Shoreline Mapping: Land Management Tools-Beaufort County

BEAUFORT COUNTY
DCM COPY
Please do not remove.
Division of Coastal Management Copy
�'�u'�al•Re�rea
. O frog
u
� y
rt
1712 C'•
rt Count
SHORELINE MAPPING:
LAND MANAGEMENT TOOLS

SHORELINE MAPPING:
LAND MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Prepared for
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Ledrue Buck
Frank Bonner
Mrs. Arthur L. Moore Granville Lilley Marion Dilday
COUNTY MANAGER
Donald L. Davenport
Prepared by
The Mid -East Commission
P.O. Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
Robert J. Paciocco, Executive Director
Jane Daughtridge, Assistant Planning Director
The preparation of this report and accompanying map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ............................................
1
METHODS AND FINDINGS
.....................................
3
FORECAST..... .. ............
5
........................
LAND MANAGEMENT TOOLS ...................................
6
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) ...........................
6
Public Trust Waters
............ ....... .................
CoastalWetlands
6.
.........................................
Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shorelines ........................
7
7
ZoningRegulations ... ... ....... .. .........................
7
Buffers................................................
8
Conditional Uses
..........................................
8
Overlay Conservation District .:...............................
8
Subdivision: Regulations .......................................
8
Stormwater Management ......................
9
.......... ...
PlannedUnit Development .....................................
9
Capital Improvements Plan .....................................
10
Local Environmental Impact Ordinance ............................
10
Unified Development Ordinance ..................................
10
RECOMMENDATIONS .....................
10
................ .
SUMMARY..................................................
11
FIGURE 1. CAMA development permit trends for Beaufort County, NC ........ 2
TABLE 1. Study area, actual count. Total shoreline mileage,
Pamlicoand Pungo Rivers, only ........................... 4
TABLE 2. Estimates. Total shoreline mileage, all rivers and streams ........ 5
APPENDIX A. Waterfront Inventory Maps
i

SHORELINE MAPPING: LAND MANAGEMENT TOOLS
INTRODUCTION
Beaufort County is the eighth largest county in North Carolina, occupying 827 square miles in
the central coastal area of the State. Quoting from the 1987 Beaufort County Land Use Plan
Update (p.5), "Water resources are a major presence in the county ...[accounting] for about 88,000
acres (14.2%) of the ... total 618,000 acres." The Pamlico River bisects the County, flowing easterly
to the Pamlico Sound. The County's easternmost border roughly follows the Intercoastal Waterway
from Goose Creek on the south side of the Pamlico River through the Pungo River on the north
side.
The County currently contains seven incorporated towns. More than one-third of the total
population resides in these areas, yet all developed land (rural and urban) accounts for only about
8% of the total land area. Four of the seven incorporated towns are directly bordered by water,
thus placing the highest densities of population in close proximity to the rivers and creeks.
Area economy is heavily influenced by resource production such as agriculture, forestry, mining,
and commercial fishing. Of forty-six manufacturing firms listed in the 1987 Land Use Plan (p.11.3),
fourteen were directly related to seafood or boats, five to lumber or logging equipment, and two
to agricultural production. These are in addition to the actual production activities. Because the
land is drained by many branches, streams, and creeks which feed into the Pamlico River, all of
these activities --resource production, manufacturing, urban development and residential uses --affect
the chemical and biological composition of the River. Water areas also provide scenic and
recreational opportunities for permanent and part-time residents as well as tourists.
While Beaufort County has no direct control over. the quality of water "inherited" from
upstream, it can provide positive reinforcement locally. Regulating land development activities to
minimize negative impacts and encouraging the kind of citizen participation essential for real
protection of the River would be effective first steps toward responsible stewardship of natural
resources. Few land use controls are currently in place.
Population estimates from the North Carolina State Data Center showed a 1990-1985 change
of +2,905 persons. The Land Use Plan showed that 1,148 residential building permits (1981-85)
were issued. With average household size (1980) of 2.82 persons, the population increase would
necessitate 1,030 new homes, potentially leaving 118 replacement homes or "second" homes. CAMA
permits indicate development activity along the waterways. Figure 1 shows available permit
information for Beaufort County.
From 1980 to 1985, ninety-five major development pet'mits were issued in Beaufort County.
By 1985, the County ranked fourth among coastal counties in major permits and first in issuance
of general permits.
The Land Use Plan indicates that many of the residential projects proposed in the next several
years are expected to be for "resort residential" development on or near the water. If these projects
take place outside the larger urban areas, they must be served by on -site water and septic systems.
Much of the waterfront property in Beaufort County is subject to physical limitations for
development, such as inappropriate soils, flooding (north side of River), or steep slopes (south side

CAMA Permits
250
200
150
100
50
0
2
1980 1982 1984 1986 1987
Fiscal Year
(Fiscal Year Ts Jul 1-June 30)
Minor Permits M Major Permits General Permit M Total Permits
FIGURE 1. CAMA development permit trends for Beaufort County, North Carolina. Shown
are: major; minor; general; and total permits issued from Fiscal year 1980 to
Fiscal year 1987 (Source: Division of Coastal Management, 1989). Reprinted
from An Analysis of Coastal Growth and Development in North Carolina, N.A.
Armingeon; Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, May 1989, p. 15.
of River). These limitations often occur in the most commercially attractive locations and set up
a natural conflict between the public interest in health, safety, and welfare risks and the private
interest of individuals. Historically, governments have been called upon to mediate these conflicts.
Beaufort County Commissioners authorized this study to look at development trends along the
River. (For the purpose of this report "River" shall mean Pamlico River and adjoining tributaries
in Beaufort County.) The study looks at the developed acreage, determines how, and where the
land has been built upon, how much vacant acreage remains, development trends, and regulations
that are in place or may be needed. The results of the study will allow local citizens to see how
the riverfront property has changed. The Forecast section will provide a look at how these changes
may continue. Finally, recommendations will be made on administrative changes that can have an
effect on development.

METHODS AND FINDINGS.
This report's statistical section began with an analysis of records at the Beaufort County
Courthouse. Beaufort County is not a surveyed "metes and bounds" county. There are no cadastral
maps indicating lot lines. Subdivisions of property in Beaufort County require a metes and bounds
property description in the deed, but recording of a plat is optional, except when the subdivision
includes new streets or changes to an existing street (GS 136-102.6). Also, because there are no
established coordinate benchmarks in the County, accurately situating. those plats which have been
filed is not possible. These ambiguities can result in misrepresentations of property boundaries or
locations. A property records survey gave the owners' names and addresses, tax value of land, and
any improvements, type of use, size of lot, and deed/map reference, when available.
Maps in the tax office were used to locate existing development. The area within 300 feet of
the shoreline comprised the study area. Records were retrieved for property along the Pamlico
River including Blounts Bay, Pungo River, and part of Chocowinity Bay and Broad Creek. Property
within the City of Washington, Washington Park, and the Town of Belhaven was not analyzed.
Property information along many tributaries, such as South Creek, North Creek, and Bath Creek
was generally limited to the mouths in order to focus on properties readily accessible by large and
small vessels alike.
In the areas analyzed, the current tax records system prevented a more detailed observation of
property usage. Determining the actual total number of lots and vacant lots was impossible as only
a small number of plats were recorded for waterfront properties. Exact lot size was not a part of
tax records and was determined by computer when measurements were available. Roughly 2,500
individual ownerships were surveyed along the shoreline. Approximately 110 of these were
subdivisions of greater than two acres. Another 1,000 were individual residential lots which either
were platted or provided metes and bounds descriptions in the deed.
Existing land use classifications at the County Tax Office are very general, i.e., residential,
commercial, industrial. Within the residential classification a breakdown into single family or
multifamily was usually. not available. This hampered the attempt to count dwelling units. The
dwelling unit count was, important in making projections on future density.
Soil composition data was somewhat limited. The Soil Conservation Service has preliminary
detailed soil maps but has not released the overall data. When available, the soil survey will have
data on wetness, erodability, and shallowness in units as small as three acres. The currently
available Soil Association map divides the County into major groups of several thousand acres each.
This map is not very useful in looking at individual lots, but can still be important in determining
general suitability for development.
Industrial classification includes property owned by Texasgulf and National Spinning. This
includes the phosphate mine, the processing plant, spoils deposit areas, and land that is in abeyance
for future mining. Consistent with the method described above, only that part of Texasgulf property
within 300 feet of the shoreline was included in determining the total shoreline acreage.
Topographic features were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5
minute quadrangles. Areas marked on the USGS map as "marsh" or those with very low elevation
or steep slope were delineated as "environmentally restrictive" on the waterfront maps.
US Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle' maps were also used to determine riverfront
mileage. The line on the map which indicates the River's edge was the basis for the mileage. In
the many tributaries both sides were measured until the map narrows the stream to one line. The
total riverfront mileage along the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers is approximately 152 miles. When the
tributaries are added, the riverfront length increases to approximately 522 miles.

4
The total mileage along the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers is divided as follows:
TABLE 1. Study area, actual Count. Total shoreline mileage, Pamlico and
Pungo Rivers, only.
USE
(1988) MILES % OF TOTAL
Subdivisions
35.9
23.6
Developed single family*
20.6
13.5
Public sector (state owned)
13.3
8.7
Private sector (industrial,
commercial, institutional)
18.1
11.9
Environmentally restrictive
40.0
26.3
Remaining to be developed
(agriculture or forestland)
24.4
16.0
TOTAL RIVERFRONT
1523
*This is included with the Private Sector on the attached maps.
The subdivisions and the area divided into individual lots totalled 56.5 miles of riverfront.
These areas were used to determine average lot size and tax value. By this method, average lot size
is .36 acres or 15,682 square feet with average water frontage of 75 feet. Average tax value of those
lots used for averaging size was $37,680.
The total shoreline mileage is almost two and one-half times greater than that of the Pamlico
and Pungo Rivers alone. Since usage information was gathered only for riverfront areas, estimates
of usage for the total system shoreline have been made using straight line projections which assume
like distribution of usage categories.
The estimates made in Table 2 may be high in the developed category. The current
attractiveness of a particular piece of property is partially a result of the ability of boaters to gain
access. The depth of the water and the width of the channel prevent some boats, and eventually
all boats, from entering the tributaries. In addition, low bridges such as those at Bath, Blounts
Creek, and Pantego Creek prevent passage by some boats. '
Environmentally restrictive category estimates in Table 2 may be low since the tributary
shorelines may contain more wetlands or marshes on a percentage basis than the main Rivers.
Current State and Federal regulations which protect the environmental integrity of this water -
oriented landscape will not permit unwise development siting decisions in these areas.

5
TABLE 2. Estimates. Total shoreline mileage, all rivers and streams.
USE
(1988) MILES
Subdivisions
123.1
Developed single family
70.6
Public sector (state .owned)
45.5
Private sector (industrial,
commercial, institutional)
61.9
Environmentally restrictive
137.2
Remaining to be developed
(agriculture or forestland)
83.7
TOTAL RIVERFRONT 522-0
Land remaining to be developed is scattered irregularly along the shoreline. The Waterfront
Inventory Maps (Appendix A) indicate a relative abundance of potentially developable land along
the Pungo River shoreline. Throughout the study area, remaining land accounts for only about 16%
of the mileage. This classification largely includes current agricultural and forestland not yet
subdivided for. development. Much of the forestland is owned by the Weyerhaeuser Company.
FORECAST
The previous section indicates that about 16% of Beaufort County's riverfront mileage is
available for new development. The number of vacant lots within subdivisions could not be
determined from available resources, but it is assumed that these lots will also fill in as new
development occurs. Land classification within the 1987 Land Use Plan Update appears to favor
only very low density residential development (not greater than one dwelling unit per acre) in the
areas designated as "Remaining to be developed" by this study (currently agriculture or forestland
classified as "Rural" on the Land Classification Map on page 74.2 of the 1987 Land Use Plan
Update). This would appear to be inconsistent with the current average residential lot size of .36
acres. The projected eighty-three miles with development potential could be divided into over 8,000
individual riverfront lots based on current trends but only about 3,000 lots if the mileage is
converted to acreage [(83 X 5,280' X 300')/43,560 sq.ft.] and one dwelling per acre is assumed.

6
The increasing attractiveness of riverfront property will result in a continuing increase in tax
value only if allowed uses are compatible and standards for development are of a reasonably high
quality. The diminishing amount of vacant property may have an inflationary effect on market value
of remaining lots based on pure economic principles of supply and demand. However, a
proliferation of small lots could actually reduce demand if septic or other physical restrictions
render those lots unsuited for development.
Realistically, if future trends produce an abundance of "resort residential" projects, lot sizes can
be expected to remain small to maximize the developer's profits.
As development along the River changes in the coming years, residential growth is likely to shift
to the tributaries. The overall economy will obviously determine the rate at which all development
occurs. An adequate transportation network is also an important market factor.
Whether new riverfront development results in 8,000 or 3,000 additional lots, -the County will
certainly realize additional tax base as open lands convert usage. The conversion also will have
significant implications for the environmental health of the County's waterways.
LAND MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Beaufort County currently exercises only limited local control over development. The County's
1987 Land Use Plan Update is designed to be a policy guide for development decisions made by the
County Commissioners. It also influences permitting practices at the State level in CAMA
regulated areas of Environmental Concern. The mobile home park ordinance was adopted in 1975
and updated in 1987. Floodplain Regulations adopted in 1987 are predicated on mandatory
requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Building construction conform to the NC
Building Code and were initiated in 1985. Septic tank regulations are enforced by the Beaufort
County Health Department. These are currently the only public agencies directly involved in
development practices.
County officials have both the statutory authority and a timely opportunity to guide future
growth by adopting and enforcing land use regulations which will address the unique needs and
purposes of Beaufort County. Acceptance of such regulations will require a comprehensive public
education effort.
• Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs)
Sensitive coastal areas defined by the North Carolina Administration Code in 15NCAC7H are
regulated by the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management.
Public Trust Waters
Stated simply, public trust waters are those that are navigable to which the public has had the
historic right of access. Development within public trust waters are currently regulated by the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Any development proposed over or in the public
trust waters of the County is covered by existing State regulations.

Coastal Wetlands
Developmental proposals within .these wetlands are also regulated by CAMA. Stated simply,
coastal wetlands are those containing either Juncus or Spartina marsh vegetation and are also
frequently or infrequently flooded, which is caused by either wind or lunar tides. These wetlands
are prevalent throughout the County, but particularly in the central and eastern portions.
Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shorelines
LAMA also regulates proposed development within estuarine waters within the County. Stated
very simply, estuarine waters are those where marine fisheries (or commercial fishing) occur, as
compared to where inland or freshwater fisheries occurs. Adjacent to these estuarine waters is a
75-foot strip of land known as Estuarine Shoreline AECs, and CAMA regulations apply here also.
Through its land use plan policies, the County may opt for a policy that favors shorter piers,
increased distance between piers, etc. If the County chooses this option, any CAMA development
permit issued by the State would consider County policy in the permitting decision.
• Zoning Regulations
Traditional zoning consists of a map and a narrative ordinance that sets up certain districts
in which specific land uses are allowed. The application of zoning allows a local government to
look at broad public interests, such as protecting the health, safety, welfare and well being of its
citizens. Zoning does place restrictions on an individual's use of his private property, but to the
benefit of a greater public good. Zoning also provides a great amount of certainty as to local
government's vision of what is in the public's best interest. Consistent enforcement of zoning tends
to keep land values high as it maintains a great amount of certaintV as to what uses are allowed.
The authority for counties to adopt zoning is provided in GS 153A-340. Zoning ordinances
for rural counties, such as Beaufort, may be simplified or limited in scope according to the
individual county's need. Areas which are expected to experience change or those that need special
protection may be zoned first, adding other areas as the need arises. The County may zone areas
as small as one square mile. Wayne County is an example of limited scope zoning. Only areas
around schools are zoned in Wayne County. By the same token, other counties have chosen to be
highly restrictive in areas of special concern. 'For example, Hertford County requires a 200-foot
minimum setback for development in their designated Floodplain District. .
Density and setback regulations may be the most attractive to Beaufort County. Density
regulations may be designed to spread out development or allow it to concentrate in certain areas.
The spreading out of development prevents any one area from being overburdened and congested.
The concentration of growth provides for the protection of pristine areas, while at the same time
allowing a large number of units in some areas. Setback regulations establish the developable area
on each lot by requiring a minimum distance from property lines (or water boundaries). A large
setback requirement increases the distance between structures. A small minimum setback allows
more concentrated development.
Zoning also allows designation of minimum lot size, maximum height of structures, and other
dimensional requirements.

3
Buffer requirements, conditional uses, and overlay zones listed separately in this section are
routinely included in the zoning ordinance.
Buffers
Requiring buffers and/or vegetative swells can also assist in water quality protection. The
landowner can take advantage of natural features, recreate features that have been destroyed or
create new features. Low-lying areas in new developments should be considered a plus when trying
to control stormwater. Allowing the wetlands to act in their natural capacity as filtration systems
can reduce development costs.
Recently adopted Federal regulations that control wetlands may reduce some areas as potential
building sites. By recreating natural features that have been drained or filled as part of a previous
use, the developer may be able to take advantage of the no -net -loss requirements. This will provide
buffers between urban development and a waterbody.
Conditional Uses
Conditional uses are those which are only acceptable in a given zone if certain conditions are
met. The local government specifies necessary conditions for approval of each conditional use.
These conditions should be set forth in the zoning ordinance so that a developer knows in advance
which conditions will be required of his project in order to make it acceptable. Stated conditions
may not be arbitrary. If, for example, churches are designated as conditional uses in all zones and
the conditions placed on project approval are (1) off-street parking buffered by screening vegetation,
(2) no steeple -type structure over 30 feet high, and (3) no amplification of music or other obtrusive
sounds, then every project in which the developer is willing and able to comply with these
conditions must be approved.
Overlay Conservation District
For counties that have adopted zoning regulations, an overlay district is often desired to cover
several zones. The overlay district is often applied in urban areas. For Beaufort County an overlay
conservation district could serve to regulate development in areas classified conservation on the
Beaufort County Land Use Plan. The overlay district could also be applied to any environmentally
sensitive areas.
The overlay district would serve to place additional regulations on property along the
waterfront. For example, areas of the County may be zoned for single family residential. The
overlay conservation district could place additional design considerations on waterfront property that
would not apply to the entire County such as greater front yard setbacks from waterbodies. This
would allow the County to have more intense regulations for areas that need it.
• Subdivision Regulations
The State legislation, GS 153A-330, authorizes a county to enact subdivision regulations. As
pointed out earlier, Beaufort County does not impose recording requirements for subdivision plats.
The deed must be recorded, but any plat is recorded at the option of the subdivider (with the
earlier noted exception).
Subdivision regulations would allow the County to systematically monitor development trends
and potential. It would also allow the County to differentiate between major and minor subdivi-

sions. More importantly, such regulations would designate lot size and infrastructure requirements
such as streets and drainage. The subdivision plat may also contain topography, drainageways,
waterbodies, existing structures, and proposed roads. By reviewing plats containing these features,
the County could determine how a subdivision might affect surrounding property and whether road
systems are adequate to accommodate new traffic. Environmental features of the site could also be
protected where appropriate.
The importance of stormwater runoff control cannot be overstated when discussing water
quality protection. Additional impervious surfaces as part of any development will increase the
quantity and decrease the quality of any water entering the River. The size of a proposed
subdivision can determine the level of needed stormwater control. Ground cover standards may be
satisfactory for small subdivisions. Large developments may require some type of retention ponds
under current State regulations for sedimentation and erosion control.
The adoption of subdivision regulations would allow the County to reject proposals that do not
meet the desired quality or safety requirements. Working with developers to help them make
needed changes in preliminary plats is a valuable part of the subdivision regulation process. This
helps ensure high quality development for the County while at the same time protecting the final
consumer, the buyer.
• Stormwater Management.
Regulations controlling stormwater runoff are receiving increasing attention by State and
Federal legislators and agencies. Support for treating the cost of stormwater control as an
Enterprise Fund has been generated in the General Assembly. This could include detention ponds,
treatment and collection systems.
In areas along the riverfront, stormwater cuntrol is especially important in protecting water
quality. Buffer areas, as described earlier, will play an important part in this effort. The County
could require some type of stormwater management in conjunction with paving streets. This
requirement would be a part of a subdivision ordinance. The implementation of a stormwater
control system would be a contingent part of any subdivision approval.
• Planned Unit Development
Planned unit development (PUD) or cluster development offers Beaufort County an alternative
to spreading development in narrow strips along the River. Cluster development encourages the
combination of single family homes, apartments, and condominiums into one development. The
PUD also provides for community facilities and commercial development.
This type of development regulation encourages the use of a denser development and additional
open space. The PUD regulations could require the open space be along the riverfront. This
would provide River access for all homeowners in the development.
The continuation or protection of the open space could be the responsibility of a homeowners'
association unless dedicated to the County (and accepted). The association or County would be
responsible for upkeep and improvements. The County might assume ownership as part of a
County park system. This would benefit all citizens of Beaufort County by providing continued
public river access. Pamlico Plantation or Broad Creek is an example of the type of development
with which a PUD ordinance deals.

10
• Capital Improvements Plan
A capital improvements plan could be developed to show what physical improvements will be
made by the County, the size of the .improvements, how they will be financed, and when they will
occur. This type of plan can be used to direct growth to certain areas.
Beaufort County may designate sections of the County as growth areas. This action could be
supported by a capital improvements plan that would direct any upgrading of capital facilities to
growth areas. Water lines, solid waste facilities, and schools could be placed in the plan and their
location designated for growth areas. Sections of the County that have environmental constraints
could be avoided when capital improvements are made.
• Local Environmental Impact Ordinance
Current Federal legislation such as the Coastal Zone Management Act and the national Clean
Air and Water Acts require an environmental analysis to disclose the impacts of government
projects and programs. At the State level, compliance with the Federal legislation is reflected in
the State's Environmental Policy Act which applies these environmental impact statements (EIS)
to a variety of public expenditure projects likely to affect sensitive areas or pollute air and water
resources.
Localities may, at their option, require an environmental impact statement for private
development projects in areas which the local government wishes to protect. General Statutes
113A-8 is the enabling legislation authorizing local EIS ordinances. Such ordinances apply to major
projects (two acres or more). This alternative gives the local government an effective monitoring
tool with which to track the cumulative effect of development. These local EIS ordinances do not
result in a county permit but rather the local government determines the adequacy of information
provided as the environmental implicators of a particular development proposal.
• Unified Development Ordinance
This type of regulation combines several of the ordinances described earlier. Features from
zoning, subdivision, and bufferyard ordinances may all be included. The advantage to the citizen
is simplification in requesting permits. The advantage to the enforcement officer is the combination
of several types of regulations into one ordinance. A disadvantage could be the staff time required
to review a proposal. Beaufort County could use this type of ordinance for large projects, such as
Cypress Landing. Being able to consider a project's impact on surrounding property is a strong
advantage for the County as adjacent land values are often affected.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the low to moderate rate of growth currently being experienced by the County,
consideration of new development controls is recommended in advance of future problems.
Exploration of fundamental subdivision regulations is urged as soon as possible in order to
establish not only a reasonable standard for lots in Beaufort County, but also a mechanism for
consistently "tying together" the patterns of development which emerge.

11
Some minimum zoning practice is also recommended for the County in order to control
indiscriminate mixing of uses which devalue the surrounding area or which create health and
nuisance hazards. Transportation corridors and areas along the waterfront need this protection.
Consideration of a Capital Improvements Plan is a matter of management discretion but is
supported and recommended as a systematic approach to providing services on a priority basis.
As a part of either subdivision regulations or a zoning ordinance, a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) option is encouraged. Such an alternative represents a viable continuation of the mixed -
use tradition so prevalent in the County without giving way to objectionable mixing of uses.
Other Land Use Tools listed herein are also worthy of the County's consideration; however,
initial subdivision and zoning regulations are recommended as first priority.
A well -considered public information campaign should be an integral part of any final decision
to impose new regulatory restricts in Beaufort County. A review of new documentation should be
performed after the first year of implementation to evaluate problem areas which may need revision
to maximize effectiveness.
SUMMARY
The sections have shown the need for Beaufort County to consider some minimal land use
regulations. The Methods and Findings section indicated the number of lots and the amount of
unregulated development that now exists along the River. These lots, when considered individually,
may not be causing the River any damage, but when hundreds of lots that currently are platted are
looked at, then a potential problem can be easily seen.
The Forecast section showed that waterfront development is likely to continue. The movement
into the tributaries will increase. Unregulated development in these areas could severely damage
the water quality. Nursery areas, wetlands, and marshes will be directly affected by any change in
land use and water quality.
The Land Management Tools available to the County listed in this study give the County
Commissioners a shopping list from which to develop land use regulations. The method or methods
chosen should be designed for the regulatory needs of Beaufort County. A balance between no
regulation and over -burdensome regulations should be found. Development along the waterfront
should not be ignored in the future and the County can selectively use the tools presently available
to guide waterfront development.

APPENDIX A
WATERFRONT INVENTORY MAPS

Beau f or t County Waterfront
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN
PART THROUGH A GRANT PROVIDED BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF
1972, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Inventory t 9 9 0
TASHINGTON
Broad Creek
CHOCOIIINITY
Be a u f or t County
I�
Area of Map
I
I
Pamlico
Chocovintiy Bay
River
STUDY AREA* Total
Miles
U S E (All maps)
Environmentally restrictive 40.0
Subdivisions 35.9
Private Sector 38.6
Developed single family ................ 20.6
Industrial, commercial & institutional 18.1
® Remaining to be developed ............... 24.4
00000000. P u b l i c s e c t o r ....... 1 3. 3
Nonstudy area ............................ 369.8
(Actual Use Information not.researched)
get e• Star Ilea relates to Taile 1 iata (I.i)
Ti11e 2 iata (t.S) ate estimates It fetal sletelite
iteltiial star area ant tat -study ataa.
Blounts Bay
o �
PILES
col

A-2
Be a u f or t County. Water front I n v e n Cory 1990
Broad Creek
Blounts Bay
0 1
MILES
Beaufort County
l�
Area of Yap
1
f
d
l
Pamlico River
STUDY AREA'
Total
Hiles
U S li
(dll maps)
1 Environmentally restrictive ..
40.0
Subdivisions
35.9
Private Sector
38.6
Developed single family .. .....
20.6
Industrial, commercial k institutional
18.1
wm Remaining to be developed .........
24.4
0000000 P u b l i e s e c t o r
1 3. 3
Konstudy area ......
369.8•
(Actual Use Information not researched)
(tote: Study lraa relates to 1a11e I data (p.4)
Takla 2 data (y.S) are estimates of total shoreline
inaludin2 Aludy area and all —study area.
BATH
Bath Creek
Durham Creek
rHE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN
PART THROUGH A GRANT PROVIDED BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF
1972, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, p0M.ItA 4
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

A-3
Beaufort County
Waterfront Inventory
19.9 0 �
f
Pamlico River
North Creek
South Creek
Durham Creek
STUDY ARIA'
Total
Niles
U S E
(All maps)
Environmentally restiietive
40.0
1�lii}F}}4 Subdivisions .....
3 5 . 9
® Private Sector
30.6
Developed single family
20.6
Industrial, commercial k institutional
18.1
crd® Remaining to be developed
24.4
P u b l i c s e c t o r
13 3
714E PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN
N o n s t u d y a r e a
3 6 9 8
PART TMRDUSM A SRAN7. PROVIDED BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL PROCRAM, TMROM.
. (A C t U a l Us e I n f o r ina t i o n not r. e s e a r c h e d j
MANASEMENI
FUNDS PROVIDED NY THE COASTAL ZONE MANASEMENT ACT OF
-tD7?, AS AMEW D, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE
Mate : S t I l t l t e a r e l'a t e s to T a i l e I data t
-lp ' 1
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
T a l t e i data (p . s 1 are estimates 41 total s l a t e l t a e
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND. ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISIRAITON
iaeladial eladY area aad aaa-%tadT area.
Beaufort County
t\
Area of gap �\
1
\ - - J

A-4
T�
0
0
Ctr
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN
PART THROUGH A CRANT PROVIDED BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA COASUL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF
1972, AS AMENDED, ►MICR Is ADMINISTERED BY THE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Beaufort County
Area of 11ap
t
� % r
0 1
MILES
North Creek
--
�o
BELHAVE N
Pungo River
i
Beaufort County Waterfront Inventory 1990
STUDY AREA' Total
Piles
U S F. (All maps)
Environmentally restrictive 40.0
Subdivisions ... 35.9
Private Sector l 38.1
Developed single family 20:6 prq
Industrial, commercial do institutional . 18.1 C
am Remaining to be developed 24.4
00000000 Public sector 13 . 3
Nonstudy area ... 369.8
(Actual Use Information not researched)
C
' Note: Study Ire& relates to Table I data (p.4)
Table 2 data (p 5) are estimates of total shoreline
including study area and non —study area. Y

BELHAVEN
0
Pungo. River
Beaufort County Waterfront Inventory 1990
STUDY AREA' Total
Niles
U S E (AII maps)
1� Environmentally restrictive 40.0
Subdivisions 35.9
Private Sector 38.6
Developed single family 20.6
Industrial, commercial & institutional 18.1
03"" Remaining to be developed 24.4
Beaufort County
Area of Map �.
1
1
I
l
Public sector
Nonstudy area 369.8
(Actual Use Information not researched)
4 a t e S t u d T IT ea relates to Table i data (p.4)
Table ? data (p.5) are estimates of total shoreline
including Rtudy area and non -study area.
0 1
9 1 L F S
THE PREPARATION Or THIS NAP VAS FINANCED IN
PART INA COI1 A GRANT PROVIDED aT THE NORM
4ROL IIiA COASTAL MANACCMENT PROCR AM, TMROLCM
1ND5 PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ?ONE PANACCMENi ACT OF
7272, AS AMENDED, urm iS ADRINIs7FPED at •PL
OfFICE OE OCCAN AND c0A5TAa REsoURCF MANAGEMENT, M
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPMERTC ADMTNITIRATION