. Coastal wetlands will be subject to wave action,
' flooding, and high winds, but are less susceptible to erosion. In
flood -prone areas, there is some risk of structures being
' undermined as floodwaters rise and recede. All other sections
of the County will be subject to high winds but should remain
' relativel safe from the damaging
Y g g water forces of a hurricane.
' Of course, a catastrophic hurricane in the form of a Beaufort
County landfall can unleash the full complement of damaging
' forces beyond the boundaries of any hazard area.
9
' The County's hurricane plan notes that most of the developed
or urbanized areas of the County are within the hazard area as
' delineated in Exhibit 3. Moreover, as noted in Chapter III. B.,
t
63

the focus of development over the next five years will be at the '
waterfront in the storm hazard area. Table 24 (pg. 68.10)
estimates the number and value of structures threatened by storm
damage in the County. As noted, over 69000 residential dwell-
ings, 180 commercial structures, and 50 institutional structures
are threatened by storm hazards. These structures are estimated '
to have a total value of almost $300 million dollars (1982
estimates). '
3. Evacuation Plans
Exhibit 4 (pg. 68.5) outlines the evacuation routes that
County residents, workers, and visitors. would utilize in the
'
event of a storm disaster. Capacity analyses indicate that these
routes are adequate for evacuation purposes (Table 25, pg.
'
68.11), unless the routes are inhibited at critical "surge
inundation points" as described in Exhibit 5 (pg. 68.8).
Preliminary evacuation times at selected inundation points appear
'
in the County's 1984 evacuation plan. Subsequent to adoption of
the County's plan, emergency management officials began working
'
to develop more precise estimates. Revised estimates of evacua-
'
tion -times are expected to be issued in August 1987 and will be
available through the County's Department of Emergency Manage-
,
ment.
64

' 4. Reconstruction
' Rebuilding after a major storm occurrence will be guided by
the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan which
was adopted in September of 1982. Those sections of the plan
most pertinent to post -disaster reconstruction are Annex F -
Beaufort County Damage Assessment Plan; Annex G - Disaster
Assistance Center Plan; Annex H - Disaster Assistance Program
Summary; and Annex J - Beaufort County Plan for Temporary
Housing. The County's storm hazard mitigation plan notes that
the damage assessment procedures outlined in Annex F - purpose,
' organization, concept of operation and articulation of responsi-
bilities - appear adequate to serve local needs after a storm
' disaster.
' The County advocates the following schedule for staging and
permitting repairs following a major storm event:
' repair and rebuild essential service facilities such
as electricity, water and sewer - first.
' repair other public facilities as necessary for
shelter.
use a triage (or worst damage last) approach to
staging the reconstruction effort. Those properties
with little damage should be permitted immediately, if
' they comply with permit requirements already. Next.,
those with -moderate damage meeting permit requirements,
followed by those with moderate damage requiring
permit decisions. Those with extensive damage requir-
ing permit decisions or demolition decisions should
receive treatment last since their work would more
likely interfere with the reconstruction of essential
' public utilities and facilities.
i
'
65 .

be prepared to adopt a temporary moratorium on all
,
new development fora specified period of time. This
would allow the County to deal with more pressing
community recovery and reconstruction permitting
'
problems without devoting its resources to reviewing
new development proposals.
The County's Recovery Task Force will oversee the recon-
struction process and address any policy questions that might
'
arise.. The Task Force will work with state and federal represen-
'
tatives such as the Interagency Regional Hazard Team
Mitigation
g
and the Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Survey and Planning Teams.
,
The .local Recovery Task Force will provide information and"
t
guidance to state and federal. recovery efforts and play an
advocacy role in decisions regarding state and federal disaster -
'
assistance. Members of the County's Recovery Task Force include
the County Commissioners, the County Engineer and Building
'
Inspectors, the County Manager, the managers and engineers of
each municipality, the County Emergency Management Coordinator,
'
and the Director of the County Health Department.
All repairs and new development done as part of reconstruc-
tion efforts will be done in accordance with applicable state and
local development controls. The Board of County Commissioners
will be the local legislative body directing implementation of
,
the pol.ic.ies and procedures outlined in the reconstruction plan.
<
1
66

5. Coordinating Agencies
The state and federal agencies involved in coordinating
local storm hazard mitigation and hurricane preparedness activi-
ties are listed in Appendix F.
The County acknowledges that certain areas of the community
are threatened by severe damage from hurricanes and tropical
storms. Much of the County's residential, commercial, and
industrial development extant and potential— lies within the
area most severely threatened by storm damage. To protect
present and 'future residents from the threats of severe storms,
the County has adopted the following policy objectives.
67

Storm Hazard Policy Objectives and Mitigation
(note: the policy alternatives considered and ultimately
adopted as part of the County's Hurricane Plan are contained in
Appendix H.)
1. utilize regulatory controls to reduce the risk of hurricane
damage
a. enforce the state building code for all new construc-
i
tion within the County.
b enforce the County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
C. consider adopting subd,ivision regulations that include
special provisions for development within,the storm
hazard area.
2. increase public awareness of the need for hurricane prepara-
tion
t
a. support the "preparedness" program state and local
emergency management officials conduct in local
schools.
b. work with state officials to plan and conduct an
area -wide hurricane evacuation exercise.
0
68

' Exhibit 1
e
_
� w1TN•TV
i, • � .. 1 • • • / � � r, • /dam v
•�. / � 'ram
y '
r � .r
' Key- Areas with w
particularly erodible
r=
soils and.water tablet.
between 18".& 24 a
source: E. H. Karncwski, -.
District ASCA V l
68.1 ,��

Exhibit 2
w 1
N 11 � i �tii .✓ . � � �/ w t { �',• � 1, w. • �' ti..� Ewa , •'✓ � •\
�y t `•^ ,,,
\ro
� • � � �• \`t ? �� �� \3 r'�� • �. •� \1/ is
i-. ✓ . ''�' •✓\� • + `� , fob, / '_ /i \ � .-• •� 1_ �` i
� 1 � • , . `\ •• ./� � .i . . •�'w -�.`�a..�� L. ^ Lei // �✓ •� . �.✓ �/— �.
LEGEND
O -- REACH BEAUFORT COUNTY
Source: Before the Storm in Beaufort Count,,_ NORTH CAROLINA
avoiding Harms Way, June 1984

Exhibit 2 (cont.)
1
I
REACH N0. 1
REACH NO. 11 1
v. wi t ost to erosion
46.7
feet
Av. width ost to erosion
SS.1
feet
Av. height of bank
2.4
feet
Av. height of bank
4.7
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
29.4
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
4.1
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
39.0
miles
Total length of shoreline
4.4
miles
REACH 140. 2
REACH NO. 12
Av. width lost to erosion
77.6
feet
v. width lost to erosion
31.9
feet
Av. height of bank
4.6
feet
Av. height of bank
S.6
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
4.9
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
. 5.1
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length.of shoreline
S.S
miles
Total length of shoreline
5.8
miles
REACH 140. 3
REACH NO. 13
Av. west to erosion .-42.6
feet
Av. wi t ost to erosion
S5.5
feet
Av. height of bank
3.6
feet
Av. height of bank
3.7
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
1.9
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
4.8
.miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
2.3
miles
Total length of shoreline
8.0
miles
REACH NO. .1
REACH NO. 14
Av. wwi tost to erosion
59.7
feet
Av. width ost to erosion
69.6
feet
Av. height of bank
13.1
feet,
Av. height of bank
3.3
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
6.2
miles
Length of.shoreline eroding
16.1
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
7.0
miles
Total length of shoreline
18.7
miles
REACH NO. S
REACH NO. 1S
Av. wl t ost to erosion
2S.2
feet
Av. width ost to erosion
76.61feet
Av. height of bank
3.7
feet
Av. height of bank
2.9
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
10.1
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
2.2
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
12.Z
miles
Total length of shoreline
Z.3
miles
REACH NO. 6
REACH NO. 16 .
Av. wit lost to erosion
59.8
feet
Av. width ost to erosion
116.5
feet
Av. height of bank
7.6
feet
Av. height of bank
2.4
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
Z.1
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
1.7
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
2.2
miles
Total length of shoreline
1.8
miles
REACH NO. 7,
REACH 140. 17
Av. width lost -to erosion
23.S
feet
v. width ost to erosion
58.3
feet
Av. height of bank
2.8
feet
Av. height of bank
1.5
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
10.7
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
-10.8
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
11.9
miles
Total length of shoreline
17.1
miles
REACH'N0. 8
REACH NO. 18
Av. width lost to erosion
S3.8
feet
Av. width ost to erosion
82.5
feet
Av. height of bank
2.0
feet
Av. height of bank
1.5
feet
Length of shoreline eroding
1.0
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
1.0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
1.0
miles
Total length of shoreline
1.0
miles
REACH lVO. 9
REACH NO. 19
X-v--`wiU-tFFTost to erosion
57.8
feet
Av. width ost to erosion
102.1
feet
Av. height of bank
1.6
feet
Av. height of bank
3.S.feet
Length of shoreline eroding
6.3
miles
Length of shoreline eroding
2.1
miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0
miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0
miles
Total length of shoreline
8.2
miles
Total length of shoreline
2.1
miles
REACH M. 10
Av. wt t ost to erosion S2.5 feet
Av. height of bank . 13.9 feet
Lcngth of shoreline eroding 6.0 miles 68.3
Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total Yength of shoreline_ 6.0 miles

rn
Ln
Exhibit 4
4b
,I �-- Ham SEE SiELTM USTUI
GZcO .
' N��
!� HICKORY U
• TH
HURRICANE EVACUATION .. 33 '
ROUTES AND SHELTERS g03 9
BEAUFORT . COUNTY AURORA 33 `Re
NORTH CAROLINA
Source: Before the Storm in Beaufort_ C.oun",
kwiding s Way, je 1384

EXHIBIT 4 (cont.)
BEAUFORT COUNTY
HURRICANE EVACUATION ROUTES AND SHELTERS
AREA
ROUTES
SHELTER
1
West end of•Washington take nearest route to
Eastern Elementary
15th Street, then east on 15th Street. East
School, 264 East
end of Washington take nearest route to
and Hudnell Street
Charlotte Street, north on Charlotte to 264,
(shelters also noted
east on 264.
at 7 and 8)
2,
Washington Park and east of Washington Park
Beaufort County
to Broad Creek, take Brick Kiln Road to 2649
Community College
west on 264.
Bunyan
Upper Goose Creek, Duck Creek, west Side of
Beaufort County
Bath Creek take nearest route•to 264 then
Community College
west an 264.
Bunyan
3
East side Bath Creek, St. Clair Creek, North.
Bath High School
Creek, Pamlico Beach, Wright Creek, Jordan
Creek, take 92 to Bath.
4
Pungo Creek nearest route to 2649 264 east
Pantego Jr. High
to Pantego. Leechville, Belhaven take 264
School
west to Pantego.
5
Whichards Beach S. R.•1166 to U S. 17,
Chocowinity High
U. S. 17 south to Chocowinity. Chocowinity
School
Bay to Blounts Creek Bay, nearest route to 339
then 33 west to Chocowinity.
6
Hickory Point S. R. 1946 to 1942, 1942 to
Aurora High School
19409 1940 to Aurora. South Creek, Spring
Creek 1912 to Aurora, Campbell Creek west
on 33.
Township 4 (Goose Creek Island) Pamlico
Aurora High School
County, take State Road 33 to Aurora. If
Aurora shelter is filled then continue on
33 to Chocowinity.
7
Take nearest route to Pinetown.
Pinetown Elementary
School
8
Residents from eastern area of County
Chocowinity Primary
(southside of river) take nearest route
School
to 33 then west to Chocowinity.
68.6

'
EXHIBIT 4 (cont.)
AREA ROUTES
SHELTERS
9 Overflow Pantego/Belhaven area.
Beaufort County
Elementary School
10 These shelters will not be utilized
Wilkinson High
in a hurricane threat to Beaufort
School and Belhaven
County due to ri'sing water. May be
Elementary School
used as needed for other disasters.
Y
'
68.7

EXHIBIT 5
SURGE INUNDATION POINTS
Evacuation Area Ma.ior Evacuation Routes
Belhaven U. S. 264 By -Pass
Business 264
U. S. 264 By -Pass
N. C. 99
Ransomville N. C. 99 '
Bunyan/River S. R. 1300
Road area
U. S. 264
Critical Points
Stretch of-264 .25 miles on
either side of lower Dowery
Creek culvert near intersection
of SR 1709.
Portion 1 mile east of the
intersection with N. C. 99 in
Belhaven, to that intersection.
Portion inside Belhaven.
Portion 1.5 miles on either
side of Cuckolds Creek Bridge
toward Pantego.
From intersection with 264 in
Belhaven to Sidney Crossroads,
over the Pantego Creek Bridge,
the Pungo Creek Bridge.
Portion from Pungo Creek
Bridge to Sidney Crossroads,
over the Jack Creek Bridge.
Portion from the St. Clair
Creek Bridge to a point
approximately 1 mile east of
SR 1734 (to Bayview).
The Back and Bath Creek
Bridges at Bath.
Portion of State Road 1300
that feeds 264, and all State
Roads that feed SR 1300, from
Broad Creek to Washington
(through Washington Park)
across Ru_nyons Creek Bridge on
Park Drive in Washington.
Portion .25 miles on either
side of Runyons Creek Bridge.
68.8

1
Evacuation Area
'
Washington
South Creek
'
Chocowinit Y
EXHIBIT 5 (contJ
Maior Evacuation Routes
U. S. 264
N. C. 33
N. C. 33
S. R. 1166
Critical Points
Area inside the flood hazard
area inside Washington (that
is, the area from an imaginary
line drawn from.the intersec-
tion of Oak Drive & Hillcrest
Drive due west to where it
would intersect U: S. 179 south
to and including the Pamlico
River Bridge (lower half of
city).
From the Pamlico County line
to Campbell Crossroads,
including crossing the Smith
Creek Bridge and the Campbell
Creek Bridge.
From the Chocowinity city
limits to the Pamlico River
Bridge.
Entire road from Oak Point to
U. S. 17 intersection, and all
feeder roads.

Table 23
'
SEVERITY OF RISK
---------------------- --------------------------------------------
Severity
Storm
Hazard
Hazard Area Rank Erosion Wave
Action Flooding
High Wind
r.
--------- ---------- ----------------------------------------------------
Estuarine Shoreline AEC
1
'
Coastal Wetland AEC
2
+
Zone A Floodplain
3
Remainder of County
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
Exposure level: high (*),
moderate
(+), low (
)
'
Source: "Before the Storm
in Beaufort County:
Avoiding Harm's
Way"
'
June 1984
.Table 24
'
MAGNITUDE OF RISK: INVENTORY
OF STRUCTURES IN HAZARD AREA*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Structures
'
Area Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional. Utility
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------•
Aurora
151
0
0
0
i
'
Bath
24
6
0
1
1
Belhaven
961
71
0
16
2
Chocowinity
0
0
0
0
1
Pantego
33
11
0
5
1
Washington
1,698
0
0
0
1
Washington Park
142
0
0
0
0
Unincorporated area
north side of river
2,169
44
2
25
2
'
Unincorporated area
south side of river
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,287
49
1
4
0
Total Structures
6,465
181
3
: 51
9
Total $ Value (millions)
227.9
23.3
40.1
47.0 40.2
* see Exhibit 3, Hurricane Hazards
Map
'
note: value is for buildings
only
Source: "Before the Storm in
June, 1984
Beaufort
County: Avoiding Harm's Way",
68.10

Table 25
UTILIZATION OF PRIMARY ROADS 1980
Pavement
Design
Capacity*
24 hour
Percent
Road
Width (ft)
35 mph
45 mph 55
mph
average
Utilization
--------------------------------------------------------------------
US
17
24
10,920
7,500
3,000
7,981
73%
US
264
24
10,920
7,500
3,000
5,564
51%
NC
32
24
10,920
7,500
3,000
1,165
11%
NC
33
24
10,920
7,500
3,000
2,455
23%
NC
99
16
7,150
4,500
3,000
1,250
17%
NC
92
16
7,150
4,500
11800
1,337
18%
NC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
306
** 22
9,060
6,200
2,400
1,398
15%
* in vehicles
** ferry can handle a maximum of 380 automobiles per day
Source: "Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way"
June, 1984
68.11

p i
3 lit
BEAUFORT COUNTY
D f S M A L .I
SLOSH M A P
3 11' A X
R � We- - ON INNER
00,
rSON

' V. LAND CLASSIFICATION
A. Purpose
' The Count has'ado ted a system of land Y P y classification and
' an official Land Classification Map to -assist local officials in
attaining policy objectives in the areas of resource protection
G
and production, and economic and community development: Five
broad categories of land classification have been developed and
' are delineated.on the CountYP
'sMa of Land Classification. The
ma sets out a proposed development
' P p p p pattern for the 827 square
miles that comprise Beaufort County. Based on this classifica-
tion scheme,, the County has designated areas it believes are
appropriate to accommodate additional growth and development, and
' areas it believes would be better left in a rural condition. The
' classifications reflect existing and proposed future land uses.
and attempt to link land use, policy objectives, and implementa-
tion actions. The Map of Land Classification is similar to that
adopted by the County in 1981, however several minor modifica-
tions have been made to the 1981 classification scheme to
' reflect land use changes that have occurred over the past five
years.
B. Classification Scheme
' The County's land classification scheme is based on the
' guidelines for land classification outlined in the Coastal Area
' 69

Management Act's Land Use Planning Guidelines. The general
'
characteristics of each class are outlined in Exhibit 6 (pg.
74.1).
'
1. Developed
'
The Developed classification has been applied to all land
within the municipal planning jurisdictions of the County's
'
incorporated communities. The Town of Pantego has not adopted an
extraterritorial area and so the Developed classification in
'
that area extents only to the Town limits.
'
As shown on the Map of Land Classification (pg. 74.2), the
six Developed areas are scattered throughout the -County. These
'
are the most urbanized areas in the County. Public water service
has been'provided in all developed areas except Washington Park
-'
and the Pantego area. Public sewer has been provided in all
i
areas except Washington Park, Pantego and Chocowinity, however
Chocowinity is currently applying for funding to construct a
'
wastewater treatment system. At this time, no Developed area is
completely serviced with water or sewer and the County supports G
,
the expansion of public services.within these areas. Other urban
'
services such as police and fire protection are available in
Developed areas and the County encourages projects requiring
'
these types of services to locate in Developed areas.
2. Transition
'
As shown on the Map of Land Classification, Transition areas
'
adjoin the Developed areas of Washington and Chocowinity in ,the
70
,

C
western part of the County, border N. C. 33 in _ the Developed
Aurora area, and are scattered along waterfront areas on either
side of the Pamlico River and on the Beaufort.County side of the
Pungo River.
Transition areas identify areas of fairly intense develop-
ment outside of municipal planning jurisdictions. The County's
1976 and 1981 land use plans had the Transition class divided
into two subclasses: Transition and Secondary Transition.
Transition areas covered only 201 Wastewater Facilities Planning
Areas; Secondary Transition Areas delineated all other areas of
existing and future intensive development. An amendment to the
Plan Iin 1982 basically obliterated the original distinction
between the two subclasses and so the 1987 Map notes only one
Transition class.
Transition areas
have been designated to reflect existing
'
intensive development
and areas the County believes are appropri-
ate to accommodate future
development of fairly high density.
'
At this time, public
water and sewer service is not available in
'
any Transition area.
As the County currently has no plans for
providing such services
in 'these areas, urban services for new
'
development projects
in Transition areas would be provided by
project proponents.
3. Community
'
Much of the developed
land in outlying areas has been
classified Community.
The County has a number of unincorporated
1
1
71

0
crossroad communities, most of which are shown on the Map of
Land Classification in Community designation. Considerable
residential and commercial development has occurred along the
County's major roadways - U. S. 179 N. C. 33 - and Community
areas delineated along these highways reflect that development.
Both residential and commercial development currently occur in
Community areas and are considered appropriate future uses of
Community areas, however the intensity of future development
should not be such that public or private wastewater treatment
r
systems are necessary. Public or private water service would be
considered appropriate in a Community area if such a system would
enhance the quality and/or quantity of water available to area
development. Services should not act as a catalyst for further
high -density development in a Community area.
As a result of the 1987 •planning effort, ninq areas were
reclassified from Rural to Community. About half of these
changes were made to reflect the existing level of development
in these areas; the remainder.acknowledge development'projects
currently underway. One exception to the generhl restriction on
wastewater service in areas designated Community occurs in the
Whichard's Beach area. Should a non -river discharging public
treatment system be constructed to serve the Chocowinity area,
the County would support proposals to extend that system to serve
existing development in the Whichard's Beach area.
72

4 . Rural
'
As shown on the Map' of Land Classification, most of the
County has been classified Rural. Agricultural, silvacultural,
and low density residential uses predominate in Rural areas.
The results of the 1987 public survey indicate that many resi-
dents appreciate the rural character of the Beaufort -County
'
area. The County supports -continued use of its Rural lands for
farming and forestry activities that meet the policy objectives
'
outlined in its Land Use Plan. Residential development is also
deemed an appropriate use of Rural lands, however the density of
'
that development should not necessitate public or private water
'
or sewer service. Large lots would characterize residential
development in Rural areas, and project density would be low,
'
generally less than or equal to one unit per acre.
5. Conservation
The Conservation Class designates areas the County believes
tshould
be kept in a natural condition or if developed, done so
only under very controlled conditions. As shown on the Map of
Land Classification, Conservation areas include Goose Creek
State Park on the north side of the river, and Goose Creek
'
Gameland the the trust
on south side of river. Public areas,
'
estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, -and estuarine shorelines up
to 75I feet from the mean high water line are included in the
'
Conservation class by reference.
' 73

C. Intergovernmental Coordination
Beaufort County's Land Classification Map has been designed
to guide the actions of private developers and of public agencies
at all levels of government, in activities affecting land
development in the County. Many of the planning objectives set
forth in. the County's Land Use Plan will enhance the land use
goals of its incorporated communities, neighboring counties, and
the coastal region as a whole. The County will work with the
various agencies noted in this plan in an attempt to ensure that
the policy objectives and actions adopted as part of this
planning effort will be implemented as the County develops over
the next five years. .
74

Exhibit 6
' LAND CLASSIFICATION
Developed Purpose - provide for continued intensive develop -
Class ment
Land Uses - mixed: residential, commercial, indus-
trial
Services - usually all urban services provided:
water, sewer, police, fire, etc.
' Density' - 3 or more dwelling units(du)/acre
.Lot Sizes - usually small, in some areas averaging
as little as 159000 sq. ft.
'
Transition
Class'
Purpose -
Land Uses
provide for future intensive development
- mixed
Services
- water and sewer both usually present or
anticipated; police and fire protection
'
usually provided
Density
- usually 3 or more du/acre
Lot Sizes
- usually small, many times averaging.
20,000 sq. ft.
Comment'
- usually adjoins Developed Class
'
Community
Purpose -
provide for clustered, low density
Class
arrangement (crossroads community)
'
Land Uses
- mixed
Services
- sometimes water; no sewer
Density
- usually 2 du/acre or less
'
Lot Sizes.-
generally 20,000-30,000 sq. ft.
'
Rural
Purpose -
agriculture and,very low density residen.'
Class
tial e
Land Uses
- farming, forestry, residential
Services
- none r
1
Density
- generally greater than 1 du/acre
Lot Sizes
- notapplicable
i
Conservation
Purpose -
resource protection
'
Class
Land Uses
- AECs and other sensitive natural areas
Services
- none
Comment
- land basically to remain undeveloped or
developed only under controlled condi-
'
tions
74.1

m
•
i ` ►,ram` ���>•�••i 4" ' - __ .
�i - • a • �•w• 9
!yam �./�f. ,►' :A� ►•As` i � �� .. p•.•�-ate o - •� .,..•. �. t�
low
O•ii•OiAW.
.•^ _ � _ Lam'' � • ' •
�A

. I
1
.1
11
. I
1
i
Appendix A
Media Releases
WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1986 — PAGE 9B
Land Use* Plan Group
Be 'ns Proj ect Review
�
A committee selected by the Natural Resources and Com-
Beaufort County Board of Com- munity Development spoke ab--
missioners to study the current out the various part of the plan
Land Use Plan and to recom- and about the guidelines that will
mend an update of that docu- . need to be followed in the plan-
ment began its task recently. ning process.
The update is required by Technical expertise for the
guidelines set forth by the Coas- project will be given by the staff
tal Area Management Act. of the Mid -East Commission in
The committee is comprised of conjunction with NRCD person -
Douglas Mercer, chairman, rep- nel. The project will review land
resenting Texasgulf; David uses as they relate to such issues
McNaught, vice chairman, repre- at water quality, resource protec-
senting the Pamlico -Tar River tion, resource management,
Foundation; Henry Riddick, coastal water excess and storm
Agricultural Extension; Chris hazard mitigation and recovery.
Furlough, Furlough Construc-
tion and Realty; Joe McCotter Public participation will be en-'
'Jr., McCotter's Marina; Topper couraged and sought throughout
Bateman, Sea Safari Ltd.; Frank the planning process, says the
B. "Bo" Lewis, Chamber of Com- committee. All meetings will be
rrterce and John Morgan, register advertised and open to the pub
of deeds. lic. Meetings have been set for
At the initial meeting, the com- the second Monday of each
mittee recommended an orienta- month, beginning Oct. 13. The
tion to the planning process for first meeting will begin at 7 p.m.
updating the Land Use Plan. A in the Beaufort County Court -
specialist for the N.C. Division of house, Room 105.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Libby Anderson 946-00g4
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Update Committee will meet
on Monday, December 159 to continue its work in revising the
County's 1981 Land Use Plan. Monday's'meeting will include a
discussion of current socioeconomic conditions and formulation
of a plan for public participation in the process.
Meetings are open to the public.arid all interested citizens
are encouraged to attend. Monday's meeting will be held at 7:00
pm in the Commissioners' Board Room in the Courthouse.,
d

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1986 — PAGE 5
1 '
1
1
Committee Revi�win
� g
Land .Use Plan Data..
1
Beaufort County's Land Use mittee will also begin preparing a
Plan Advisory Committee met' public survey questionnaire.
recently to review current statis- Meetings are open to the public.
1
tics concerning the county's .
population and enconomy.
.
The meeting was the third in a
series of meetings the committee
1
will hold to update the county's
current Land Use Plan.
The updated plan will serve as
1
a guide to direct growth and de-
velopment in the county over the
next five years.
Planners noted that the coun-
ty's population had increased by
1
over 7% between 1980 and 1985,
.indicating that population
growth during the 1980s will ex-
ceed that seen during the 1970s.
Figures issued by the Office of
State Budget and Management
indicate a current county popula-
lion of over 43,000 persons. It was
also noted that over 65% if the
1
county's population lives in un-
icorporated areas of the county,
giving special importance to the
1
committee's role as land plan-
ners.
The committee will discuss ex-
isting land uses in the county at
its next meeting set for Jan. 12,
1
1987 at the courthouse. The com-
1
1

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1987,— PAGE 5
Land Use Meeting
Planned Monday
The Beaufort County Land
Use Plan Advisory Committee
will meet on Monday to continue
its work in revising the county's
land use plan.
The eight -member committee
was appointed by the county
commissioners to update the
plan, which was prepared over
five years ago.
Monday's meeting will include
a review of current land uses in
the county and a discussion of
conflicts in uses. The meeting is
scheduled for 7 p.m. in the Court-
house. All interested citizens are
encouraged to attend.

0
P
WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1987 — PAGE 9
Changes I
Construction of single-family
homes, strip development along
roads and constructibn of water-
front homes locations have char-
acterized development in
Beaufort County over the last 25
years. But members of the coun-
ty's Land Use Plan Advisory
Committee agreed at their meet-
ing Monday that development
trends in the county may be
changing.
More than 1,000 permits were
issued for construction of single-
�or
eseen In
family homes in Beaufort Coun-
ty (excluding the City of
Washington) between 1981 and
1986. Most construction has
occurred along existing roads,
but committee members noted
that subdivision development
appears to be increasing. .
During this same period, over
300 permits were issued for the
location of mobile homes.
Although multifamily units
accounted for only 5 percent of
all building permits over the last
Growth
six years, committee members
agreed that multifamily develop-
ment, especially townhouse de-
velopment, may increase in the
next dacade.
The eight -person committee
-was appointed by the County
Board of Commissioners to up-
date the current land useplan,
prepared in 1981. Monday's
meeting was the fourth in a series
the committee will hold to up-
date the plan in accordance with
the guidelines of the state's Coas-
tal -Area Management Act
(CAMA).
The updated plan will guide
growth and development in the
county over the next five years.
Monday's meeting included a
review of existing land uses in
the county. The type, location
and nature of major forest, agri
cultural and residential uses was
discussed.
The review will continue at the
committee's next meeting. The
advisory group will review pro-
jects proposed for development
in the county over the next five
years and discuss conflicts in
land use. The meeting will be
Monday, Feb. 9, at 7 p.m. in the
county courthouse. The public is
invited.

Mid -East Commission
P. O. Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27889
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
The Beaufort County Land Use P1an'Advisory Committee will
meet on MoI nday, February 9 to continue its work in updating the
County's Land Use Plan. The agenda for Monday's meeting includes
a review of current land uses in,the county and a discussion of
conflicts in land use. Th.e meeting will be held at 7 pm in the
County Courthouse. The public is invited and encouraged to
attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 1987 — PAGE 5
Committee
Resumes
Work On Land Plan
Work on an update of the
ment is that most land along the
Beaufort County Land Use Plan
county's rivers and creeks are
will continue Monday at a meet-
regulated by the state as an area
ing of the county's Land Use
of environmental concern.
Advisory Committee.
Also on the agenda is discus -
The meeting is scheduled for 7
sion of the county's historic and
• p.m. in the commissioners' board
archeological resources and an
room of the Beaufort County
inventory of resource potential
Courthouse.
areas.
The committee will review cur-
rent development trends in the
The Advisory Committee was
county, discuss land -use con-
appointed by the county com-
cerns and review constraints to
missioners to update the land use
local land development.
plan.
Development is limited by
All Advisory Committee meet -
poor soils and flood -prone areas,
ings are open to the public, and
according to planners.
interested citizens are encour-
Another constraint to develop-
aged to attend.

Mid -East Commission
P.O. Box 1787 '
Washington, NC 27889 /
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE -INFORMATION: Libby Anderson' 946-8034
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
'
The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet on
Monday, March 9 to continue its 'work in updating the County's
land use plan. . Monday's meeting will be held in the County
Courthouse at 7:00 pm. All interested citizens are encouraged
to attend. '

WASiiirTGMN DAILY NEWS, TUESDAY. MARCH 17,1987 — PAGE b
County Will'Conduct
Survey On Land Use
Beaufort County's Land. Use
ing constraints to land develop -
Advisory Committee will con-
ment. Poor soils, the presence of
duct a survey of county resi-
natural hazards such as flood.
dents, seeking their thoughts on
plains and areas of environmen-
growth and development.
tal concerns and steep slopes
The committee is updating the
along water courses, limit de.
county's Land Use Plan as re-'
velopment in much of the coun-
quired by the Coastal Area Man-
ty, said planners.
agement Act.
The county has over 25 sites or
Some of the questions on the
areas of historical importance.
Planners also observed that
survey will be:
—Would Beaufort County be
many shoreline areas have been
better off it it had as many resi-.
identified as being a hatlox t
cally sensitive and that six
dents as Pitt -County or Wake
County?
underwater archaeological sites.
— Would residents like
Washington to grow to be the size
have been developed.
The planners said that
of Greenville? -
although land development will
be constrained in some areas by
- A variety of other issues will be
natural or cultural factors, much
explored, said the planners.
land remains available for de -
The survey will appear in the
velopment. At the same time,
Washington Daily News and will
said planners, the pressures for
be distributed to civic groups
development appear to in.
over the next few weeks. Persons
'
creasing.
not receiving a survey by April 1 '
The committee will discuss the
are asked to contact the Mid -East •
results of the survey at its next
Commission in Washington for a
meeting Monday,-April,A2,at- 7
copy:* '
pans: • in the Beaufort. County
At the committee's last meet.
Courthouse. The public is in-
ing planners focused on identify-
vited to attend.

Mid -East Commission
P. O. Box 1787
Washington, NC 277889
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMTION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
PUBLIC SERVICE•ANNOUNCEMENT
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will meet
on Monday, April 13 to continue its work in updating the County's
land use plan. Monday's• meeting will be held in the County
Courthouse at 7:00 pm. All interested citizens are encouraged
to attend.

i
WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1987 — PAGE S
LV Xn USE PLAN. 9r z• ' ;.�.
The •Beaufort:.Cuunty;,�a4td
Use�.Plan Advisory •Committee -
Will meet Monday at 7 p.m. at Lhe
county.:courthouse to continue
its.work on the Beaufort County
Land•: Use• Pliins.The-�n rie-
member°committee is,tigdating
the county'sc,plan,.this year. in
accordance vdthAhe. giudelines
of the state 's-Coastal'Area Man-
agement Act: -The public is in,:
vited:

PAGE 12 — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1987
Poor Soils Hindrance
To Growth:
Poor soils pose the greatest
limitation to development in the
outlying areas of Beaufort Coun-
ty, said the county's Land Use
Plan Advisory Committee at a re-
cent meeting.
Of the 17 major soils found in
the county, alll 17 have severe
limitations for the siting of septic
tanks, said the planners. In de-
veloped areas the capacity of the
municipal wastewater treatment
plants may pose some limitation
to growth within the next de-
cade, said planners.
The four communities with
treatment systems have recently
completed or are currently mak-
ing sewage system improve-
ments. Although the expanded
capacity of municipal systems
appears adequate in the short -
run, should major extensions of
municipal systems be proposed,
further system improvements
may be needed, said planners.
Population projections were
reviewed by the nine -member
committee and they said that the
county is expected to grow more.
Planners
rapidly than Pitt County in the
next decade. Between 1985 and
1990 the population of Beaufort
County is expected to increase
by over nine percent, they said.
In contrast, Pitt County's
population is expected to in-
crease by just over six percent.
By 1995, Beaufort County is ex-
pected to have over 50,000 resi-
dents, a 17 percent increase from
its 1985 population of 43,260
people.
Given such growth forecasts,
and given the sensitivity of the
county's natural resources,
understanding the affects of new
development and planning for
growth is important, said the
planners.
The committee was appointed
by the county commissioners to
update the Land Use Plan.
Guidelines of the Coastal Area
Management Act require an up-
date every five years.
The committee meets again at
the county courthouse May 11 at
7 p.m. The meeting is open to the
public.

1
Mid -East Commission
P. O. Box 1787
' Washington, NC 27889
I
' FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
' Land Use Policy Planning Begins
n
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee met
Monday,.May 11, to begin formulating policy objectives for the,
County's 1987 Land Use Plan. The committee will ultimately
develop policy statements in five areas: resource protection,
' resource production and management, economic and community
development, continuing public participation, and storm hazard
mitigation. Monday's meeting focused on developing policy
objectives for protecting the. County's natural resources'and
' devising implementation actions to achieve those objectives over
the next five years.
' Top priority will be given to protecting the County's
natural resources planners agreed, especially the quality of its
fresh and estuarine waters. Public support for this directive is
' evidenced in the results of the committee's public survey.
Seventy-five percent of survey respondents said that protecting
the County's natural resources was of extreme importance. More-
over, preserving water quality and protecting natural resources
' were identified as the two' most important issues currently
facing the County.
The committee will continue its work o a n policy development
' at its next meeting on Monday, May 18. All interested persons
are encouraged to attend committee meetings, held at 7:00 pm in
the County courthouse.'
n
x

i
Mid -East Commission
P. O. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will
meet on,Monday, May 11 at 7:00 pm in the County Courthouse.
Their agenda includes discussion of the Committee's public
survey and a discussion of policy statements on resource protec-
tion. All interested persons are encouraged to attend.

Mid -East Commission
P. O. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043.
Resource Protection Policies to be Discussed
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will
meet on Monday, May it to continue its work on the County's land
use plan. At Monday's meeting planners will begin developing
policy statements on land development issues. Five policy areas
will ultimately be addressed. Three policy areas will be
discussed at the group's May it meeting: resource protection,
resource production and management, and economic and community
development. Committee members will also review the results of
the group's public survey. Survey results will help committee
members develop policy statements that reflect the public's view
on land development issues in the County.
The Advisory Committee meets at 7:00 in the County Court-
house. All interested _persons are invited and encouraged to
attend.

Mid -East Commission
P. 0. Box 17B7
Washington, NC 27889
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
Public Service Announcement
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will
meet on Monday, May 18. Their agenda will include a discussion
of policies for resource protection. Interested persons are
invited to attend. Meeting will begin at 7:00 at the County
courthouse.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1987 -- PAGE 5
LAND USE COMMITTEE
The Beaufort County Land
Use Plan, Advisory Committee
will meet Monday at 7 p.m. at the
county courthouse. The commit-
tee will discuss policy objectives
on natural resource protection
and resource production and
management. All interested per-
sons are encouraged to attend.

PAGE 2 — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1987
Land Use Plan Committee
DevelopingPolie Objective's Y
The Beaufort County Land
tinuing public participation and
Use Plan Advisory Committee
storm hazards.
has begun developing objectives
The committee will give top
for the county's natural re-
priority to protecting fresh
sources and policy to achieve
estuarine waters.
those objectives over the next
The committee will continue
five years. -
its work a meeting Monday at 7
The committee will develop
p.m. in the courthouse.
policy statements on resource
protection, resource production
and management, economic and
community development, con-

PAGE 2 — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1987
Pamlico Water
A To Land Use Priority
The protection and enhance-
The Land Use Plan will serve
tion on land not physically suited Monday, June 1, at 7 p.m. in the
ment of the water quality in the
as a guide for local growth and
to development, and protecting Beaufort County Courthouse to
Pamlico River and its tributaries
development over the next five
wildlife habitat and preservation discuss policies on resource pro -
is a priority objective of the
years. I
. of scenic resources. duction and management. The
Beaufort County Land Use Plan,
The committee thus far has
The committee will meet again public is encouraged to attend.
which is being updated.
agreed that the county should
At a meeting of the county's
implement six policies aimed at
Land Use Planning Committee
protecting its natural resources.
this week, members outlined
several strategies they deemed
In addition to the water quality
important in achieving clean wa-
proposal, the proposed policies
concern the following:
ter. Among them were the sup-
port of domestic wastewater
Preservation and protection of
treatment systems which do not
areas of environmental concern;
discharge into surface waters
protecting the county's present
and support of expansion of the
and future water supply; protect-
state's Agricultural Cost -Share
ing historical and cultural re-
program.
sources; discouraging construe-

Mid -East Commission
P. O_ Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27889
May 27, 1987
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
Public Service Announcement
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will meet
on Monday, June 1 to discuss policy statements for inclusion '
in the County's Land Use Plan. TheCommittee meets at 7:00 pm
in the Courthouse. Interested persons are encouraged to
attend.

Mid -East Commission
P. O. Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27089
May 27, 1987
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION -- Libby Anderson - 946-8043
Land Use Advisory Committee to Meet
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will meet
on Monday, June f at 7:00 pm at the County. Courthouse. The
Committee will discuss policy objectives on resource production
and management and economic and community development. All
interested persons are encouraged to attend. .

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1987 — PAGE 5
Air Space, Pollution
Top Study Concerns
A survey conducted by*the
Beaufort County Land Use Plan
Advisory Committee indicated
that the county's biggest en-
vironmental concerns are septic
systems, water pollution and
airspace.
The survey, distributed in the
March 19 issue of the Washington
Daily News, sought responses on
issues concerning land develop-
ment in the county. Of the appro-
ximately 9,500 surveys distri-
buted, about' 950, or 10 percent,
were returned.
More than half of the respon-
dents felt failing septic systems,
water pollution and the loss of
county airspace to military. op-
erations were serious environ-
mental concerns.
Three of four people answering
indicated that protecting the
county's natural resources is im-
portant. Preserving commercial
fishing operations and attracting
new jobs were rated by more
than 55 percent as important con-
cerns as well.
About 45 percent of those re-
turning the survey felt the coun-
ty has reached its optimum
population and that continued
growth would not increase the
quality of life in the area.
Preservation of water quality
and natural resources were rank-
ed as the two top concerns by re-
spondents. They were followed
by the need for more jobs and
better educational opportunities
and the need for a policy on con-
trolled growth in the county. .
The committee will use the re-
sults of its survey to assist in de-
veloping policies to guide
growth in Beaufort County over
the next five years.

'
WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1987 - PAGE 5
G
ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
The Beaufort County Land
Use Plan Advisory Committee
will meet Monday at 7 p.m. at the
courthouse. The committee will
discuss policy objectives on re-
source production and manage-
ment and economic and com-
munity development. All in-
terested persons are encouraged
to attend.
1
I

Mid -East Commission
P. O. Drawer 1787
Washington, NC 27889
Jung 3, 1987
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
I
i
I
Public Service Announcement
The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet on
Monday, June 8 to• review policies on land development. The
Committee meets at 7:00 pm in the Courthouse. All interested
persons are encouraged to attend.
41

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JUNE 6, 1987 — PAGE 5
BC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. in the
courthouse. The committee will
continue work on the county's
Land Use Plan. Monday's meet-
ing will include a final discussion
of policies on resource protec-
tion, production and economic
and community development.
Time permitting, the current
Land Classification Map will also
be r►iviewed. All interested per-
son.- are invited.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, NNE 13, 198? —PAGE 5
Committee Enters Final Phase
Of updating Land
Use Plan
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee discus-
issuing permits for wastewater
disposal into the Pamlico River
sed policy ;objectives in several
areas as it continued its work on
.and the development of new
public access sites along the
updating the county's land use'
plan at a recent meeting.
waterfront.
The committee will begin re
The committee, renewing the
plan in accordance with the
Coastal
-
viewing the county's land classi-
fication map and discussing
Area Management Act,
reviewed its aims concerning re-
what changes, if any, should be
made.
source protection, resource pro-
duction and economic and com-
The map is intended to provide
munity development.
Among the proposals for im-
a scheme for land development
over the next five years.
plementation are the adoption of
subdivision regulations, revision
The committee will meet Mon- 1
day, June 22; in the county court
of" the county water system
study, continued objection to
-
house at 7:30 pm., The publio ig '
encouraged to attend. .

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1987 - PAGE 5
Panel Adopts.. Policies
On County. 's Land Use
The Beaufort County Land
oftheplan isnearing' completion.
Use Advisory Committee agreed
The committee recommended
on four resource managament
that the farmers market in down -
policies, completing a major part
town Washington be expanded
of its work on the county's Land
and that other local communities
Use Plan, at a recent meeting.
look into starting farmers mar -
The committee identified the
kets as a way of beginning the
policies as preserving and en-
new policy objectives.
chancing agricultural uses in the
county, commercial and re-
In the area of economic and
creational fishing in the river,
community development, the
protecting commercial forest
lands and preserving areas of
committee's objectives are to
provide for more commercial
prime farmland.
and industrial development and
To achieve these objectives,
planners suggested that the
for orderly residential growth.
The committee also suggested
county water system study be
updated and that a county -wide
another objective bet promote
and enhance tourism o pportuni-
system be supported if practical.
ties
The committee also suggested
The committee will meet again
the county consider adopting
Monday, June 22, at 7 p.m. in the
sub -division regulations to guide
courthouse -to discuss final poli-
residential building.
- cy objective revisions and to re-
. These policieswill be used to
view the current Land Classifica-
-guide county development over
tion Map. Interested persons are
the next five years. The first draft
invited.
Ul

1
Mid -East Commission
,
P. 0. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
June 18, 1987
,
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson-946-8043
'
Public
Service Announcement
The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet
,
on Monday, June 22 to review the County's Land Classification'
Map. The Committee meets at 7:00 pm in the Courthouse. All
interested persons are encouraged to attend.
'
I
z

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURADAY, JUNE 20, 1987 — PAGE 5
BC ADVISORY
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. in the
county courthouse to finish poli-
cy objectives to be included in
the county's 1987 Land Use Plan.
The committee also will review
the county's land classification
map and determine what
changes, if any, need to be made.
All interested persons are in-
vited.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1987 — PAGE 5
Committee- Denies Proposal
On Construction Of Marinas
By MICHAEL ADAMS
Staff Writer
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee de-
cided Monday night not to let
people to build marinas on land
classified as rural without ap-
plying for reclassification.
The committee rejected a prop-
osal to create a sub -class in the
rural land use class. The sub-
class, called marina -residential,
had been proposed by Libby
Anderson of the Mid -East Re-
gional Commission.
The proposal also would have
allowed developers to build
more than one house per acre —
something that is not allowed in
the rural class — if they contri-
buted to providing public access
to the Pamlico or Tar rivers.
County Manager Donald
Davenport, a member of the
Land Use Committee, said that
state regulations require that any
building that requires a state per-
mit, such as a marina, must com-
ply with the county's land use
plan.
The marina -residential sub-
class would have created a classi-
fication within which developers
who wanted to build marinas
could be consistent with the
county's land use plan, Daven-
port said.
Under the proposed sub -class,
developers who wanted to build
more than one house per acre
would have to set aside some
land in the development for pub-
lic access or would have to pay to
a county public access fund a cer-
tain amount for each house they
built.
Chris Furlough, a developer
who is a member of the commit-
tee, opposed the proposal. He
said it placed an unfair burden on
developers, who would have to
pay for public access for every-
one. He said most developers
would rather go before the coun-
ty commissioners and apply for a
land classification change than
give up part of their land for pub-
lic access.
Furlough said that instead of
creating a sub -class and asking
developers to pay for public ac-
cess to the waterfront, the county
should apply for federal and state
grants to buy land.'
David McNaught, head of the
Pamlico -Tar River Foundation
and a committee member, said
that developers should have to
pay extra because when they buy
land, it makes the rest more ex-
pensive. He said that the county
cannot afford to buy land for
public access because the price is
so high.
Chairman Doug Mercer said he
opposed the sub -class because it
would not do what was intended
allow developers to build
marinas without applying for _a
land classification change. He
said that developers would apply
for the change rather than give
up part of their land or their
money for public access.
The Land Use Committee,
appointed by the county com-
missioners, is developing a pat-
tern for the use of land in
Beaufort County. The committee
will submit the plan to the com-
missioners for approval. The
plan is required under the Coas-
tal Area Management Act.
Committee members David
Norwood, Topper Bateman and
Henry Riddick were absent. In
addition to Davenport, Mercer
and Furlough, Frank Lewis and
John Morgan were present.
. I
I I
1

1
Mid -East Commission
P. 0. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
July 69 1987
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
'
FOR MORE INFORMATION -
Libby Anderson - 946-8043
Public
Service Announcement
The Beaufort County
Land Use Advisory Committee will meet
'
on Monday, July 13 to
-review the County's Land Classification.
Map. The Committee
meets at 7:00 pm in the Courthouse. All
interested persons are
encouraged to attend. G
e
1
1
i

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1987 — PAGE 5
LAND USE ADVISORY
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. at the
courthouse in Washington to pre-
pare a county land classification
map. It will begin the process by
reviewing the county's current
map to determine what changes
need to be made.

i i i i i i i i i i
Y"*U
WASHITNTGTON jjAILY INL4EWS
WASHINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA. TUESDAY AFTERNOON. JULY 14, 1987 (USPS 667.500)
Land Use Plan To R.efle.et Current Situation
By MICI AEL ADA.MS
Staff Writer
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan Advisory
Committee decided Monday night not to make
the new plan a preparation for future develop-
ment but to reflect development that has taken
place since the last plan went into effect.
The committee debated changing the classifica-
tion of several areas where development was not
yet taken place. That would obviate the need for
developers to apply for a land use classification
change later. But the panel decided against such
changes.
Most of the areas discussed would have been
changed from rural classification to transition
classification. Land classified as rural is suitable
for agriculture or sparse, unplanned develop-
ment. The next class, community, is suitable for
such development as subdivisions, but the homes
must have wells and septic tanks. In the transition
class, development is planned and there is a water
and sewer system.
The areas the committee debated were classi-
fied as rural in the last plan, which came out in
1981, but many have experienced development
which places them more logically in the commun-
ity class. None, however, have water and sewer
systems, which would place them in the transition
class.
David McNaught, head of the Pamlico -Tar Riv-
er Foundation and a committee member, opposed
changing the areas to transition. He said it might
Plan From Page 1
plan for water and sewage treatment.
County Manager Donald Davenport, a commit-
tee member, said that the committee needed to
make categories more exclusive and more defini-
tive if it intended to make the land use plan a
planning document.
The committee decided not to change the areas
to transition, but to classify them as community to
reflect existing development. These areas in-
clude:
— Sawmill Landing, a development on Bath
Creek north of Bath.
— Blackbeard's View, a development on the
Pamlico River just west of Bath Creek.
— Mixon Creek, a development on the Pamlico
River near Bayview.
— Banjo Shores, a development on Pungo
Creek between Bath and Belhaven.
— Woodstock Point, a development on the Pun -
go River south of Belhaven.
— Jordon Creek, a development on the Pungo
River south of Belhaven.
— Beach Grove, a development south of Au.
rora.
—The Mount Olive area, a development on
Goose Creek.
— And Whichard's Beach, a developing area on
the south side of the Pamlico near Chocowinity.
The committee decided to change one portion of
seem the county was encouraging sewage treat-
ment systems that discharge treated waste in the
Pamlico River. The PTRF recently filed a petition
of judicial review against the state department
that issues such permits to block the use of one
granted to the Coastal Carolina Girl Scouts for a
sewage system at Camp Hardee.
Chris Furlough, a developer and committee
member, said that a change to transition classi-
fication would be appropriate only when a de.
veloper begins to seek permits to install a water
and sewer system.
He said that before an area should be classified
as transition, a developer should have presented a
(See PLAN, Back Page)
Whichard's Beach to transition because it needs a
sewer system and may have the opportunity to
hook into the Chocowinity system as it expands.
Changes in the classification of land around
Blount's Creek were debated, but none were
made because no development has begun there.
The committee also discussed changing a large
area southeast of Aurora from rural to conserva-
tion classification. In conservation class, almost
nothing can be done to the land.
The committee decided against the change be-
cause it did not know who owned the land orwhat
plans the owners had for it. Furlough said that it
would be difficult to change the land back to rural
later if the committee changed it to transition and
then decided it had made a mistake.
The land use committee will meet Monday at 7
p.m. for a final review of the plan. The Beaufort
County Board of Commissioners will meet a week
from today to begin discussing the plan. The com-
missioners make the final decision it.
Fourcommittee members were absent Monday.
They are Chairman Doug Mercer, Topper Bate-
man, Henry Riodick and -John Morgan. In addi-
tion to Davenport, McNaught and Furlough,
Frank Lewis and David Norwood attended. Libby
Anderson, the representative of the Mid -East
Commission, was also present.
-4

Mid -East Commission
P. 0. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
July 16, 1987
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
. Public Service Announcement
The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee will meet on
Monday, July 20, to review the County's draft Land Use Plan.
Interested -persons are invited to attend. The Advisory Council,
meets at 7:00 pm in the County Courthouse.
F,
V

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, JULY 18, 1987 — PAGE 5
LAND USE ADVISORY
The Beaufort County Land
Use Advisory Committee will
meet Monday at 7 p.m. in the
county courthouse to review the
county's preliminary Land Use
Plan. The plan will be presented
to the Board of Commissioners
Tuesday. Interested persons are
invited.

Mid -East Commission
P. O. Box 1787 ,
Washington, NC 27889
July 20, 1987
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043 '
Commissioners to Review Land Use Plan
The
,
Board of County Commissioners will hold a special
meeting.Tuesday, July 21 to review the County's preliminary land
use plan. The County's Land Use Advisory Committee,, ad hoc
group appointed by the Commissioners, has been working since
'
November to update the County's land use plan in accordance with
the guidelines of the state's Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
,
The land use plan contains policy statements on.resource
protection, resource production, and economic and community
development, and a list of recommended actions the County could
take to achieve policy objectives. The plan has classified all
'
land in the County according to a system set out in state land
use planning guidelines. The proposed classification map is
(
similar to that adopted in 1981,, however the Advisory Committee
'
has recommended several minor changes. The Commissioners will
meet at 7:30 pm in the County Courthouse. All interested persons
are encouraged to attend.
'

' Mid -East Commissio
n
P. 0. Box 187
' Washington, NC 27889
July 209 1987
' FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION - Libby Anderson - 946-8043
Committee Recommends Approval of Land Use Plan
The Beaufort County Land Use Advisory Committee ended seven
months of work last night by approving final revisions to the
County's Preliminary 1987 Land Use Plan. The Committee has been
working since November to update the County's 1981 Land Use
Plan. The group has now issued a Preliminary Land Use Plan and
has recommended that the County Commissioners approve this
' document as the County's official preliminary land use plan.
The County's 1987 Land Use Plan is designed' to guide the
growth and development of the County for the next five years.
The plan sets out policy statements in the areas of resource
protection, resource production, and economic and community
development. The Committee has recommended a number of actions
the County should take to achieve policy objectives. Among
these "Implementation Strategies" are:
' adoption of subdivision regulations;
adoption of criteria for siting marinas;
developing additional sites for public access to the
river;
opposing issuance of permits to discharge domestic
wastewater into the Pamlico River;
and updating the plan for a County -wide water system.
To formulate land use planning objectives, the Committee
reviewed socioeconomic data, economic indicators, population
forecasts, and land use information. The group discussed how
certain physical factors such' as wetland and flood -prone areas
and soils unsuitable for traditional septic systems pose special
development considerations. The Committee also conducted a
public survey. in March. to gather public opinion on development,
issues. Survey results indicate that protecting the County's
natural resources, especially its water resources - rivers,'
' creeks, and streams - should be a priority concern of the 1987
Land Use Plan.
' The Committee has proposed a land development plan for the
County that reflects both the public sector's concern over
resource protection and the private sector's concern over land
use regulation. Copies of the County's proposed preliminary Land
' Use Plan are available for public review at the Beaufort County
Courthouse.
IU

_1wT`JGT0_NJ
DAiiLy NEWS.
ESTABLISHED 1909 NO. 172 THIRTY-TWO PAGES WASHINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 22, 1987
'Panel, Proposes'
Regulations
On Subdivisions And. Fishing
By MIC11AEL ADAMS
Staff Writer
Subdivision regulation and
stricter controls on commer-
cial fishing were discussed
Tuesday as the Land Use
Advisory Committee pre-
sented its plan to the Beaufort
County Board of Commis-
sioners.
Chairman Doug Mercer said
the committee thought the
county needed a subdivision
ordinance to ensure that de-
velopment in the' county is
orderly and environmentally
sound.
To protect local waters, the
committee's proposal sug-
gested that the ordinance limit
the amount of run-off, con-
taining fertilizers acid other
pollutants, allowed from sub-
divisions.
Mercer said the ordinance
should also offer incentives to
developers to -leave un-
touched buffers beside areas
identified as areas of environ-
mental concern by the Coastal
Resources Commission.
Mercer said that under the
committee's proposal, lot
sizes would be determined at
least partly by the suitability
of the soil for a septic tank
system.
Commissioner Arthur Lee
Moore said a subdivision ordi-
nance could create problems.
She said that a farmer who had
five acres of land might -give
an acre to two children for
(See COATIISISSION, Page 5)

!J
11
11
i
CO
z
O
O
z
x
A
w
z
A
w
z
a
aOa
xU
E�
a
O
z
z
O
v
z
x
m
3
m
w
C7
w
F
d,
Land Use
Plan Gets
Fi'oxs t 0 ka
By MICHAEL ADAMS
Staff Writer
The Beaufort County Board of
Commissioners approved a pre-
liminary land use plan Tuesday.
The plan, intended to help
order future growth and develop-
ment in the county, will be sent ,
to the state Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Community systems, provide some sort of
'Development for review before public river access and encour-
returning to the county for a pub- age tourism through supporting
lic hearing and adoption. a museum honoring Cecil B. de -
The plan lists several policy Mille and encouraging invest -
objectives to help ensure orderly merit in a paddlewheel showboat
growth. Among them is the sug- for the Pamlico.
gestion that the commissioners The plan includes a land classi-
consider an ordinance to reg- fication map. The map reflects
ulate subdivisions. development which has already
The ordinance proposed by the taken place or is under way. It is
plan would include regulation of not a predictor or planner of fu-
run-off, containing fertilizers and ture development.
other domestic pollutants, Ledrue Buck, chairman of the
allowed from subdivisions. commissioners, said that the fact
It would also offer developers that the commissioners have
incentives to leave untouched approved a land use plan which
buffers beside areas identified by calls for consideration of a subdi-
the Coastal Resources Commis -
vision ordinance does not mean}
sion as areas of environmental that the board will pass such an
concern. Lot size under the prop- ordinance.
osed ordinance would be deter- ; The plan was compiled by a
mined at least partly by the suita- land use advisory committee
bility of the soil for a septic tank with assistance from the Mideast
system. Commission.
The plan also contains recom-
mendations that the county sup-
port innovative waste treatment
(See COMMISSION, Back Page)

them to build houses on, only
to find that in doing so he was
creating a subdivision subject
to the county regulation. She
said such a situation would be
unfair.
County Manager Donald
Davenport said that this type
of situation should perhaps be
regulated by the ordinance to
protect future buyers. Future
buyers of the land in Mrs.
Moore's example would be
shortchanged if their land was
not subject to an ordinance re-
quiring certain minimum
standards of safety and effi-
ciency, he said.
Commissioner Marion Dil-
day agreed with the necessity
of some kind of ordinance. "It
seems to me that we should
have some guidance for a per-
son who is going to develop a
piece of property," he said.
Chairman Ledrue .Buck
agreed, saying of future de-
velopment, "I believe we need
to give it some direction if we
can."
Mercer said that the land use
committee proposed protect-
ing fish and imposing stricter
controls on commercial and
sports fishermen to improve
fishing in the county.
The committee proposed
regulating the placement of
marinas to ensure that they
would not be in an area where
they can harm young fish. The
committee the forming of a
fisheries management prog-
ram to regulate the harvesting
offish.
Dilday proposed even stric-
ter controls. He proposed a
ban on all haul -netting and
trawling in the Pamlico and
Pungo rivers. He said such
practices did not allow
enough fish to grow to matur-
ity and destroyed plant life on
river bottoms.
He said that by such fishing
practices, local fishermen
were so depleting the supply
of fish that "they're going to
catch the last one one day." In
harvesting so intensively,
fishermen are "drinking their
own blood," he said.
The committee's proposal
recommended several other
policies to the commissioners,
including:
—The recommendation
that the county support in-
novative waste treatment sys-
tems and oppose river dis-
harge waste treatment sys-
tems as a means of preserving
water quality.
—A proposal that the com-
missioners update and con-
tinue to consider a county-
wide water system, something
the committee thinks would
enhance development in the
county.
—A suggestion that the
county should provide some
sort of public access to the
Pamlico River. Mercer said
the committee was recom-
mending that the county seek
to provide such access in the
form of beaches and boat
ramps.
— The recommendation
that the county help develop a
museum commemorating the
life and works of Cecil B. de -
Mille and encourage invest-
ment in a paddlewheel show-
boat for the Pamlico as a
means of promoting tourism.
The county commissioners
made no decision about the
plan, but decided to examine
it until their next meeting,
Aug. 4, at which time they will
approve a preliminary land
use plan.
The preliminary plan will be
sent to the state Department
of Natural Resources, and
Community Development.
After that agency approves
the plan, there will be a public
hearing and the commission-
ers will adopt a final plan.
In other business:
— The commissioners pas-
sed a resolution agreeing to
pay a $21,000 bill owed by the
county Board of Education for
preliminary work on the new
high school planned for the
county system.
— The commissioners au-
thorized Melba C. Cooper, an
assistant to Register of Deeds
John Morgan, to sign checks
in his absence.
— The commissioners au-
thorized contracts between
the county and Washington to
provide rescue service and to
combine the communications
center.
Commissioner Cecil Cherry
Jr. was absent. All other com-
missioners were present. In
addition to Buck, Mrs. Moore
and Dilday, Frank Bonner
attended.
�I

R
PAGE 14 — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS
The Beaufort County Commissioners will re-
ceive public comment on the County's 1987
fiAMA Land Use Plan Update on Monday,
Novembei 9,1987, at 7:00 pm in the Supperior
Courtroom at the Beaufort County Court-
house. The Plan outlines policies on land use
and development that the County will follow
over the next five years, and classifies land in
the unincorporated area of the County
according to the guidelines of the States Coas-
tal Area Management Act (CAMA). Copies of
the plan are available for review at the'
Beaufort County Courthouse between 8:30
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Lediue Buck, Chairman
Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
10-8,22 2tc

TUESDAY AFTERNOON, NOVEMBER 10, 1987
Growth Guidelines
OKd, Sent To. State
By MICHAEL ADAMS
mended by Chairman Doug Mer-
Staff Writer
cer of the Land Use Advisory
The Beaufort County Board of
Board.
Commissioners approved a draft
The plan, intended to help
of a land use plan for the county
guide growth and development
Monday at a sparsely attended
in the county, will be in effect for
public hearing.
the next five years.
The hearing was attended only
The plan lists several policy
by people who were directly in-
objectives to help ensure orderly
volved. In addition to the com-
growth. A prominent one is the
missioners and county manager,
suggestion that the county com-
only the chairman and technical
missioners consider adopting an
advisor of the Land Use Advis-
ordinance to regulate subdivi-
ory Board, which developed the
sions.
plan, attended.
The ordinance would include
The commissioners approved
regulation of run-off, containing
the plan minutes after the meet-
fertilizers and other pollutants,
ing opened after agreeing to
make a wording change recom-
(See LAND USE, Page 12)

i
PAGE 12 WAASTHINGTON DAILY NEWS, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1987
Land V Se From Page 1
allowed from subdivisions
In other business:
It would'also offer developers
_� The commissioners decided
incentives to leave untouched-
to make Beaufort County a ser-.
buffers beside areas identified by
vice delivery area for federal job -
the Coastal Resources Commis-
training money, meaning that
sion as areas of environmental
the county, along with other
concern. Lot size under the prop-
members of Region Q, will be
osed ordinance would be`deter-
able to'control the money.
mined at least partly by the suita• '
• F o r s t h e past two years.
bility of the soil for a septic tank
Beaufort and the rest of the Re -
system.
The plan also contains recom-
gion Q counties — Hertford, Pitt,
Martin and Hyde — have been
mendations that the county sup-
part of a rural service delivery
port innovative waste treatment
area inwhich the state controlled
systems and work toward a coup-
the disbursement of job -training
tywide water and sewage, -treat- ;
, money.,,
ment system. ' ` i
Bob Paciocco, director of the
The plan includes a land classi-
Mid -East Commission, told the
fication map,' which reflects de-
commissioners last week that a
velopment which has already
county or group of counties must
taken place or is under way.
have.a population of 100,000 to
The commissioners approved
form a service delivery area.
the draft of the plan unanimously
Bonner, who moved that
on a motion by Frank Bonner
Beaufort County become a ser-
I and a second by Cecil Cherry Jr.
vice delivery area, said he did so
Monday night was the second
knowing that at least some of the
time the commissioners had ' een
other counties in the region must
the plan. They approved an .
join in order to have the popula-
_
lier draft Aug. 5, It was sent to the
tion necessary to form the ser-
state Department of Natural Re-
vice delivery area. He said he
sources and Community De-
hoped that other counties in the
velopment for revision. The draft
region would follow Beaufort's
adopted Monday included the
lead.
NRCD revisions.
—The commissioners agreed
County Manager Don Daven-
to pay two bills for the county
port said that the new draft will
school system's building pro-
be sent to the Coastal Resources
j e c t s. The bills, totaling
Commission for review. The
$56,529.50, were from the
CRC, which meets in Nags Head
architect who designed the new
Dec. 3 and 4, can adopt the plan
high school and • the firm over.
or send it back to the county for
seeing the construction.
revision.
Ival,
— The board rescheduled the
After gaining CRC appr
next regular meeting, moving
the final plan will be adopted by
the starting time from 9 a.m. to 2
the commissioners.
p.m. on Dec. 8. The board will
meet with the board of Beaufort
County Hospital following' the
regular meeting.
— The commissioners also
scheduled a public hearing on re -
approving the state half -cent
sales tax increase for their Dec. 8
meeting. The re -approval in-
volves no additional taxation.
Commissioner Arthur�Lee
Moore was not at the meeting
due to illness. All other members
attended. In addition to Bonner
and Cherry, Marion Dilday and
Ledrue Buck attended.

Appendix B
PUBLIC SURVEY
Beaufort County Land Use Plan Update 1987
Beaufort County is growing. The rate of new development is slow now, but
it is likely that development pressures will increase in the future.
In many ways, growth can be beneficial. It can bring new .jobs and new
opportunities- cultural, educational, and social.
Growth can sometimes have negative impacts. It can occur too rapidly and
services may not keep up with demand. Rapid growth is often unplanned:
development sprawls into the countryside and natural resources are
wasted.
More people may mean more jobs; more services; more opportunities. More
people can also mean more traffic, less open space, and fewer opportuni-
ties to enjoy clean air, clean water and a rural landscape.
The County is currently updating its land use. plan and is seeking the
guidance of local residents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
BEAUFORT COUNTY 43,260 PITT COUNTY 95,662
Washington 9,419 Greenville 40,297
HYDE COUNTY 5,571 WAKE COUNTY 353,801
- Raleigh 194,229
What population would be "just right" for Beaufort County?
--------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following have been identified as some current land use concerns in the
County. Please rate the seriousness of these concerns in Beaufort County.
1= extremely 2= moderately 3= somewhat 4= unimportant
1. Failing septic systems.
2. Disposal of solid waste (trash). _
3. Pollution of waterways by:
farming and 'forestry activity.
industrial activity. _
4. Marina development along waterways.
5. Loss of agricultural land. _
6. Mobile home parks.
7. Loss of County airspace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please rate each item as to its importance to the County.
1= extremely 2= moderately 3= somewhat 4= unimportant
1. Attracting new.jobs.
2. Attracting new residents.
3. Providing water and sewer service in unserviced areas. _
4. Increasing tourism.
5. Preserving local farming operations.
6. Preserving commercial fishing operations.
7. Controlling residential development along the river. _
8. Developing subdivision regulations.
9. Developing zoning.controls.
10. Protection of natural resources.
In your opinion, what are the two most important issues now facing
Beaufort County?
Do you live in Beaufort County?
If yes, do you live within a city or town?
If so, which one?
Please return this survey by April 1 to the Mid -East Commission, P.O.
Box 1787, Washington, NC 27889.
Thank you for your help.

Appendix,C
• Results
Beaufort County Land Use Plan Public Survey
March 1987
Distribution: Approximately 91500.
Responses: Approximately 940
Response Rate: 10%
Respondent Backoround - Residenc
Unincorporated area of Beaufort County: 61%
Bath: 2%
City of Washington: 25%
Belhaven: 4%
Washington Park: 3%,.
Chocowinity: 2%
Non -Beaufort County: 1%
Pantego: 1%
Aurora: 1%
Ideal Population
(note: only about,50% of respondents answered
this question)
less than 40000 persons:!
9%
409000 - 509000 persons:
44%
509000 - 70,000 persons: I
24%
709000 - 1009000 persons:
21%
over 1009000 persons:
2%
Seriousness of Land Use Concerns
Extremely
Moderately
Somewhat
Question Serious
•Serious
Serious• Unimportant
1.
septic systems 51%
29%
17%
3%
2.
solid waste 48%
36%
15%
1%
3.
agricultural pollution 54%
27%
16%
3%
industrial pollution 64%
22%
11%
3%
4.
marinas 30%
30%
28%
12%
5.
loss of farmland 30%
29%
28%
13%
6.
mobile home parks 26%
32%
28%
14%
7.
loss of airspace 50%
22%
17%
11%

I
Important Issues
Question
1. new jobs
2. new residents
3. public services
4. tourism
5. preserving farming
6. preserving fishing
7. waterfront development
B. subdivision regulations
9. zoning ordinance
10. resource protection
Two Most Important Issues
Issue
Extremely
Moderately
Somewhat
Important
Important
Important
Unimportant
63%
21%
11%
5%
32%
28%
20%
20%
40%
30%
19%
ll%*
25%
37%
23%
15%
47%
35%
15%
3%
57%
29%
11%
3%
48%
31%
15%
6%-
42%
35%
17%
6%
44%
31%
18%
7%
75%
19%
5%
1%
Preserving water quality
Preserving natural resources
Need for more jobs
Better schools
Need for controlled growth
Need for services - water, sewer
Loss of airspace
Need for more industry
Concern over agricultural
conditions
Problem of Texasgulf
Overfishing by commerical
operations
Need for better roads
Need for increasing tourism
Mobile home parks
Too many regulations on citizens
Need for aggressive leadership
Number of Respondents
Naming Issue
200
184
181
144
141
118
104
104
80
38
37
28
23
21
17
17
Note: only issues receiving 15 or more responses included

Appendix D
STATE REGULATORY DEVICES
----------------------------------------------
Agency Licenses and Permits
Department of Natural Resources - Permits to discharge to
and Community Development surface waters or operate
Division of Environmental wastewater treatment
Management plants or oil discharge
permits; NPDES Permits,
(G. S. 143-215).
• - Permits for septic tanks
to be used for industrial
purposes (G. S. 143-215.
3).
Permits for withdrawal
of surface or ground
waters in capacity use
areas (G. S. 143-215.15).
Permits for air pollution
abatement facilities and
sources (G. S. '143-215.)
108).
- Permits for construction
of complex sources; e. g.
parking lots, subdivis-
ions, stadiums, etc.
(G.S. 143-215.109).
Permits for construction
of a well over 100,000
gallons/day. (G. S.
87-88).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of
Natural Resources
- Permits to dredge
and/or
and Community
Development
fill in estuarine
waters,
Division of Parks and Recreation
tidelands, etc.
(G. S.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
113-229).
Department of
Natural Resources
- Permits to undertake
and Community
Development
development in Areas of
Division of Coastal Management
Environmental
Concern
(G. S. 113A-118).
6

------j-------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Licenses and Permits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Land Resources
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
----------------------------------------
Department of' Administration -
----------------------------------------
Department of Human Resources -
ivuit: minor oeveiopment
permits are issued by
local government.
Permits to alter or to
construct a dam (G. S.I
143-215.66).
Permits to mine (G. S.
74-51).
Permits to drill an
explanatory oil or gas
well (G. S. 113-391).
Permits to conduct
geographical exploration
(G. S. 113-391).
Sedimentation erosion
control plans for any
land disturbing activity
of over one contiguous
acre (G. S. 113A-54).
Permits to construct an
oil refinery.
--------------------------
Easements to fill where
lands are proposed to be
raised above the normal
high water mark of
navigable waters by
filling (G. S. 146.6
(c)).
-------------------------
Approval to operate a
solid waste disposal
site or facility (G. S.
130-166.1¢).
Approval for construction
of any public water
facility that furnishes
water to ten or more
residences (G. S.
130-160.1)

FEDERAL
'
REGULATORY DEVICES
Agency
-----------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Licenses and Permits
,
Army Corps of Engineers
- Permits required under
(Department of Defense)
Section 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors of 1899;
'
permits to construct in
navigable waters.
,
- Permits required under
Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
- Permits required. under
Section 404 of the Federal
,
Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972; permits to undertake
dredging and/or filling
'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
activities.
Coast Guard
- Permits for bridges, cause -
(Department of
ways, pipelines over navigable
'
Transportation)
waters; required under the
General Bridge Act of 1946
and the Rivers and Harbors
.
Act of 1899.
Geological Survey -
Permits required for off -shore
Bureau of Land Management
drilling.
'
(Department of Interior) -
Approvals of OCS pipeline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
corridor rights -of -ways.
'
Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Licenses for siting, construc-
tion and operation of nuclear
power plants; required under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
and Title II of the Energy
'
Reorganization Act of 1974.
------- -------------------------------------------------i--------
Federal Energy Regulatory -
Permits for construction,
'
Commission
operation .and maintenance of
interstate pipeline facilities
required under the Natural
Gas Act of 1938.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency
Licenses and Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Energy Regulatory
- Orders of Interconnection of
Commission
electric transmission facili-
ties under Section 202 (b) of
the Federal Power Act.
- Permission required for
abandonment of natural gas
pipeline and associated
facilities under Section 7C
(b) of the Natural Gas Act of
1938.

Appendix E
Beaufort County Transportation Projects,

0
Source: "Highway Improvement Program Maps 1987-1995",
North Carolina Department of Transportation

Appendix F
AGENCIES COORDINATING STORM PREPAREDNESS
N. C. Division of
Coastal Management
State Office:
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Field Office:
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
1424 Carolina Avenue
P. 0. Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
N. C. Division of
Emergency'Management
(now includes National
Flood Insurance Program Information)
State.Office:
Division of Emergency Management.
Department of Crime Control and Public
Safety n
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Regional Office:
Area Emergency Management Coordinator
N. C.:Division of Emergency Management
Beaufort County Courthouse
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
National Office:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20472
Public Information - [phone]
Publications - [phone]

Regional Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1375 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Public Information - [phone]
Disaster Assistance -
Program - (404) 88.1-3641
Flood Insurance
Program - [phone]

APPENDIX G
Beaufort County Planning Program
Schedule of Meetings
September 29, 1986
Introductory Workshop, Land Use Plan
Advisory
Committee
October
13, 1986
Advisory
Committee
December
149 1986
Advisory
Committee
January
12, 1987
Advisory
Committee
February
9, 1987
Advisory
Committee
March 9,
1987
Advisory
Committee -
April 139
1987
Advisory
Committee
May 11,
1987
Advisory
Committee
May 18,
1987
Advisory
Committee
June 1,
1987
Advisory
Committee
June 8,
1987
Advisory
Committee
June.22,
1987
Advisory
Committee
July 13,
1987
Advisory
Committee
July 21,
1987
Advisory
Committee, Board of County
Commissioners
August 4,
1987
Board of
County Commissioners, adoption
of preliminary land use plan
Note: All meetings were advertised as being open to the public.

Appendix H
'
Policy Alternatives, Policy Choices from
Before the Storm in Beaufort County
As recor:•:iended in Before the Storm, "to.overcome the shortcomings in
coverage or enforcement of existing policies, a community should review other
techniques that could be used.effectively and efficiently to reduce the risk
'
of future hurricane damages. Different techniques are suited to different
development
,
and redevelopment problems; certain techniques will be more
practical and more effective than others in addressing the community's
,
particular hazard mitigation needs" (BTS, page 5.19).
Consistent with this analytical approach, the following list of choices among
policies and measures is presented. It is from this list and others
,
generated by consideration of it,.that the selection of workable hazard
'
reduction measures is to be selected.
W Objective: To maintain or strengthen existing
policies known to decrease the risk of
'
hurricane damage.
The County
'
. now administers parts of the state building code with w' an
inspections program. This program has recently expande.d attention into
,
construction standards.for footings, framing, plumbing (including well and
septic), and insulation, as well as electrical._
l
'
commissioners
:he could choose to adopt the complete state building code
and administer it county -wide, so as to upgrade the quality of construction
'
and the extent to which it is hurricane worthy.

M
. The construction standards of the,Federal Emergency Management Agency are
required for areas that are participating in the regular phase of the flood
insurance program. Only Washington, Washington Park, Belhaven and Aurora
are participating in the regular phase, with the remaindgr of the
unincorporated county, Pantego, Bath, and Chocowinity participating in the
emergency phase.
The option facing the commissioners is one of using the best available 100
year flood level from the emergency phase (10 ft.) and requiring the
elevation of the first floor of buildings.in the hurricane hazard area
(Exhibit M ) now, with refinement after the regular phase is official.
. The state's Sedimendation Control. Act (15 YCAC 04A) requires an erosion
and sedimentation control plan to be prepared and filed with the
Environmental, Management Commission or the County Commissioners prior to
the commencement of any land disturbing activity of more than one acre.
This policy allows two important types of development to 0o untended in the
flood hazard area, agriculture and small lot residential development.
The commissioners have the choice of (1) decreasing the land area to
one—half acre, thereby locally requiring residential development on
waterfront lots (of at least this size) to take adequate precautions
against erosion, and (2) including agriculture and forestry as land uses
that in fact cause "a change in the natural cover or topography that may
cause or contribute to sedimentation %

• CXLA includes a buffer of 75 feet in the Estaurine Shoreline AEC (15 tiCAC
711, 0209 (b) and (d) in which developed is monitored and regulated in terms
of sitint. Some types of development may be prohibited depending on the
specific site carrying capabilities.
Since the tightening of these stanldards could be beyond the administrative
capacity of the county, the choice facing the commissioners is likely one
of changing the "buffer" provision to a "setback"
provision, which would
require that uses which could otherwise be built more than 75 feet from the
shoreline must be; otherwise the regulations of CAMA would operate as now
written.

' (2) Objective:. To create policies which REDUCE risk:.
As indicated in the 1982 CA11A Land Use Plan, the commissioners have no
' subdivision. re,^,ulations which govern the design of developments or the ,
quality of construction of roads in subdivisions. Subdivision of land cis
' traditionally regulated because it transforms large
. ge acreages from a rural
' character to a suburban/urban one.
The county commissioners have an option to adopt subdivision regulations
(without zoning). Into these, provisions of floodplain management,
' adequate lot size and drainage
q , in ge could be written. These regulations. would
' require plats which show the first floor elevated above the best
information available regarding the 100 year flood.
e
. The County has a detailed soils analysis underway through the District SCS
(Mr. E. H. Karnowski's office). This information could be.used to develop
soils overlay districts within which to set density standards based upon
soil characteristics and their carrying capacities in toms of abilities to
accept septic effluent, and load bearing capabilities to bear development
(see Exhibits C, H, I,. and J).
. Since natural solutions are often the best, the commissioners could
' consider establishing a vegetation or landscaping ordinance for
shorefront property that requires careful development, recognizing the
' value of retaining vegetation, retaining; trees as a buffer on the shoreline
between the wind and water of a storm and buildings. This would Include
' retaining the wind —clipped trees closest to the water, which protect the
' rest of the shorefront lot (Caring for the Land, Environmental Principles for

Since much of the area within the hazard area (Exhibit E) is in
agricultural use, the commissioners could establish an Exclusive Farm Use
Zone in a Development Options Ordinance. This approach was used as part
of the Land Resource Management Program, Oregon State University Extension
Service. It guarantees continued agricultural uses and also •contains and
restricts urban uses in areas which are high in erosion and which have low
tolerance for high densities and impervious surfaces, and which otherwise
have sensitive environments.
. Since the taxation of land is a fundamental influence in development
patterns, the Commissioners could implement one of the 1982-83 objectives
of the North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Land Use Planning Committee. The Association recommended that plans, such
as this Storm Mitigation Plan should make provisions for consideration of
equitable assessments of land use for agricultural, wildlife, recreational
aesthetic, or other uses which are significant (hurricane risk reducing)
interest and importance to the general public. (Source: NC Association,
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Raleigh, 1`;C, June, 1932, page 7).
Taxation could be strategically designed to guide development away from
hurricane risk areas (or perhaps,the higher risk areas within the flood
zone), by placing a "hazards premium" on development placed in areas of
excessive risk, or conversely, allowing a preferential assessment
("hazard —avoidance discount") on property back away from the shoreline or
otherwise outside areas of extreme risk. This could minimize present and
future unnecessary public expenses to serve such areas (e.g. fire and
sheriff services) and also prevent unnecessary public expenses to "clean up

- r
the mess" following a major storm. While not exactly transferable, the
recent March 1984 tornado disasters in neighboring counties emphasize the
public costs involved in clean up and reconstruction.

a
. The Cormissioners could consider establishing an erosion and runoff
ordinance for only the most sensitive areas. This would involve the
development of a drainage overlay district which would locate critical
drainage channels, particularly those which often become overwashed and
inundated during moderate storms.' (Such areas are known as "creak spots",
and are a type of hurricane risk hazard included in the county's hazard
area (Exhibit (D)).
This overlay district would assist in the preservation and protection of
the natural: environment by: regulating the alteration of land and
topography; regulating the removal of vegetation; specifying standards.for
drainage system construction;.requiring erosion and sedimentation control;
assuring the continued, efficient operation of the drainage system; (and)
protecting county streams and floodplains from substantial alteration of
their natural functions. (Source:* Thurow et al., p. 104.)

(3) Objective: To amend or avoid actions known to
increase risks.
Exhibit Y indicates that there is clear responsibility taken i ' n 1972 by 'the
County Commissioners to "adopt and maintain in force for areas having special
c
' flood hazards, adequate land use and control measures..."
This storm
mitigation, Post Reconstruction and Evacuation Plan is an additional step-in
' that direction.
Avoiding actions known to Inc
rease risks is an objective the Commissioners
' can address through education of the public about the risks of locating in
the hazard area. It is the intention of the Commissioners to provide that
' information through this planning effort and its Office of. Emergency
Management. `

Since the County has traditionally resisted county —wide land use zoning in
any form, the commissioners may consider: (1) developing a flood hazard
area ordinance which would incorporate many of the aforementioned
provisions that could otherwise be put into separate ordinances or (2)
zoning a smaller portion of the county where development is.intense but
subject to no guiding influence. This targeted approach directed at the
priority risk.areas in the County could become the foundation piece of a
thoughtful way of supportively directing development without stifling it.'
In many cases, developers are more likely to bring their investments to a,
county which offers them proper protection through ordinances. A.selective
zoning ordinance could indicate that the commissioners are working to
protect whoever's investment goes into the hazard hurricane hazard area,
and is doing all it can to lessen the costs to developers, the federal
insurance agency, and most importantly, the tag: payers for they foot the
bill to "clean up the mess."

e
and
reconstruction. All policies which guide development and reconstruction
recognize
the different levels of risk that exist in different parts of the
'
county and in different types of structures.
b. Selected Policies and Measures.
1.
Continue to enforce the State building code.
2.
Adopt the regular phase of the FEMA flood insurance program at the
'
appropriate time (when the final mapping is completed).
3.
Conduct a risk avoidance education program through the Office of
Emergency Management to advise current and prospective developers and
buyers of the hurricane risks in Beaufort County.
'
4.
Establish a procedure in the Inspections
p p s Department of determining, at
the time that building permits are requested, whether the permit is for
construction within the Hurricane Hazard Area shown in Exhibit E. If so,
0
advise the applicant of the potential hurricane hazards, discuss
'
recommended construction techniques for such areas, and suggest that he
'
contact the Federal Emergency Management Agency (through local financial
institutions providing construction loans) for information on reduced
'
insurance premiums under the FEMA program for construction with the first
floor above the 100 year flood (10 feet).

1. Implementation and Monitoring
a. Rationale
At this point in the hurricane planning process, Beaufort County has several
products. First is a list of hurricane hazard mitigation need's or
development characteristics the community needs to control. Second is a
compilation of measures which are currently in place to mitigate the
hurricane hazard. Third is a compilation of measures which the community can
adopt to cover any needs that current measures fail to address. The ne-t
step in the process involves blending these into a coordinated local program
for reducing the risk of hurricane damages.
Implementation of local policies is the final step in formulating a hazard
mitigation program, as it is with any good planning effort. But beyond that
work and after local policies are implemented and hazard reduction measures
are being carried out, the County will need to monitor development to ensure
that prescribed measures are being followed.
In this case, implementation involves adopting policies and ordinances
selected by The Board of County Commissioners as necessary to nut hazard
niti,sation measures into effect.
Some of the policy choices would put hazard mitigation measures into
continuous operation as a means of managing development in the community,
such as subdivision requirements or construction standards. Other policies
would put hazaird mitigation measures into effect only in response to
disaster, such as relocation programs and temporary moratoria on development

c. lonitoring Consistency and Effectiveness Over Time
It is the intent of the County Commissioners that local hurricane hazard
citigation be integrated with other local plans, policies, and programs which
cover other aspects of development in the county.
Through the Cffice of the Emergency idanagement Coordinator, the County will
continuously observe how development is proceeding in the community once
f
these hazard mitigation measures are adopted and implemented. Keeping track
of development will help the County see if hazard mitigation policies are
being followed and if hazard mitigation policies need to be modified in any
way to make them more workable and effective. Such monitoring can identify
further problems in coverage and enforcement that need to be resolved.. Such
' monitoring efforts may involve less formal, continuous observations or more
formal, periodic evaluations. In these forms, monitoring efforts will pay
attention to where development is locating (relative to different hazard
' areas) and how development is being built (relative to the forces expected in
each hazard area).
Ilith the recent 1-larch, 1934 tornado disasters in neighboring counties, the
' county should be highly alerted as to possible and pending damage whenra
' hurricane strikes. An areawide assessment of the "institutional. ability" of
local £overnrent to deal with these natural disasters might be made.

BIBLIOGRA
Beaufort Soil and Water Conservation District, "Long Range
Program and Work Plan." Washington, NC 1980.
Institute for Southern Studies, "Who Owns North Carolina?
Durham, 1986.
Mid -East Commission, "Aurora Land Use Plan Update." September
1986.1
Mid -East Commission, "Belhaven Land Use Plan Update." April
1987.
v
Mid -East Commission, "Overall Economic Development Program
Update." August 1986.
North Carolina Crop and Livestock*Repo ting Service, North
Carolina A riculture Statistics i1985. Raleigh, October
1985.
North Carolina Department of Commerce, 1985-86 Directory Manu-
facturino Firms Raleigh, 1984.
North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Travel and
Tourism, "1984 North Carolina Travel Study." Raleigh,
May 1984.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh. Correspondence, 28 January
1987.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina
Fisheries Re ulations for Coastall Waters. Raleigh, 1987.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh.,
Correspondence, 1 December 1986.
North Carolina Department of Tran portation, Transportation
Improvement 1987-1995. Raleigh, ecember 1986. -
North Carolina Department of Trans ortation, Highway and Road
Mile. Raleigh, January 1987.
Office of State Budget and Management, "North Carolina Municipal
Population 1985." Raleigh, September 1986.

Office of State Budget and Management, Profile North Carolina
Counties. Raleigh, Seventh Edition 1986.
Office of State Budget and Management, Profile North Carolina
. Counties. Raleigh, Sixth Edition 1981.
Office of State Budget and Management, Statistical Abstract
'
North Carolina State Government. Raleigh, Fifth Edition
1984.
'
Planning* and Design Associates, Before the Storm in Beaufort
County: AVOIDING HARM'S WAY. Raleigh, June 1984..
'
Planning and Design Associates, "Land Use Plan of. Historic Bath:
1986-1996." Raleigh, May 1986.
Planning and Design Associates, "The Washington Land Use Plan:
'
1985-1995." Raleigh, 1985.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
'
Beaufort County North Carolina Soil Survey Maps and Inter-
pretations. July, 1984.
'
U. S.-Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil
Survey of Hertford County North Carolina. July 1984.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982 Census
of Agriculture, North Carolina State and County Data.
Washington, D. C. Government Printing Office, May 1984.
'
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census
of Population. Washington, D. C. Government Printing
Office, March 1973.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census
of Population. Washington, D. C. Government Printing
■
Office, October 1983.