Land Use Plan-1976

TABLE OF CONTENTS
chapter page I I chapter
I.....INTRODUCTION ..........................1-1
- - - -.Why This Plan........................1-1
..Area Description (l.lm, 1.2m)........ 1-1
..Historic Development.................1-1
II....SYNOPSIS— .............................2-1
- - - ..Issues...............................2-1
..Goals and Objectives.................2-1
..Goal Explanation (2.lt)..............2-1
..Land Use Trends (2.2t)...............2-2
..Land Capability ......................2-2
..Past Population Trends (2.3t)........ 2-3
..Present Population Estimates ......... 2-3
..Population Projections (2.4t)........ 2-3
..Future Land Needs....................2-3
.:Future Services ......................2-4
..Land Classifications (2.5m).......... 2-4
..Areas of Environmental Concern ....... 2-6
..Implementation .......................2-6
..Updating.............................2-6
..Distribution of Synopsis.............2-6
III...ISSUES, OBJECTIVESi AND POLICIES....... 3-1
-Introduction .........................3-1
..Process Used to Determine Issues ..... 3-1
..Information Distribution.... .....3-1
..Citizen Opinion Survey (3.1t)...... 3-1
..Issues During Next Ten Years ......... 3-2
-Alternative Approaches to Issues ..... 3-3
..Selected Objectives..................3-4
IV .... ANALYSIS PRESENT CONDITIONS ......... 4-1
-OF
- - - -.Introduction.... ..........4-2
-Population ...........................4-2
..Past Trends In Population Changes..4-2
..Jacksonville Growth (4.1t)....... 4-2
..Camp Lejeune and Jackson-
ville (4.2t).....................4-2
..Jacksonville Compared to Other
Areas (4.30 .....................4-3
..Comparisons by Decade (4.4t)..... 4-3
.Population Density (4.5t)........ 4-3
..1970 Population (4.60 .............4-4
..Population by Military or
Nonmilitary Area (4.7t).......... 4-4
-Population Distribution (4.8m)... 4-4
-Population Distribution Within
_
Jacksonville Townshop (4.9m)..... 4-5
-Population Distribution Within
City of Jacksonville (4.10m)..... 4-6
..Breakdown by Sex (4.11t-4.16t)... 4-7
-
..Age Breakdown (4.17t, 4.18t).....4-7
.Race Breakdown (4.19t). .........4-9
..Recent Population Estimates
(4.200 .......•...........•........4-9
..Estimates to be Used for 1975
(4.21t)........................ ..4-10
a
..Ecbnomy of Jacksonville Area ......... 4-11
..Introduction ....................... 4-11
..Employment by Industry, 1960
(4.22t)............................4-11
..Labor Force Trends, 1965-70
(4.23t)............................4-11
..Employment by Industry, 1970
(4.240 ............................4-11
page
..Existing Land Use....................4-12
..Introduction (4.25t, 4.26m, 4.27m).4-12
..Overall Land Use Analysis .......... 4-16
..Total Land Use Areas, 1975......... 4-16
..Total Urban Developed Land Use ... 4-16
-Residential Land Use ........... 4-16
-Commercial Land Use ............ 4-16
..Industrial Land Use.... .......4-16
-Transportation, Communication,
and Utilities Land Use (4.28t).4-16
-Government and Institutional ...
4-17
..Cultural, Entertainment, -and
Recreation Land Use ............
4-17
..Total Undeveloped Land ...........
4-17
..Urban -Type Undeveloped .........
4-17
..Agriculture Lnad Use ...........
4-17
..Forest Land....................4-17
..Water Area.....................4-18
..Wetland Area...................4-18
..Barren Area....................4-18
..Special Land Use Analysis ..........
4-18
..Land Use Compatibility Problems..4-18
..Problems Resulting from
Unplanned Development ............
4-18
..Quality Features to Recognize ....
4-19
..Areas Expected to Undergo
Major Land Use Changes in
Future (4.29m)...................4-19
..Areas of Environmental Concern ...
4-19
..Current Plans and Policies ...........
4-21
-Introduction .......................4-21
..Existing Plans and Policies ........
4-21
..Means to Enforce Land Use
Regulations ........................4-21
..Zoning Ordinance Importance ........
4-22
..Zoning Map (4.30m)...............4-22
-Residential Zoning Density
(4.31t)..........................4-22
..Future Considerations ............
4-24
V..... CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT.............5-1
----------------
..Introduction .........................5-1
-Undeveloped Land Suitability &
Potential
..Physical Limitations for
Development
..Hazard Areas.....................5-2
-Introduction ....•...... .......5-2
..Man Made Hazards(5.1m)........5-2
..Natural Hazards (5.2m)......... 5-2
..Areas With Soil Limitations ...... 5-4
-Introduction ..........•........5-4
..Jacksonville Area Soil Survey..5-4
-Limitations ....................5-4
..Dwellings, Light Industry and
Septic Tanks (5.3m)............ 5-4
..Roads, Streets, and Agriculture
(5.4m).........................5-4
..Playgrounds and Recreation
(5.5m).........................5-4
..Wildlife (5.6m)................5-4
..Sources of Water Supply .......... 5-9
-Introduction ...................5-9
..Past and Projected Water
Usage (5.7t)...................5-9

chapter Qapye
..1972 Water Supply System ....... 5-9
..Source of Supply (5.8m)...... 5-9
,.Water Treatment Facilities ... 5-9
.Water Storage. ............5-11
..Water Distribution ........... 5-11
..Fire Hydrants (5.9t, 5.10t)..5-11
..Proposed Improvements .......... 5-11
..Future Water Supply Needs
(5.11t)...................... 5-11
..Water Supply Location ........ 5-12
..New Well Field Capacity
(5.12t)......................5-12
..Water Treatment FAcilities... 5-12
..Water Storage Facilities ..... 5-12
..Distribution System (5.13m)..5-13
..Steep Slope Areas................5-13
..Fragile Areas......................5-15
..Resource Potential Areas ........... 5-15
..Historic Properties..............5-15
..Archeological Sites..............5-15
..Resource Areas Summary.. ....5-16
..Capacity of Community Facilities ... 5-16
..Existing Water and Sewer
Service Areas (5.14m)............ 5-16
..Design Capacity..................5-16
..Water Treatment Plant Capacity.5-16
..Sewage Treatment Plant
Capacity ........... 4........... 5-16
..Oxidation Lagoon Facility .... 5-18
..Trickling Filter Facility .... 5-18
..Proposed Trickling Filter
Upgrading ....................5-18
..School Capacity................5-18
..Present County Enrollment
(5.15t)......................5-18
„ Past Enrollment (5.16t)...... 5-18
..Future Enrollment
Projections ..................5-19
Present Capacity.. .........5-19
..Primary Roads Capacity ......... 5-20
..Existing Sheet System ........ 5-20
..Traffic Volumes, 1966
(5.17m)......................5-20
..Capacity (5.18m).............5-20
..1990 Traffic Volumes ......... 5-20
VI .... ESTIMATED GROWTH DEMAND................6-1
..Introduction .........................6-1
..Population Projections...............6-2
—Department of Administration
(6.1t).............................6-2
..Highway Commission (6.2t)..........
6-2
..201 Plan Projections (6.3t, 6.4m)..6-3
..Water Quality Plan (6.5t)..........
6-4
..DNEP Projections (6.6t, 6.7t)......
6-4
..Summary of Projections (6.8t)......
6-5
..Selected Projections (6.9t)........
6-5
..Future Economy .......................6-6
..Introduction .......................6-6
..Projected Imployment (6.10t,
6.110 .............................6-6
..Impact on Future Land Use ..........
6-7
..Jacksonville Implications ..........
6-7
..Future Land Needs....................6-8
ii
chApter Qage
..Existing Land Use Ratios
(6.12t, 6.130 .....................6-8
..Estimated Populations Growth
(6.14t). ... ... .... .. ........6-9
..Allocating Ten Year Growth by
Density. .. ... .......6-9
. ....... . .....
..Allocating Land Area Needed
(6.150 ............................6-9
—Community Facility Needs.............6-10
..Schools, Parks, & Fire Stations ....
6-10
..Water Supply .......................6-11
..Sewage Disposal ....................6-11
..Streets and Highways...............6-11
..Proposed Thoroughfare Plan
(6.16m)..........................6-11
..Major Thoroughfares..............6-11
..Loop System ......................6-12
..Bypass System....................6-13
..Minor Thoroughfares..............6-13
VII... LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.............7-1
.Yntroductl7W ..............................
..7-1
..Jacksonville Classification(7.1m)...7-2
..Developed Class....................7-2
..Transition Class...................7-2
..Community Class....................7-2
..Rural Class ........................7-2
..Conservation Class.................7-2
VIII..AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ......... 8-1
�,----------^-----
..Introduction. ................8-1
..Jacksonville A.E.C.'s......... ....8-1
..Floodplain Land Uses.................8-1
..Definitions (8.1m).................8-1
..Permitted Uses.........8-1
..General Flood Plain (GFP)Uses ... 8-1
..Floodway District (FW) Uses ...... 8-2
..Flood Fringe (ff) Uses ........... 8-2
..Special Permit Procedure ........... 8-2
APPENDICES
Appendix Eape
A.....BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................A-1
B..... PROCEDURE FOR EXISTING LAND USE
:'.`• INVENTORY..............................B-1
:._ems;•
- - C..... CITIZEN OPINION SURVEY DATA ............ C-1
D.....SOIL SURVEY TECHNICAL DATA.............D-1
E..... SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION
ANDANALYSIS ...........................E-1
F.....PUBLIC PARTICIPATION LOG...............F-1
G..... CROSS REFERENCE OF JAR TABLE OF
CONTENTS TO C.R.C. STANDARD FORMAT ..... G-1

iii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
exhibit Page
(Chapter I: -Introduction)
1.lm....Jacksonville's Eastern Seaboard -
Location ............................ 1-1
1.2m.... Jacksonville and Onslow County
Related to Adjoining Areas.......... 1-1
(Chapter II_ Synopsis)
2.1t.... Summary of the 80 Citizen Opinion
Responses.........., ................. 2-2
2.2t .... 1975 Urban Land Use in City......... 2-2
2.3t....1970 Onslow Population Breakdown.... 2-3
2.4t.... Selected Population Projections..... 2-3
2.5m.... Land Classification ................. 2-5
(Chapter III:Issues,-Ob ectives-
, Policies
�- -
3.1t....Summary of Cit-izen Responses. ...... 3-2
(Chapter IV_ Analyses cf Present Conditions
4.1t.... Jacksonville Population Growth,
1910-70.............................
4-2
4.2t ....
Jacksonville -Camp Lejeune Popu-
lation, 1970........................
4-2
4.3t....
Comparison to Other Areas,
1920-70.............................
4-3
4.4t....
Growth Rates by Decade, 1920-70.....
4-3
4.5t....
Changes in Population Density,
1920-70.............................
4-3
4.6t....
Population by Township, 1970........
4-4
4.7t....
Population by Military -Non-
military, 1970......................
4-4
4.8m....
Population Distribution, 1970.......
4-4
4.9m....Population
Distribution Within
Jacksonville Township, by
Enumeration District, 1970..........
4-5
4.10m...
City of Jacksonville Population by
Enumeration District, 1970..........
4-6
4.10t ...
Jacksonville Population by E.D.,
1970................................
4-6
4.11t...
City age Breakdown by Sex and
Race, 1970..........................
4-8
4.12t...Township
Age Breakdown by Sex &
Race ................................
4-8
4.13t...
County Age Breakdown by Sex &
Race ................................
4-8
4.14t...
State Age Breakdown by Sex &
Race ................................
4-8
4.15t...
Sex Percentages, 1970................4-7
4.16t...
Military Population by Age and
Sex for Townships, 1970..............
4-7
4.17t...Age
Percentages, 1970...............
4-7
4.18t...
Age Percentages Without Military,
1970..................................
4-7
4.19t...
Race Breakdown, 1970.......:....:::.
4-9
4.20t...
Current Populaton Estimates.........
4-9
4.21t...
Population Estimates to be Used
;
For 1975 ............................
4-10
22 4.t._ .Employment
by Industry, 1960........
4-11
4.23t...County
Labor Force Trends,.1965-70..
4-11
4.24t.1.County
Employment by Industry,•
1970..................... ..........
4-11
4.25t...Land
Use for JacksonvillePlanningArea,
1975..........................
4-12
A�,j
4.26m...Existing
Land Use, Jacksonville,
Area, 1975..........................
4-13
exhibit Page
4.27m...Delineation of Jacksonville Plan-
...ning Area ........................... 4-15
4.28t... Planning Area Street Mileage
Breakdown, 1975..................... 4-17
4.29m... Areas Expected to Undergo Major
Land Use Changes in the Future...... 4-20
4.30m... Generalized Zoning Districts in
City of Jacksonville ................ 4-24
4.31t... Residential Zoning Maximum Density.. 4-23
(Chapter V _Constraints -to Development)
il 5.1m.... O1d Jacksonvle Airport and Marine
Base ................................ 5-2
5.2m.... Flood Plains ........................ 5-3
5.3m.... Soil Limitations for Dwellings,
Light Industry, and Septic Tanks.... 5-5
5.4m.... Soil Limitations for Agriculture
and Streets ......................... 5-6
5.5m.... Soil Limitations for Playgrounds.... 5-7
5.6m....Soil Limitations for Wildlife....... 5-8
5.7t.... Population and Water Usage Changes.. 5-9
5.8m.... Jacksonville's Well Fields.......... 5-10
5.9t.... Water System Requirements, 1972..... 5-11
S.10t... Water System Capacity, 1972......... 5-11
5.11t... Future Capacity Requirements to
1992................................ 5-11
5.12t... Future Water System Capacity to
1992................................ 5-12
5.13m... Jacksonville Water Supply System
and Service Area .................... 5-14
5.14m... Sanitary Sewage System Service
Area ................................ 5-17
5.15t... Onslow County Public Schools........ 5-19
5.16t... Past and Projected Enrollment for
Onslow County Public Schools........ 5-19
5.17m... Existing Major Sheets with 1966
and 1990 Traffic Volumes............ 5-21
5.18m... Intersection Capacities ............. 5-21
(ChAp yer VI_ Estimated Growth Demand)
6.1t.... Dept. of Administration Population
Projections ......................... 6-2
6.2t.... Highway Commission Projections...... 6-2
6.3t....201 Plan Population Projections..... 6-3
6.4m....201 Study Area ...................... 6-3
6.5t.... COG Population Projections.......... 6-4
6.6t.... DNER Population Projections......... 6-4
6.7t.... Onslow Co. Three Level Projections.. 6-4
6.8t.... Summary of Projections, 1970-2000... 6-5
6.9t....Selected Population Projections..... 6-5
6.10t ... Employment Projections, Onslow Co... 6-6
6.11t... 1970-2000 Employment Changes........ 6-7
6.12t... Comparing Urban Land Ratios......... 6-8
6.13t... Comparing _Land Use Categories....... 6-8
6.14t... Jacksonville Population Projections. 6-9
6.15t... Land Area Needs for New Growth...... 6-9
6.16m... Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan with
1990 Volumes ........................ 6-12
(Chapter.VII: Land Classification)
7.1m.... Jacksonville Land Classification
Scheme....... ........................ 7-3
I

iv
exhibit
Page
(CChaPter VIII: Areas of Environ_ Concern)
8.1m.... Flood Plain Delineated and —
Subdivided .......................... 8-1
(App _B_ Land Use Inventory_ Procedure)
B.lm.... Jacksonville Planning Area
Boundary ............................ B-2
B.2m.... Hierarchy of Five Units for
Analysis ............................ B-4
B.3t.... Horizontal Spread Matrix Design..... B-5
B.4t.... Area Unit Measurement ............... B-6
B.5m.... Areal Unit Delineation for
Measurement ......................... B-7
B.6t.... TCU Measurement for Planning Area... B-8
B.7t.... land Use for Jacksonville Planning
Area ....• ......... ... ..... .... B-10
B.8t.... Land Use for City of Jacksonville... B-11
B.9t.... Land Use for Outside Area........... B-12
(Agp. Cs Citizen 0 ion Survey)
C.lt .... Summary of the 80 Responses......... C-1
C.2t.... Citizen Opinion Survey Form......... C-2
C.3t.... Number of Responses by Category..... C-5
(Apy. _Da Soil Survey Technical Data)
D.1m.... Soil Survey Mapping Units........... D-2
D.2t.... Soil Limitations for Urban Uses..... D-3
FINANCIAL AID
The preparation of this (report/map/chart) was
financially assisted by a grant from the State
of North Carolina, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the Coastal
Plains Regional Commission. I ,f

1-1
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
WHY THTS PT.AN?
In 1974, the North Carolina Legislature expressed
concern about the state's coastal area, and in parti-
cular, the estuaries which are among the most bio-
logically productive regions of this state and of the
nation. In recent years, this coastal area has been
subjected to increasing pressures which are the result
of the often conflicting needs of a society expanding
in industrial development, in population, and in the
recreational aspirations of its citizens.
The Legislature stated that unless these pressures
are controlled by coordinated management, the very
features of the coast which make it economically,
asthetically, and ecologically rich will be destroyed.
To prevent this destruction, the Legislature passed
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) in 1974.
The Act established the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC), and charged it with the respons-
ibility of identifying areas of environmental concern
(AEC) --which would be land or water areas where
uncontrolled or incompatible development might
result in irreparable damage. For such areas, the
Commission is to determine what types of use or
development are appropriate.
The Act also called for coastal area management
land use plans to be developed for the North Carolina
cities and counties located in coastal areas, and
provided financial assistance for local governments
to undertake the work. Guidelines for the local land
use plans were developed by the Coastal Resources
Commission, and this plan for Jacksonville has been
prepared to conform to the adopted guidelines.
AREA DESCRIPTION*3,7,11
Jacksonville is located in the southeastern
portion of North Carolina, and is separated from the
Atlantic Ocean by the Intra-Coastal Waterway System.
Its location in relation to the southeastern
United States is shown by Exhibit 1.1m. Washington,
D.C. is 350 miles to the north, and Charleston,
South Carolina, is 222 miles to the south.
Transportation
Jacksonville's transportation connections to the
surrounding region,as shown by Exhibit 1.2m, include
four federal or state highways, the Seaboard Coast
Line Railroad, Ellis Airport, and the previously
mentioned Intra-Coastal Waterway. New Bern is
located 36 miles to the north via U.S. 17, Morehead
City is 43 miles to the east via N.C. 24, Wilmington
is 51 miles to the sourth via U.S. 17, and Kinston
is 42 miles to the northwest via U.S. 258.
*Note: References are not footnoted within the text
of this report; rather, they are listed in Appendix
"A" - Bibliography.
Land Area
Jacksonville is the County Seat of Onslow County,
which is outlined in hash marks on Exhibit 1.2m.
Onslow is the eleventh largest county in North
Carolina, having a total surface area of 806 square
miles, of which 756 square miles are land area, and
the remaining 50 are water area. The 756 square
miles of Onslow County land area is allocated as
follows:
...19 square miles of incorporated area
(2.5i of total land area)
...25 square miles of rural nonfarm, or non -
incorporated urban area (3.3%)
...126 square miles of farm land (16.7%)
...417 square miles of commercial forest land
(55.2%)
...169 square miles of U.S. military reservation,
the U.S. Marine Corps Camp Lejeune (22.4%)
Geography
The county's topography varies from flat to gently
rolling, with a high land elevation of 63 feet around
Richlands in northwestern Onslow that eventually
slopes downward to sea level. The county is bisected
in a north -south direction by the New River, the only
large stream in North Carolina to have both its head-
waters and mouth in the same county. The White Oak
River is along the county's northeastern boundary,
and the Intra-Coastal Waterway runs along the
southeastern boundary, parallel to the Atlantic
Ocean.
Local Government
Onslow County is governed by five County Commis-
sioners who are elected at -large, and who employ a
County Manager. There are four incorporated places:
Jacksonville, Holly Ridge, Swansboro, and Richlands.
Jacksonville, the largest city (16,021 people and
4.5 square miles in 1970) is governed by a Mayor and
four City Council members who employ a City Manager.
Jacksonville and Onslow County also are represented
on the Neuse River Council of Governments that
includes the nine -county area of Carteret, Craven,
Duplin, Greene, Joues, Lenoir, Onslow, Pamlico, and
Wayne Counties. This organization provides the
member cities and counties with opportunities to
better coordinate projects of mutual interest,
better allocate their common resources, and obtain
additional assistance in meeting local needs.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT*13
Although the Onslow County area received its first
settlers, three families, in 1706 on the site of what
had once been an indian village, the year of 1734
generally is agreed upon as the date of the county's
formation. It was granted precinct status in 1735
and, thereby, gained representation in the State
1-1

1-2
KEN TUG KY
N E S S E E NOR T H C A R 0 L 1 N
I SOUTH
CAROLINA
� c
AB AMA`, G E 0 R G I A
CCU
� Ft_oatDa J
Exhibit 1.1m:
Jacksonville's Eastern Seaboard Location
Exhibit 1.2m: Jacksonville and Onslow County Related to Adjoining Areas
Smtontown mou s ` 5 �1_ L E N 0 1 R i • v tta o 55 10 • �� T_ Bavbnrn a lonewda�� y8lorence F
yD I' Olira 4 ` . D1Ym2a 5 D ;.I \ /
I CA401 HA y Alliance( ,—�
d�.�j tlee Run gnCgeton
3 'IYo] 1 \I 258 je ' `�.�New Ber�.� -« 2 e. r.p.� g 55 Merritt �.WhononNil ,
Keener Albertson It \ 1 City,
Pamlico
4p3 f,ison 1 Rhems. ,� ,I ; �P A M L I C. O
13 P S , O N� '� 'Pints Hill 'Pleasant Hill fit°! 58 Trenton+ t * \ ewg
7 s r \BOwdens ' 't t 5 "E\ 1 Arapahoe P We. B.4
K megar' J,e O `N_ E_R .-$ �'. °'\ qE_ / - cedar.
+ 421 a
o7fa�isllT"Riverdale \ aeno5sssonnn�((ry(( / South River,�% _ � 8°f"
s * to
ILIILI HOFMANN -] CROATAN Croata L RP g SF�, cE
50 a to ''. '! .p
2 Y l . tcl [won Tinker o\ 7 cena9sr Ile 12 M �l/y/ �ItI111111y. .e7 cnEaar ec. y Y 1 Win— '•?n tG
` V 117 eulrville�/ Pet b 8 Ir, j IU14 pn 1\\\ MUs Ai[k Y ESQ
2 t 11 `'r•• _ • l�/ aYsville HATIOIeAL �°ke +Havelo 3: �{i
to D, U F- L '-1 N to i ndi= FOREST ` , e ` 4, 78 k-Se
701 ' magnolia 10 2 T �r-- Belled .aL. '4re°`. _ �ka'•� 1 - ' Il SIacY
14 ! I 6 41 man CwtAeri �1 O 10 4
\c _ utm Lwk. 158 5-1 M,. �' L--r� w5°n ° 5�
4 \ !/F R 5T 70 Hart. a W
Ingot SO ,-fit 2 Chinquapin 4 Kellum r rp 58 'C A - 3 R 'r t Y Dav s
Delwa / \ Green e Catherin �� 4.- - v,r nits r q
anane' )]CkS011VI�iC�' Newport MOf&ad ° S yrna
Silverdale Yi s ' Brandywine Bays c` vN ?-
�' s� tea he r Cs City a /1,i- Mar-shallberg
° r f Cypre O N 5 L:'• 0 G Peleter l / a i',^
la 111 14 11 14
H., Its 41 _ rwallace = - Ciry
Creek 53 - Mldw y.Park
_ 1 .! 4
reen
Hnner'0e
�T BoBu
5 3 Tomahawk / will
41 - a
Penderle
BLw4s ,
13 �•.
yPiney
50 f Ha S s6
V CA rora .p lftfUNE
f �r�
1 a Made �il Z _ k AU[IN[ aASf i
e/ 421 IN
ha
u•
I
7
Bever In(el s— n.
Few: �� IVan ce 16
117
= _ _
i
It
50 Diaol
o
w I /
1
e
Atkinson
a
8 w�
"/
1 Sneeds" •��j
�5 Fary"'� tV—R—
'.
a- Wards
C s
mrcel \
/fl
Holly
40 FolkSion
1 + .
4
E N D
E R 1 d-4o8
Kelly IB Currie
\
-%` 21 g West Onslow Beach
3 r%4'P
Rocky Point
21
v 17 2 Del Mar Beach
87 Ni Iy 411 33 3
p�
21 of Sun city
t4 4 50
r+m. Aaa Pk.
o
ampstea
t
4tr 1 - 1
New Topsail Beach
Castle ` ♦ "— Neu T—irl Inlet
. � ..d .• n Ha... I7 Scotts Hil a '
lolton 7 48
117 u2
Old r-ooff 1.11E
�.--R;<n
\oAsr reeman Datw 4cenia
Sot : E,N W A 0
9
In(eE
R ,.;
S / 8) UN 76 land 3,9,E 11
Mwao. Inlet
I + ilmingtOlj= r I« q 74 e-"e.rewn
J us 5 —11, Ca.d.•a
-- Bishop mrrre,i.,p .,,L 1132 7n 1 Wrightsville Beach
24 Town leek As. Se. `
°w.a 421 5 d}- Mw.aanhoav Inlet
2
kS
o.,
7n
r Ka. II
Ind
taller Path I
'ah Nn.od aw
Beam .r Are
CAPE 1ciCac) r• -Y
IIGM7HOUSF
ATLANTIC OCEAN
1-2

1-3
General Assembly. The county was named after a
member of the British House of Commons who was an
advocate of democratic government, even at a time
when it was not popular in his country.
Two Wars
Although the people of Onslow County and North
Carolina joined with other colonists in 1774 to
express dissatisfaction with British policies, the
state did not vote approval of the first draft of
the Constitution in 1788, but rather approved its)
later revision in 1789 after the Bill of Rights had
been added. Onslow citizens fought throughout the
Revolutionary War from 1776 to 1782.
In the Civil War, North Carolina seceded from the
Union in 1861 and Onslow volunteers fought through-
out the war in five Confederate regiments.
Agricultural Development
For more than two centuries, Onslow's economy
primarily consisted of farming and fishing.
Lumbering was an important industry until the timber
was exhausted in 1900. Farmers then turned to other
crops, such as tobacco, which soon became the
county's major money crop. The agricultural economy
also included grains, vegetables, poultry, livestock
and seafoods of several varieties.
Industrial Development
Until 1940, there was little nonagricultural
employment in the Jacksonville area. The early
settlers had established the turpentine industry,
followed by lumbering and sawmills, which flourished
until the early 1900's.
The area's economy was dramatically changed with
the establishment of Camp Lejeune in 1941. Camp
Lejeune, the largest all-purpose marine base in the
U.S., contributed greatly to the nonmanufacturing
segment of the local economy by means of providing
direct employment, as well as base personnel pur-
chasing of goods and services.
In the 1960's, local efforts were directed towards
securing manufacturing establishments in order to
bring more diversity into the industrial economy and
to replace the subsiding military installation growth.
By 1963, there were twenty-two manufacturing estab-
lishments in the county, and at least six more have
been added since.
Camp Lejeune*5,13
Prior to 1940, the "town" of Jacksonville had
less than 1,000 residents. The completion of
Camp Lejeune in 1942, however, had an immediate
growth effect on the town. By 1950, the town had
changed its name to the City of Jacksonville, and
by 1970, the City's population was slightly over
16,000.
The growth of Camp Lejeune has been the dominant
generator for growth in Jacksonville and other parts
of Onslow County.
Camp Lejeune is known as the "Worlds Most Complete
Amphibious Training Base," and it has two missions:
to provide housing, training facilities, and logis-
tical support for Fleet Marine Force, or other
1-3
assigned units; and to conduct specialized schools
and other training or research. The major training
activity is the Infantry Training Regiment at
Camp Geiger.
The three major commands located at the base are
the Marine Corps Base, the Second Marine Division,
and the Force Troops, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic.
The New River Marine Corps Air Station is adjacent to
Camp Lejeune, but it is under the command of the sup-
porting Marine Air Corps Station located 52 miles
to the east at Cherry Point, N.C. The main port of
embarkation is located 45 miles east at Morehead City,
North Carolina.
Camp Lejeune covers 22.4 percent of Onslow County,
or 169.5 square miles, of which 41 square miles is
water. The base perimeter measures 68 miles, and 14
of this is ocean frontage parallel to the Intra-
Coastal Waterway.
Many of the base facilities are equal to that which
would be provided for a city of 60,000 people, in-
cluding police and fire protection, water supply,
sewage disposal, and other services. The base admin-
isters 5,000 housing units and its own school system
(under H.E.W. supervision) with an enrollment of
approximately 4,400 students. The base contains
about 6,000 buildings, including nine chapels, fifteen
movie theaters, and 300 buildings to house troops.
Also, there are five swimming pools, two golf courses,
fifty miles of railroad, several miles of roadways
and walkways, and a complete Naval Hospital. The
main camp is located at Hadnot Point, with smaller
camps at Courthouse Bay, the Rifle Range, Camp Geiger,
and-Montford Point.
Firsts*5
The dates at which certain things first happened
in Onslow County include:
...1706 - First settler, William Brown
...1734 - Onslow County established
...1756 - First Courthouse at Jacksonville
...1814 - First post office at Courthouse
...1893 - First newspaper at Folkston (was Peanut)
...1904 - First graded elementary school, Richlands
...1906 - First high school, at Richlands
...1906 - First telephone
...1936 - First public library, Richlands
...1945 - First radio station, WJNC
...1971 - First commercial airport,
J. Ellis Airport

2-1
Chapter II
SYNOPSIS OF THE PLAN
ISSUES
During the next ten years, some of the issues fac-
ing Jacksonville pertain to existing development,
while others are pertinent to future growth that is
expected to occur.
For existing development, the major issues appear
to be:
..a need to maintain_a_high level of public ser-
vices in those areas where citizens have expres-
sed high satisfaction ---such as fire protection,
postal service, homes, water system, garbage
collection, police protection, neighborhood,
library, air quality, and newspapers.
..An opportunity to enhance the quality of —ser-
vices deemed as fair -! such as street lights,
shopping areas, telephone system, radio, sewage
disposal, airport, electric supply, overall
quality of living, television, schools, streets,
storm water disposal, and industrial areas.
..a challenge to upgrade the only four areas with
which citizens have shown dissatisfaction: side-
walks, parks, employment opportunities, and the
Downtown area.
For future development, the major issues appear
to be:
..a desire that the City continue to grow in pop-
ulation and land area.
..a desire for more industrial development and
employment.
..a desire that any future growth be guided by,
and in conformance with, a community land use
plan.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Some of the more important goals and objectives
for Jacksonville include the following:
Residential land - to make our homes and neigh-
borhoods good places for a family to eat, sleep,
play, live, and grow together --by providing a
physical environment free from noise, odors,
traffic hazards ---and one that is surrounded by
similar compatible uses. And, it must be an ob-
jective to make sound and decent homes equally
available to all citizens, and to make a sincere
effort to help secure proper housing for low in-
come families.
..Commercial areas - to make them conveniently ac-
cessible to other areas without improperly in-
truding on residential neighborhoods; encouraging
improved aesthetics in buildings, parking, and
signs; and to encourage safe and efficient traf-
fic patterns.
..Industry - to encourage additional industrial.
development in order that the City's economic
base will become more diversified and offer
additional job opportunities.
..Community facilities - to maintain or enhance
existing facilities, and to plan for new ones
to accommodate future growth, in order that
all citizens will be properly served by parks,
schools, libraries, and police and fire pro-
tection.
..Utilities - to maintain and enhance utility
services to all existing and future development
in order that all buildings will be properly
and safely served by water, electricity, and
telephone ---and assured of proper removal and
disposal of storm water, sewage, and solid
waste.
..Transportation - to maintain and improve the
safety and efficiency of our transportation
system, especially in relation to walkways,
bikeways, streets, and highways.
..Economy - to work towards establishing a more
diversifeid and balanced economy in order to
provide more job opportunities, and to make
job training and assistance continually avail-
able to all citizens.
.Protection and conservation - to protect and
-
-------
------
conserve those parts of our community that are
already assets ---such as our natural environ-
ment, historical areas, and other areas of
environmental concern.
..New growth - to guide and plan for new growth
in order to assure that it will be a community
asset.
COAL EXPLANATION
The Jacksonville goals were established to pro-
vide one important means of insuring proper guidance
for future community development. This should mini-
mize the creation of new problems, and mazimize the
chance that future development will reflect local
desires and priorities.
Organized groups that participated in the process
included the City Council, the Planning Board, and a
Citizen's Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory
Committee, both appointed by the Mayor and City
Council. The Citizen Committee represented a
community cross-section in terms of sex, age, race,
income, and geographic location.
A citizen opinion survey was prepared and
reviewed with the local committees, and over
27,000 copies* distributed by newspaper and by
hand. Only eighty were returned, and this was in-
2-1

2-2
sufficient to impute the findings as being repre-
sentative of the entire community. The returns,
however, were summarized and the result for each
survey item was discussed with the local committee
members, most of whom had filled out a form of
their own. The summary of Exhibit 2.1t reflects
not only the opinion of the 80 citizen responses,
but also represents a consensus of the Jacksonville
committees.
Other methods of public participation which were
effectively employed included many meetings with the
four local committees which were representatives for
the entire citizenry. At each meeting, goals and
other material were discussed and developed by mem-
bers, then typed, distributed and reviewed. Newspaper
and radio representatives attended all meetings
and reported to their audience. Graphic display
boards were prepared for presentations to the commit-
tees, and also used for speeches to classes at the
Jacksonville High School. Although response to the
opinion survey was far less than desired, proper oppor-
tunities were provided for the public to become in-
formed and to contribute to the goal decision making.
Exh. 2.1t: Summary of the 80 Citizen Opinion Responses
Survey
Item and Rank
Satisfied Dissatisfied
or Agree l or Disagree
2 0 -1->
1. Future Land Use
'
Plan is needed*
2. More industry is
1
needed*
3. City should continued
to grow______
3 Postal service
3. Fire protection
Your home
_3.
4 Water system
_4. Garbage collection
5. Police protection
5. Your neighborhood
5. Library
I
5. Air guality
-
6_ Newspaper
7. Street lights
7. Shopping areas
7. Telephone system
Tj
7. Radio
I
7. No buildings in
flood plains*
_ _
8. Sewage disposal
9. Airport
9. Electric sapply _ _
I _ -
10. Overall quality of
life in Jacksonville)
10_ Television
11. Schools
11_ Streets
12. Storm water disposal
_
13. Industrial areas
-------------------------
----
----
14. Sidewalks
I
I
14_ Parks
15. Employment
r ,I
_ opportunities
_1_
16. Downtown
I
*These are the four "agree -disagree" questions
*Only 6,000-8,000 of these were distributed to
Jacksonville residents, however.
2-2
LAND USE TRENDS
As late as 1940, Jacksonville was a small com-
munity of less than 1,000 people. By 1975, however,
the City had grown to 20,000 people, primarily
due to the creation of the Marine Base, Camp Lejeune,
on land adjacent to the City.
The City of Jacksonville, in 1975, contained 6.3
square miles of land, and three -fourths of this (or
4.8 sq. mi.) is devoted to urban activities to accom-
modate the needs of the City's 20,000 people. There
were about 5,600 dwelling units to house the people,
at an average of 3.5 persons per unit; and there were
73 miles of streets. A breakdown on the City's urban
land use is given by Exhibit 2.2t and 2.3m.
Exhibit 2.2t: 1975 Urban Land Use In City
Urban
% of
Land Use Cateogry
Acres
Total
Total urban land use
3,056
100%
..Residential _ _ _ _
1s795 _
_ - 59% _
_ _ _
..Single Family
1,560
51%
..Apartments
227
7%
..Mobile Homes
7
0.2%
..Commercial
263
9%
..Industrial
34
1%
..Trans..L Commun_,_& Util._
699 _
_ _ 23% _
.Streets
571
19%
..Rail & Utilities
128
4%
..Government & Institut.
242
8%
..Culture, Enter., & Recreati
23
0.8%,
The two major land users in 1975 were residential
(59%), followed by transportation (23%); together
accounting for over 80 per cent of all urban land
area. Commercial and government uses each com-
prised about one -tenth of the land, while recreation
and industrial were an extremely low one per cent.
Outside the City, but within the one mile radius
for the Jacksonville Planning Area, is an additional
12.5 square miles of land which is only 17 per cent
urbanized (2.1 sq.mi.). Although the urban land in
this area is less than half that in Jacksonville, it
has:
..9 times more mobile home land
..about 30% more commercial land
..about 20% more industrial land, and
..6 times more urban -type vacant parcels ready
for development.
LAND CAPABILITY
The capability of land in the Jacksonville area
to sustain future growth will be restricted only by
special attention which must be given to the local
soil conditions. Most of the soil is ranked as having
moderate or severe limitations for urban -type con-
struction. This is caused primarily by the high water
table or shrink -swell characteristics of the soil.
To overcome the high water table, extensive and
expensive drainage facilities are necessary. And,
overcoming the shrink -swell limitations requires

2-5
expensive removal and replacement of unsuitable
soils, or more stringent and expensive foundation
construction methods.
Thus, as long as the appropriate construction
techniques are used to overcome the soil limata-
tions, the Jacksonville land is capable of accom-
modating future growth.
PAST POPULATION TRENDS
In the fifty years between 1920 and 1970,
Onslow County grew from 14,703 people to 103,126---an
increase of 88,423 or 600 per cent. In the same time
period, the City of Jacksonville grew from 656 people
to 16,021--an increase of 15,365 or 2,343%.
The tremendous growth was not equally distributed
throughout this time period; but, rather was primarily
concentrated in the twenty years from 1940 to 1960--
and, the major reason for this was the establishment
of the Marine Base known as Camp Lejeune.
The 1970 U.S. Census of population showed that
Jacksonville City contained about 16 per cent of
the County population, while the Township represented
54 per cent (see Exhibit 2.4t). Overall, the
military -related population accounted for 42 per
cent of the total, and also pushed the percentage of
males, and over-18-year-olds, above the state and
national average.
Exhibit 2.4t: 1970 Onslow Population Breakdown
Area
Population
and %
Onslow County _ _ - _ - _ _ -
103,126 - -
100%
..Jacksonville_Tw�_ - - - -
_55,737 - _
_ 54%
.Jacksonville City . .
16,021
16%
Camp Lejeune, CC, NR
22,534
22%
..Unincorporated area .
17,182
17%
..Swansboro Twp._ - - _ - _ _
_20,800 - _
- 20%
..Swansboro Town . . .
1,207
..Camp Lejeune . . . .
15,352
..Unincorporated area . .
4,268
..White Oak Township
_
13%
_ _ -
Camp Lejeune . . . .
-13,472 -
5,362
_
..Unincorporated area . .
8,110
p ..Stump Sound Tw._ _ _ _ _
_ 5,545 _
- _ _6%
..Holly Ridge Town . .
415
..Camp Lejeune . . . .
0
..Unincorporated area .
5,130
..Onslow County . . . . . .
103,126
100%
..Military areas . . .
43,248
42%
..Incorporated places .
18,578
18%
..Unincorporated area .
41,300
40%
PRESENT POPULATION ESTIMATES
Various sources have estimated the population
of Onslow, Jacksonville Township, and Jacksonville
City for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975. The
estimates used in this plan for 1975 are:
...20,000 for Jacksonville City
...63,737 for Jacksonville Township
...112,000 for Onslow County.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The population projections to the year 2000,
selected by the Jacksonville committees, show
Onslow, County increasing by over 26,000 people,
or 26 per cent, with the majority of this growth
located in Jacksonville Township (see Exhibit 2.5t ).
Future growth for the City of Jacksonville will
depend primarily on its annexation policy, since
there is little undeveloped land remaining within
the City's boundaries. As shown by Exhibit 2.4t,
the "low" es
le, timate for the year 2000 is 25i000-
peopan increase of 9,000 or 56 per cent over
1970. This projection is based on assumptions that
(1) no annexation takes place, but growth occurs on
the City's remaining vacant land, or (2) the City
only annexes land within its Planning Area con-
taining 2,000 people plus the 3,000 people in Bryon
Marr as of 1975.
The "high"_estimate00is for 41.000 People by 2000,
an increase of 25,0 cent. or 156 per This is
based on annexing all of Brynn Marr (+ 10,000 people
ultimately) and much of the other developed land in
the Jacksonville Planning Area. The projected popu-
lation for the year 2020 is 56,000 people.
Exhibit 2.5t:.Selected Population Projections
Jacksonville
Year
Onslow Jacksonville
City
Low
I High_
County
ITownshi
At Year No.
..1970
103,126
55,737
16,000
16,000
..1975
112,000
63,737
20,000
20,000
..1980 -
-- -
119,840
----
70,737
- -
---
25,000
---
- 29,000
--
..1990
124,640
74,737
25,000
3-7,000
..2000
129,630
78,737
25,000
41.000
No. Change
(8,847)
(8,000)
(4,000)
(4,000)
..1970-75
..1975-80
(7,840)
(7,000)
(5,000)
(9,000)
..1970-80 _
_16,714
_15,000 _
9,000
_13.000
.1980-90
4,800
4,000
0
8,000
..1990-2000
4,990
4,000
0
4,000
..1970-2000
(26,504)
(23,000)
(9,000)
(25,000)
% Change
..1970-75
(9%)
(14%)
(25%)
(25%)
..1975-80
(7%)
(11%)
(25%)
(45%)
..1970-80
16%
1980-90
_ _
4%
_ - _27%
6%
_ _56%
0
_ _81%
28%
..1990-2000
4%
5%
0
11%
..1970-2000
(26%)
(41%)
(56%)
(156%)
FUTURE LAND NEEDS
The City's 1975 population of 20,000 was served by
4.8 square miles of urbanized land, which is an aver-
age of over 4,000 persons per square mile of urban
land.
Between 1975 and 1985, it is estimated that the
City could add anywhere from 5,000 to 13,000 people,
which would require 1.25 to 3.25 square miles of new
urban land if the 1975 ratio is extended.
In order to overcome past deficiencies in park and
industrial land, however, it was decided that the
1975 ratio would not be used. Rather, a lower ratio
2-5

2-6
of 3,000 persons per square mile was used. At this
ratio, the new land needs by 1985 would be 1.7 square
miles if only 5,000 people were added, or 4.3 square
miles if the higher projection of 13,000 were realized.
FUTURE SERVICES
To the extent that Jacksonville's future growth
comes from annexing nearby land that is already de-
veloped, the amount of needed services may or may not,
be at a minimum. For completely new growth, however,
the full range of public services will be needed.
Some of these services, and their ability to serve
new growth, are described in the following:
..Schools - The Onslow County Board of Education
projects no increase in school enrollment by
1980. As justification for this unusual
situation, one may consider that the County
was estimated to have grown by 12,000 people
(or 12%) in the last five years ---but the
public school enrollment stayed fairly stable.
..Parks - The park needs for another 13,000
people would be 130 acres, the accepted stan-
dard of 10 acres of park land needed for each
1,000 people. At this ratio, there's also a
deficiency of about 177 acres for the exist-
ing 20,000 Jacksonville residents. If both
needs were to be met in the next 10 years, 307
acres of new park land would have to be
acquired. The Montford Point area, if ever
declared surplus, would make an excellent lo-
cation for a large, Citywide park.
..Fire_ Protection - In view of the City's two
existing stations, and a third one proposed
on the east side of town, proper fire pro-
tection services should be available for new
growth.
.Water Supply - The City's water supply system
is undergoing an expansion from 2.15 million
gallons per day (mgd) to 4.11 mgd, and later
planned expansion to 4.55 mgd. It is esti-
mated that only half of the 4.11 mgd capacity
will be needed to serve the existing 20,000
population. This means that ample capacity
should be available to accommodate another
13,000 people by 1985.
..Sewage Disposal - The City's two existing
sewage treatment plants have a combined
capacity of 3.08 mgd, and only 67 per cent
of this capacity was being used in 1973 to
serve an estimated 17,000 people.
Also, it has been proposed that the trickling
filter plant be upgraded (and the lagoon facility
abandoned) to a design capacity of 4.0 mgd, which
could serve approximately 30,000 people. If the
projected growth of 13,000 by 1985 is realized,
it may mean that additional expansion will need to
be considered for the early 1980's.
..Streets and Highways - In 1969, the North
Carolina Highway Commission prepared a Thorough-
fare Plan for Jacksonville. The plan called
for improvements to existing facilities, as
well as proposals for new facilities in order
to better serve the existing population and to
accommodate expected new growth. Some of the
new proposals included a freeway south of Downtown
and parallel to N.C. 24, another freeway to re-
lieve U.S. 17, and completion of Western Boulevard
as a loop arterial completely around the City to
U.S. 17 on the west.
It is important that the cost implications of this
future growth also be understood by local officials
and citizens. Although certain costs will be borne,
.or shared, by developers and state and federal govern-
ment ... other major costs will accrue to the City.
LAND CLASSIFICATION
On the basis of all the work completed to this
point, the Coastal Resource Commission guidelines
now request that all land in the Jacksonville Plan-
ning Area be classified into five categories. It
is felt that this classification will assist in
improving future cooperation and coordination between
the City, County, state, and federal governments.
The classification scheme for Jacksonville is shown
by Exhibit 2.6m, and briefly explained in the re-
mainder of this section.
..Class #1: Developed - This is for land that is
already fully developed, with a population
density of at least 2,000 persons per square
mile and be adequately served with public fa-
cilities. All of the urban area_
inwithin Jack-
sonville falls to this category.
Class #2: Transition - This is for presently
undeveloped land that is expected to be
urbanized in the next ten years with a density
of at least 2,000 persons per square mile. The
4.3 square miles of new development estimated
to be needed to serve another 13,000 people
falls into this category. Land outside the Plann
ing Area could satisfy part of this growth need.
..Class #3_ Community - This is for existing or
new clusters of low density development at a
density of one person per acre. No land was
placed in this classification.
..Class #4: Rural - This is for land intended for
long term management for productive resource
utilization, and land for future needs which are
not currently recognized. For Jacksonville, two
large areas to the north and northwest, now used
for forestry, were grouped into this classification.
..Class #5: Conservation - This identifies land
which should be maintained essentially in its
natural state, and where very limited, or no
public services are provided. For Jacksonville,
the only land placed in this category was the
New River, its tributaries, and the flood plain
areas adjacent to them.
Potential
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
The only potential areas of environmental concern
in the Jacksonville area were the New River,
its tributaries, and the adjacent flood plain.
Within the flood plain, the only appropriate types
of activities would be of an open character, such
as yards, recreation areas, surface parking, farming,
and similar uses.
2-6

•
49;4�1•

After hydrologic studies are made in the future,
the flood plains may be divided into a floodway (that
carries the heavy flow of a 100 year storm) and a
flood fringe. Uses permitted in the floodway would
be only the open type of activity. Within the flood
fringe area, however, special permits could be re-
quested for other limited types of activity.
IMPLEMENTATION
Responsibilities for implementing certain por-
tions of this plan will include private enterprise,
government, and governmental regulation of private
actions.
In order to protect the flood plains, as an
area of environmental concern, the City will comply
with the provisions of the Federal Flood Insurance
Act. All building permits, subdivision plats, and
zone change requests will be reviewed by the City
for conformance to flood plain requirements.
Development of the new residential, commercial
and industrial areas primarily will be the respon-
sibility of private enterprise. Provision of parks,
fire protection, water supply, and sewage disposal
will be the responsibility of the City.
Implementation of the major thoroughfare pro-
posals will be the responsibility primarily of
the State.
PLAN UPDATING
The Land Use Plan should be reviewed periodically,
and revised to reflect any changes in life style or
environmental or economic pressures. Such updating
could possibly best be handled by a continuation of
the organizational structure used for the prepara-
tion of this plan. This would include the coopera-
tive efforts of the Mayor and City Council, Planning
Board, Citizen's Advisory Committee and Technical
Advisory Committee ---with administrative coordina-
tion from the City Manager and staff support from
the City Engineer.
DISTRIBUTION OF SYNOPSIS
In order to help the general public better under-
stand the nature of, and the need for a Land Use
Plan, a method for widespread distribution of the
Synopsis is required. One of the most effective
means for achieving this would be a one or two
page spread in the local newspaper, to be delivered
with the issue of widest circulation.
If this is not feasible, other methods which
could be considered would be to print several
thousand copies, and then distribute them:
..from City government buildings
..to the school population, for use at
school and to take home for parents to
review.
..by mail, especially if such would be
coordinated with utility bill mailing.
..as an insert in the local newspaper for
City distribution.
�Ml
AVAILABILITY OF COMPLETE PLAN
This synopsis attempts to provide the reader with
a general overview of the most important portions of
the Jacksonville Coastal Area Management Land Use Plan.
Anyone desiring to review a copy of the complete plan
may do so by visiting the City Manager's office at the
Jacksonville City Hall.
PLAN COORDINATION
WITH COUNTY AND CAMP LEJEUNE
Throughout the preparation of the Jacksonville
Plan, close coordination was maintained with the
Onslow County Planning Staff through informal meet-
ings, membership on the Jacksonville Technical Advis-
ory Committee, correspondence, and review of partial
drafts and the complete preliminary draft submitted
to the Coastal Resources Commission. Special attention
was paid to coordination for population breakdowns
and projections, land use, land capabilities, areas
of environmental concern, and the overall time schedule.
Similar coordination and contact was maintained
with the Marine Base, Camp Lejeune, through member-
ship on the Technical Advisory Committee and review
and comments on all drafts. Studies prepared by
Camp Lejeune personnel were most helpful in the
areas of population, land use, traffic, and other
areas.
2-9

3-1
Chapter III: STATEMENT OF LOCAL LAND USE
ISSUES, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter will be to establish
a framework for the land use plan in terms of:
.Issues - What are the problems, or issues,
that the community feels it will be faced
with during the next ten years?
...Objectives - What are the objectives that the
community desires to establish in order to de-
scribe that which it wishes to see accomplished
during the next ten years?
...Policies - What are the official policies need-
ing adoption by local government if the com-
munity objectives are to be achieved in coping
with future issues or problems?
PROCESS USED TO DETERMINE
LOCAL ISSUES, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
The process used to determine local issues, objec-
tive and policies included the following types of
public participation activity: (also see App. F)
...City Council - The Mayor and City Council of
Jacksonville authorized the City's participa-
tion in the CAMA Land Use Plan process, ap-
pointed a Citizens Advisory Committee and a
Technical Advisory Committee, authorized the
City Manager to coordinate the involved groups
as work progressed on the plan, and partici-
pated in the review, preparation, and public
learning for the plan.
...Planning_Board - The Jacksonville Planning
Board, appointed by the Mayor and Council,
made recommendations in regard to the plan,
and participated in review and discussion
sessions.
.Citizensap_ Advisory Committee - This committee,
pointed by the Mayor and City Council, in-
cluded seventeen members who represented a
community cross-section by geographical area,
sex, race, age, and type of work. This com-
mittee held work review sessions and discus-
sions, arranged for presentations to other
groups, and acted as liaison with residents
of their neighborhood areas.
.Technical Advisory Committee - This committee
also was appointed by the Mayor and Council,
and consisted of thirteen members representing
the City, Onslow County, Neuse River Council
of Governments, Coastal Resources Commission,
Chamber of Commerce, Camp Lejeune, and the
Weyerhaeuser Corporation. All of these mem-
bers were professional people, knowledgable
about the Jacksonville area, and capable of
advice, and.recommendations. The committee
held work review sessions and discussions,
and, between work sessions, continued
additional assistance or arranged for special
meetings.
...Other Meetings - Presentations were made to
other groups, such as student classes at the
Jacksonville Senior High School, and their sug-
gestions and recommendations also were solici-
ted. Meetings also were held with personnel
of the City Fire Department, City Parks Depart-
ment, City Engineer, County Planning Office,
County School Board, the Soil Conservation
Service, and the State Highway office ---in
order to secure information about their oper-
ations and solicit recommendations for future
activities.
Information Distribution
In providing opportunities for the public to be-
come better informed about the Jacksonville CAMA Land
Use Plan process, meetings not only were held as pre-
viously described, but special information materials
also were prepared and distributed. These materials
included drafts of various sections and chapters
of the Land Use Plan, large visual display maps and
tables for group review and discussion, The CRC
"Handbook on Public Participation," the CRC "Guide -
Lines," the CRC "Display Posters," and the Jack-
sonville "Detailed Work Program."
Several interviews were held with the local news-
paper and other media, and the information then
transmitted to the general public by newspaper arti-
cles and radio and television newscasts.
Citizen Opinion Survey
Opportunities for the public to participate and
contribute recommendations not only was effected by
the previously described activities, but also was
supplemented by a citizen opinion survey. This
survey provided an opportunity for practically each
Jacksonville citizen to express any opinions he
desired about the community and its public services
and future goals.
A survey form was designed (see Appendix "C" for
a detailed description of form and survey results)
that contained 27 questions that dealt with the
citizen's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with sev-
eral community characteristics and public services.
Responses to these questions would help determine
what problems and issues are felt to exist by the
citizenry.
Four additional questions were included to de-
termine citizen attitudes towards certain future
growth policies. Information also was solicited to
permit later analysis of responses by sex, age, in-
come, geographic area of the City, or by a combina-
tion thereof.
3-1

3-2
The forms were distributed to citizens in three
ways: 27,000 copies (of which 6,000-8,000 were in
the City) in the local newspaper; approximately
400 copies were given to citizens who visited City
Hall for other reasons; and about 100 copies were
distributed by members of the Citizen's Advisory Com-
mittee to persons living in their neighborhood and
to high school students.
Of the 8,000 City forms, only 80 were returned ---
which represents one percent of the 20,000 people
living in the City. Because of the small return,
the response cannot be said to be representative
of the attitudes of all the citizens of Jacksonville.
When the 80 forms were summarized, as shown by
Exhibit 3.1t, they revealed far more positive than
negative findings. For the four _"agree -disagree"
items on the form, the highest level of agreement
was for "a future land use plan is needed," next was
"more industry is needed," followed by "the City
should continue to grow in area and population," and
ending with "buildings should not be permitted in
our flood plains."
For the "satisfied -dissatisfied" questions, the
highest degree of satisfaction was expressed with
"postal service, fire protection, and your home."
Items through #7 on the exhibit also ranked in the
high satisfaction area, while items #8 through #13
ranked in the "fairly" satisfied area. On the dis-
satisfied side were only four items. Sidewalks,
parks, and employment opportunities were ranked as
"slightly dissatisfied," while Downtown was the
only item to receive a "fully dissatisfied" ranking.
In terms of dominant characteristics, the eighty
respondents were:
...74% male
...90% between 19 to 64 years
...83% earned over $10,000 per year
...80% live north of Marine Boulevard
Each survey item also was fully reviewed with
the local committees, and in all cases a majority
of the members agreed with the results and recom-
mended their use in the Jacksonville Plan.
ISSUES DURING NEXT TEN YEARS
This section will discuss issues in terms of
improvements for the existing community, as well as
changes that will accompany new growth in the future.
Existing Development Issues
From the various public participation efforts, it
would appear that the existing community catalogues
its concern by three breakdowns:
1._Maintain present high qualities - A high level
of satisfaction has been expressed generally for
community characteristics such as postal service,
fire protection, homes water system, garbage col-
lection, police protection, neighborhoods, library,
air quality, and newspapers. The challenge in
these areas would appear to be that of continuing
toserform the_hi h level of_serv_ice that has
given the citizenry a feeling of high satisfaction.
2._Enhance s.4s nt_fair qualities - For some ser-
vices and characteristics, a "fairly satisfactory"
Exhibit 3.1t: Summary of the 80 Jacksonville Responses
Survey
Item and Rank
Satisfied Dissatisfied
or Agree I or Disagree
2 4 -- 1 E 0-1 >
1. Future Land Use
Plan is needed*
2. More industry is
_ needed*
3_ City should continue
_ to grow*_
_
3 Postal service
3. Fire protection
IL
3. Your home -
_ _ _
4 Water system
I
4. Garbage collection
_
5. Police protection
5. Your neighborhood
5. Library
6_ Newspaper
7. Street lights
7. Shopping areas
•
7. Telephone system
T1
7. Radio
I
7. No buildings in
_ _ flood plains*
_8. Sewage disposal
9 Airport
9_ Electric supply-
10. Overall quality of
life in Jacksonville)
10. Television
_ _ _ _
11 Schools
11_ Streets
_ _ _ _
12_ Storm water disposal
_
—f
13. Industrial areas
---------------------
--- -+
14. Sidewalks-_--�----
14_ Parks
—I
15. Employment
_ opportunities _ _
16. Downtown
�y
*These are the four_"agree-disagree" questions
ranking has been achieved. Although this evalua-
tion is on the positive side, it also indicates an
opportunity for future enhancement of quality.
Items included in this category would be street lights,
shopping areas, telephone system, radio, sewage
disposal, airport, electric supply, overall quality,
television, schools, streets, storm water disposal,
and industrial areas.
3. Upgrade areas of dissatisfaction - From those
who have expressed opinions, it appears that four
areas need major upgrading to overcome a pres-
ent feeling of dissatisfaction. These include
sidewalks, parks, employment opportunities, and
the Downtown area.
Future Development Issues
From the public participation efforts, a majority
feeling was expressed that "Jacksonville should con-
tinue to grow in area and in population" and that
"more industry was needed." An even higher ranking
was given to "the need for future growth to be
guided by a land use plan."
3-2

3-3
The desire for future growth appears to be one
that will be capable of achievement, since it has
been estimated that Jacksonville could add anywhere
between 5,000 and 13,000_peo2le in the next ten years
(1975-1985). This 25 to 65 per cent increase in
population could come from two sourcea: annexing
existing developed areas (5,000) and/or from future
new development (8,000).
In 1975, the City's population of 20,000 was
served by 3,056 acres of urban developed land. This
is a ratio of 6.5 persons per urban acre, or 4,192
persons per square mile. If future population is
accommodated at the same ratio, it would require
another 1.2 square miles_of urban development for
quare
5,000 people or 3.1 smiles for 13,000 people.
The Coastal Resources Commission "Guidelines" note
that the minimum ratio that should be considered
for urban development is 2,000 persons per square
mile ---which is about half the density of Jackson -
If, however, this ratio was applied to
Jacksonville's estimated future growth, it would
require another 2.5 square miles of urban development
for 5,000 people, or 6.5 square miles for 13,000.
Thus, depending on the population growth and
land/people ratio, Jacksonville's new urban devel-
opment could range from 1.2 re miles to 6.5
— -- ---- squa-----
s uare miles.
There is undeveloped land in the Jacksonville area
capable of accommodating —this potential growth, but
it does have moderate and severe limitations for most
aspects of urban development, as described in Chapter
V. This does not mean the land cannot be developed;
but, rather, that &reat care must be exercised and
higher than normal construction coats will be exper-
ienced in order to properly overcome the limitations
and provide quality construction.
Provision of Community Services
Whether Jacksonville's future growth amounts to
1.2 or 6.5 square miles, or something in between,
there will still be the challenge and problem of pro-
viding all of the necessary community services and
facilities. Some of the challenges included will be:
...Proper subdiviscn planningand zoning will be
needed to insure good physical design and
site planning, and inclusion of all needed
infrastructure and community facilities.
...Proper construction of_facilities, and co-
ordination between local government, private
utilities, and developers to insure the appro-
priate inclusion, design and construction for
walkways, bikeways, curb, gutter, street paving,
street name and traffic signs, water lines,
fire hydrants, electric lines, storm water
ditches, pipes, and inlets, sewer lines,
telephone lines, cable television lines, street
lights, street trees, or any other infra-
structure item.
...Advance acquisition and/or —reservation —of need-
----- — -----------
ed_p blic land for facilities such as parks,
schools, streets, other utility rights -of -way,
fire stations, recreation centers, other com-
munity service centers, and land needed for any
other type of governmental facility. Reserving
such needed land in advance of acquisition, and
3-3
prior to subdivision development, can best in-
sure minimum public cost as well as getting that
location which can most efficiently service the
citizenry.
..Expanding public —services to incorporate the
new growth areas, will be a need to be faced
in terms of fire protection, police pro-
tection, garbage collection, recreation pro-
gramming, building inspection, street clean-
ing and maintenance, fire hydrant inspection,
street light and traffic sign maintenance,
water line maintenance and meter reading, storm
water facility maintenance, property assess-
ment records, tax and utility billing, and
other similar ongoing activities.
This partial listing of activities generated by
new growth amply illustrates the increased workload
that will be faced by many groups, but especially
the City of Jacksonville ---since it provides more
services and facilities for its citizens than any
other government in Onslow County. Under the low
growth (5,000 people) assumption, the City would have
the service responsibility for 25__per—cent more people,
and under the higher assumption (13,000 more people)
the City service responsibility would increase to
65_p�er cent more people.
Conservation and Protection
Jacksonville's expected future growth will offer
an opportunity for developing new community assets.
At the same time, however, the community will face
the responsibility of protecting and conserving its
existing assets. Without careful planning, it is
possible for the new to cancel the old, resulting in
no net gain.
Thus, the community must be aware of its exist-
ing assets, such as natural resources, natural
environment, historical areas, and cultural
resources ---in order to insure.their future protec-
tion and conservation.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO ISSUES
There are various ways of approaching the issues
and problems which have been previously described.
One alternative would be a "minimum or back -off"
approach, wherein the City would attempt to dis-
courage the expansion of its land area or population,
thereby giving it a chance to better consolidate and
concentrate on existing community needs for services
and facilities.
Another approach would be the exact opposite, and
would fully encourage land area and population ex-
pansion wherever the opportunity occurred. This
could be described as the "maximum alternative"
An "intermediate_ or moderate" alternative might
be a well -thought out approach that would gear the
amount of expansion to the community's existing and
future capacity and capability for absorbing growth,
and properly servicing such. This would help insure
that expanded services would not detract from those
provided to existing areas; but, rather, would have
the opposite effect of improving such quality.
Of the three_ approaches, the "intermediate" alter-
native was preferred by the Jacksonville Committees.

3-4
It involves the concept of "planning ahead" or "pre-
pare plans to guide the community's growth," which has
been emphasized by the majority of the people who have
participated in this study. Overall, this alternative
could be implemented through the successful completion
of four objectives:
1._.Policy Adoption - by the Mayor and Council con-
sidering the adoption of policy statements in
regard to the described growth issues.
2._.Plaa Preparation - by the Mayor, Council and
City Manager overseeing the preparation of
plans that will propose the means and methods
for carrying out the policy statements.
3._.Program Action - by the City Manager and City
agencies coordinating or implementing the pro-
grams described in the planning process. One
valuable tool to assist in this effort would
be a "capital improvements program" that would
attempt to foresee and schedule capital im-
provement needs over a six year period.
4... Continuous Updating - by monitoring all activi-
ties, and evaluating the results being achiev-
ed, the City would be in a position at all
times to continue activities that are achiev-
ing the desired objectives, or to modify those
which are not achieving the desired end. This
type of continuing attention would provide
good insurance for keeping the plans, programs,
and other activities in the most current and
up-to-date condition.
SELECTED OBJECTIVES AND THEIR PRIORITY
The community's overriding objective is that of
trying to make itself a place where every person has
the maximum opportunity to exercise his full poten-
tial in seeking to achieve worthwhile social, eco-
nomic, and physical goals.
Man Objectives
Gaining a better understanding of man and his many
and varying urban areas needs is probably our most
difficult challenge --and a clearer understanding must
be achieved before we can develop communities that
serve him most properly. Although some needs are com-
mon to all men, others vary according to the differ-
ences that exist between people --differences such as
age, sex, race, religion, education, income, social
achievement or deviance, etc.
A good city is one that understands the needs im-
plied by our differences, and builds to accommodate
such needs. And, a good city will be a good place
for man to search for knowledge, love, dignity, accom-
plishment, security and service to his fellow man.
Land Objectives
Another challenge lies with our land --not only of
Jacksonville, but also the surrounding area. This is
our basic physical resource and it comes in a fixed
amount. If we waste it, or pollute it, there is no
place to order a new supply, and we simply do without
that which we've wasted and try to exist with the re-
use of that which we've polluted.
Thus, we must try to more fully understand our
3-4
land, and make much wiser use of the soil, rock,
water, plants, air, and wildlife that exist as our
community's replaceable and non -replaceable physical
resources.
Once this is truly understood, we should then be
able to appreciate the importance of the manner in
which past generations handed it down to us --and be-
come concerned with its condition and quality as we
pass it on to our children and grandchildren. Our
community development plans must work towards:
...eliminating pollution of our air, water, land,
plantlife, and wildlife by man's waste
products;
...eliminating the unwise allocation of land to
various activities; and
...encouraging sound and wise policies for all of
the many uses man makes of his land.
These objectives must receive our sincere and
wholehearted attention in the years ahead.
For our agricultural areas, our objectives should
be to insure that such land is not necessarily im-
pinged upon by illogical urban residential, commer-
cial, or industrial uses which can easily afford eco-
nomic intrusion. Any pre-emption of agricultural
lands for urban expansion should result only from
logical community expansion without penalizing the
remaining agricultural activities.
Building Objectives
Buildings are one of the two land innovations
given to the world by man. Peculiar only to man,
buildings serve only the purpose of acting as the
physical housing for the performance of nearly all of
man's productive activities: his eating, sleeping,
living, playing, working, shopping, and pursuit of
education and religion.
We must search for better ways of securing
buildings which are beautiful, efficient, functional,
and most conducive to the proper performance of man's
activities. We also must find more workable patterns
for relating buildings to one another --whether or not
they house similar and dissimilar activities of man.
In certain situations, a sensitive physical and
social design plan can group dissimilar activitiies
in one or more buildings, and achieve complete
harmony --too often, however, the result is chaos
wherein the economically strong commercial and indus-
trial activities nibble away, bit by bit, to destroy
the residential and other economically weak activi-
ties. A good city must be able to properly accommo-
date both the strong and the weak "building" activi-
ties of man.
For our urban residential areas, our overriding
objective should be that of making them good places
for a family to eat, sleep, live, and grow
together --by providing a physical enviornment that
is free from disturbing noise and repulsive odors,
that is safe and free from outside hazards (especially
unnecessary vehicular traffic), and that is surrounded
by compatible residential activity. Another object-
ive would be to understand that sound and decent
residential units are not equally available to all,
and to make a sincere effort to help secure proper
housing for the lower income families and persons
who are unable to afford the acquisition of private
housing.

3-5
In our urban commercial areas, our objectives should
be to make them easily and conveniently accessible to
all other areas, clustering them in concentrations
rather than encouraging strip development along our
highways, providing safe traffic patterns for their
ingress and egress, and pursuing top quality physical
design, especially to protect adjoining residential
areas.
For our urban industrial areas, our objectives
should be to provide a variety of sites in terms of
size and access; to concentrate such activity, but
in more than one urban location in order to make a
more balanced use of our movement system; to pro-
vide convenient and safe vehicular access; and to
insure compatibility of uses within industrial areas
and proper landscaping separation from adjoining resi-
dential areas.
Intermingled with many of the residential, com-
mercial, industrial, and agricultural buildings and
areas already discussed are the needs for certain
public activity buildings and land.
These public uses include schools, libraries, parks,
fire protection, police protection, administrative
buildings, and service buildings.
Educational Facilities - In order to prepare our
young people for a future of productivity, accom-
plishment, and understanding --and to continue the
education of older persons --our community has under-
taken the provision of elementary, junior high,
senior high and community college educational
faciltiies.
For all of our educational buildings, a com-
munity objective should be to insure that they prop-
erly blend with adjoining buildings and land use
areas, and do not unnecessarily emit noise, odor,
or traffic problems which reduce or destroy the
functioning of such adjoining areas ---especially
those of a residential character.
Whenever possible, our schools should be related
to neighborhood to permit students to walk to
school. Neighborhood locations also can serve as a
cohesive force in tying together other social ser-
vices and activities of a residential neighborhood.
Library Facilities - To provide continuing ex-
posure to our citizens of special educational oppor-
tunities in terms of books, periodicals, music,
painting, and other growth areas, our community must
provide an adequate public library system.
Such a system might contain museums, main library,
branch libraries, bookmobiles, or other facilities
needed to offer educational enrichment opportunities
to all of our Jacksonville citizens.
Parks and Recreation - To assist in the recreation
and relaxation needs of our people, our community
must have an objective of providing park, recreation,
and open space facilities. The varying accessibility,
size, and facility standards of each should be di-
rected towards.meeting community standards, and
each should compliment and protect the use made of
adjoining property.
Fire_ Protection - Our community's objective for
its fire protection service is that of encouraging
proper construction of new buildings to reduce fire
damage potential, to encourage proper care of exist-
3-5
ing buildings to reduce fire hazard, and to fight
whatever fires that still occur to reduce the loss
of life and property.
In locating the necessary fire fighting facilities
that our community requires, it should be our object-
ive to provide such facilities in that location, and
with that equipment and manpower, as will reduce our
over-all fire insurance rates to the minimum and pro-
vide our people and buildings with the maximum re-
duction in loss of life and property from the actual
occurrence of fires.
Police_ Protection - In order to protect ourselves
mim froproper invasion of privacy, to protect our
property, and to insure the proper performance of
certain activities, our community has established a
system of police protection. In providing facilities
and services to meet these needs, it should be an
objective of our community to provide the facilities
and manpower as is necessary to protect person and
property, and to enhance the common respect for the
rights and property of others.
Other Public_ Facilities - For providing other ser-
vices to the public, it is quite often necessary for
city, county, state, or federal government to con-
struct other facilities from which they provide ser-
vices to our local community or a larger regional
area. In any case, such facilities should be readily
accessible to the public it serves, compatible with
surrounding activities, and inspirational in its archi-
tecture and landscaping.
Movement System Objectives
Man generally finds it impossible to carry on his
full range of activities efficiently within a given
building unless the building is plugged into a tele-
communications system which carries sounds and images
to him from distant points; an energy supply system
that provides him with water, heat, and mechanical
energy; and a waste disposal system to carry away his
biological, natural and commercial waste products.
Each of these systems eliminates the need for man
to make physical trips from one place to another and,
as such, mark notable achievements in manns move-
ment technology. However, no means has yet been de-
veloped for moving MAN and most of his goods from
one place to another by any manner other than trans-
portation via walkway, bikeway, highway, airway,
railway, and waterway systems.
Our community has certain objectives which are
common to all of these movement systems:
..Availability - Since each of these movement
elements is of great importance to the proper
activity performance of almost all of our
citizens, it must be our objective to see that
all systems are available in our community, and,
to the maximum extent possible, properly avail-
able to each person and place of activity in our
community at all times, with the possibility of
service interruption reduced to the minimum.
..Conservation - All of menns movement elements
depend on an energy supply or other non -
replaceable natural resources. Thus, a major
objective of all should be to reduce wastefulness
and increase conservation practices.

3 -6
..Efficient Land Usage - Each movement system is
a user of land in our community for various
facilities for production, processing, trans-
mission, and storage. Most of these facilities,
within the urban area, are located within
street rights -of -way and along property lines.
It must be a community objective to always lo-
cate and concentrate these elements within the
least possible amount of land area, making for
a more efficient use of our space ---and ALL
movement agencies must better understand that
their facilities exist SOLELY to serve man and
his needs, and, therefore, must be located
with a more sensitive appreciation of their
effects upon man.
..Coordination Objective - As mentioned pre-
viously, most of the stationary physical parts
of each movement system are located within the
public street rights -of -way —in underground
locations (water pipes, gas pipes, storm water
pipes, sanitary sewage pipes, street light
wires, and, at times, electric and telephone
wires); at -grade locations (streets, curbs,
fire hydrants, sidewalks), and overhead loca-
tions (telephone and electric poles and wires,
street lights, and cable T.V.).
More often than not, a different agency may
be responsible for each facility, so that the
actual location and construction plans may not
be known to the other concerned agencies. As
a result, a high degree of coordination for
constructing facilities is necessary. Other-
wise, while installing a new sewage line, an
existing water line may be broken.
Thus, another community objective must be to
encourage the various agencies responsible for
our movement systems to achieve a much higher
degree of coordination for their construction,
repair and expansion of facilities.
Telecommunication Objectives
Not too long ago, man's seeing, hearing, and
speaking were limited to the physical capacity of
his own mouth, eyes and ears --and, thus, he could see
and hear only the world that lay within a few hundred
yards of him. To see, or hear, more required per-
sonal travel ---and the inefficiency, cost, and
physical exertion of travel restricted most people to
"knowing personally" only that world that existed
within a few miles of their home.
Today, our community's telecommunications system
permits each of us to sit at home and, within the
yan of ony a_few min
utes, see and hear the world's
championship rugby match as it is being played in
London, and talk personally with a friend in San
Francisco.
Without the home telephone, radio, and tele-
vision, those same three experiences could have hap-
pened only after several days or weeks of travel,
physical exhaustion, and a very high transportation
bill.
Thus, it must be an objective of our community
to understand that the telephone, radio, and tele-
vision makeup of our local communications system are
vital to the educational, entertainment, social, and
economic wellbeing of all our citizens ---and to en-
courage these areas of communication (along with our
newspapers, telegraph service, and postal service)
to continually strive for improvements and coverage in
their service better compatibility with the other land
uses of our community, and to search for new ways of
reducing our movement time and cost.
Energy Supply System
Our citizens are not too far removed from the per-
iod in our local history when artificial light came
only from candles and kerosene lamps, heat from a log
fire, water from a well or stream, and air condition-
ing from a shade tree.
Today, our local buildings are plugged into an
electric or gas system for the supply of energy to
hear and cool the air, to heat our water, to provide
artificial light --with electricity also providing
mechanical energy to run our radio, television, and
countless home and office appliances and equipment.
And, each building is connected to a continuous water
supply system that enables us to wash ourselves and
our possessions, cook our food, replenish our body,
carry away certain of our waste materials, and lubri-
cate our industrial plants.
Without this underground pipe system of water
supply, we would be dependent upon wells or water
carried to us by trucks --and our urbanized society
probably could not exist.
Thus, it must be an objective of our community
to realize that the electric supply, gas supply, water
supply, and central heating and cooling supply com-
ponents of our energy supply system are vital to all
aspects of our community's welfare, and to encourage
each supply agency to continually work towards ser-
vice improvements which will provide a better supply
of heat, water, light, and mechanical energy that is
available to all, that is free of interruption, that
is at its lowest cost, and offers improved compati-
bility with all other land uses and activity needs
of our people.
Waste Disposal System Objectives
Urban civilizations of the past often disposed
of their wastes by tossing garbage and excretement
into the streets and waiting for the rain to wash it
away --or, now and then, the wagons to pick it up.
Needless to say, the resulting disease and plague
kept the average life span to about 35 years.
Although our storm water disposal, sanitary
sewage disposal, and refuse disposal systems are
far more efficient and safe, our tremendous capa-
city to produce "waste" materials dwarfs any pre-
vious situation in man's history. Today, man almost
stands literally in the position of being completely
engulfed by the waste products he generates --and
the only other thing that matches the quantity of
our waste production is the general apathy and un-
concerned attitude that most of us, as citizens,
have towards the whole situation.
For the future, our community must establish
objectives of:
-understanding that the waste materials we
produce cannot, as yet, be vaporized and
forgotten;
3-6

3-7
-becoming actively concerned in supporting govern-
mental attempts to cope with the problem;
-supporting proposals to utilize the best means
available to cope with waste needs, and not set-
tling for mediocre solutions; and
-encouraging continuing search for better methods
of coping with the problem.
Transportation System Objectives
In the beginning, man walked and carried --this
was his only form of transportation. Slowly, he
took a step forward and tamed the animal, attached
a cart with wheels to the animal, floated a boat on
the water powered only by the wind and water currents,
developed an engine to move the boats and carts,
placed the carts on rails, lifted the cart into the
air --and, finally, today we enjoy the fruits of
this historical progression --a transportation system
for moving man and most of his goods, which is com-
posed of our walkways, bikeways, highways, airways,
railways, and waterways.
And, we should give special thanks to those who
developed our present means of communication,
energy supply, and waste disposal --for, without their
provision by air, wire, and pipe, the only other
means of securing them would be via our already over-
loaded transportation system.
For the waterways transportation of our community,
we must look to the New River and consider any ex-
isting or future potential it may hold for meeting
a portion of our transportation needs --and not permit
such potential to be lost or pre-empted.
For our railways system, our community must
realize that some of the physical goods we consume
and produce are brought -into and carried -out by our
railroad system. We must encourage the continuing
improvement and upgrading of these facilities, and
also encourage cooperative efforts to eliminate
those conflicts which may exist that reduce the effi-
ciency of such carriers or conflict with the travel
or productive activities of our own citizens.
For quick movement of our people and goods,
especially to distant points, no other element of
our transportation system can match our airways.
And, as the pace of urban activity continues to
increase, so does the importance of our airways
system grow. For the future, our community must
have the objective of providing that type of air-
port facility that will:
-permit us to take maximum advantage of the
continuing advancements in air transportation;
and,
-recognize its obligation to the people of our
community, and continue to develop facilities,
services, and programs which meet our citizen
and business needs, and are compatible with
the other activities and land uses of our
community.
In terms of_frequency and intensity of use and
daily awareness, no other transportation element
comes close to our highway system --the system that
carries people and goods around in autos, taxis, buses,
and trucks.
For all of our vehicles which carry people and
goods over our highway and street channels, it must
be our objective to:
3-7
-understand that streets are not alike in ap-
pearance or function, and that some should be
designed for through traffic (with no driveway
intersections), while others can serve local or
nonthrough traffic, and have driveway inter-
sections:
-expressways, as our highest through street in
terms of speed permitted and number of cars moved
safely and efficiently;
-arterials, as the only other type of through
street, which should establish the boundaries
of residential neighborhoods, and other land
use activity areas;
-collectors, as non -through streets, which are in-
tended to collect traffic within neighborhoods
and other activity areas, and carry it to arterial
streets; and
-locals, as non -through streets, which carry the
least amount and slowest traffic, but are the
means of reaching the final building destina-
tion whether it be home, office, or industry.
-understand that none of our citizens live, work,
or carry on any other "productive" human acti-
vity on our highway system and, therefore, con-
tinually strive towards reducing the amount of
time spent in highway travel;
-locate highways in relation to manns important
"productive" activity areas so as to not de-
crease, but enhance, the productive use of his
land; and, finally, to
-encourage recognition of the great interdependence
of all elements of our movement system, and to
plan highways to offer maximum support of, and
integration with, all other movement elements.
Bikeways have only recently begun to receive any
serious attention as a viable means of transportation.
They now are eligible for federal aid, and most states
also will assist cities in their planning and financ-
ing. Especially in view of the gasoline supply
crunch, Jacksonville must have an objective of giving
proper consideration to bikeways as the community
continues to grow.
Walkways are the oldest element in our trans-
portation system, but in recent decades, our love
affair with the private auto has greatly decreased
the attention given to the need for good sidewalks
and other types of pedestrian walkways. The Jack-
sonville citizen opinion survey illustrated the
concern that some citizens had in this regard.
Thus, another transportation objective, must be
to provide and maintain a proper walkway system in
existing and future developed areas.
Employment and the Economy Objectives
The use we make of our own abilities and talents
along with our land, buildings, and movement sys-
tem, establishes our economy. We must strive to
use these talents and resources in the most efficient
and proper manner, giviing each of our citizens an
equal opportunity to use his maximum ability to
become a productive member of our society.
Maintenance and development of the various sec-
tors of our economy should be encouraged, and we
should work to establish the most balanced and diver-
sified economy that is possible. Some persons in our
labor force are in need of special job training, or
re-training, to develop skills needed by our expand-
ing economy.

3-8
And, as pointed out in the citizens opinion survey,
we must have a strong objective of trying to develop
more and varied employment opportunities for all
of our citizens who are, or desire to be, a part of
our work force.
Society Objectives
The social system that we have established to
govern our relationships to each other probably is
in need of as much attention as any physical
aspect of our community. Our social advancements,
when compared to our technical achievements, quickly
indicate that man has advanced much faster in his
relationships with machines than he has with other
men.
In all facets of our society, we must work to
reduce the needless and destructive rebellions
toward our civilized laws, decrease our adult crime
and juvenile delinquency, and search continuously
for improved justice and respect for the laws of
our society.
For those among us who have lacked in opportunity,
we -must search for proper and respected means of
removing illiteracy, securing comfortable housing,
eliminating prejudice, and increasing opportunities
for enjoying a good life.
Protection and Conservation Objectives
For the people, buildings, land and movement
elements which are now in good condition and are
assets, it should be a community objective to
recognize their valuable nature and do whatever is
possible to enhance, maintain, conserve, and en-
courage their continued existence.
Renewal Objectives
Human renewal, land renewal, building renewal,
and renewal of movement elements --all must become
an objective of our community to offer means of
correcting and bringing new vigor and productivity
to these facets of our community which are obsolete,
not fully productive, or suffering from other de-
ficiencies which prevent them from becoming a
full-fledged participant in, and asset to, our
community. One example of an area needing such
attention was pointed out in the public partici-
pation efforts as being Downtown Jacksonville.
New Growth Objectives
For the new people who will join us, for the
open land we will settle, for the new buildings to
be constructed, and for the new elements of move-
ment which will serve us --it should be a community
objective to provide well -thought out plans and
programs which will properly guide their development.
A Sensitive Place
To some extent, we are a people reared in the
country who have moved to the city --and who have
brought with us the expectations of a degree of
privacy, individuality, and freedom of action that
is possible only in areas of few people and a lot
of nature. 3-8
Our city is a place of many people, and the degree
and type of privacy and freedom of action that was
possible in the country simply is not possible of
attainment in the city. On the other hand, a good
city can make up for these lost qualities by offering
many attributes unavailable in the country —wider eco-
nomic opportunities, more personal contacts for social
growth, and a greater variety of means to become
educated to the world around us.
A healthful and fortunate citizen will make the
transition —an unfortunate citizen will become
anxious, frustrated, and react in anger and despair.
It must be our objective to become a sensitive
community --sensitive to the rightful and unmet
needs of some of us, and act to make the transition
a healthy change before it strikes out in frustration
and hopelessness.
The active pursuit of these objectives can improve
our chances of seeing a pleasing, rather than an ugly
environment; of breathing and drinking pure not pol-
luted, air and water; of hearing wanted, rather than
unwanted, sound; and of pursuing days of accomplish-
ment and satisfaction, rather than suffering days of
frustration or despair. Whatever else a city may be,
it should be, first of all, a place of, and for, man.
Priorities
The priorities recommended by the Jacksonville com-
mittees include :
...Any future community development should be guided
by, and in conformance with, a Jacksonville Com-
munity Development Plan.
...Encouraging the City to grow in both population
and land area.
...Encouraging more industrial development and more
employment opportunities.
...Acquiring additional park land and improving
parks with proper recreational facilities.

4-1
Chapter IV: Data Collection and Analysis for
PRESENT
CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide past
and present information on, and analysis of the.....
.....Population,
.....Economy,
.....Land Use, and
.....Plans and Policies
for the Jacksonville area.
4-1

4-2
POPULATION
INTRODUCTION
Population for Jacksonville and other pertinent
areas will be discussed in terms of past trends, pre-
sent population estimates, and future population
forecasts.
PAST TRENDS IN POPULATION CHANGES
The population growth of a city not only is de-
pendent upon new people moving into the city, but also
upon the city's expansion of its boundaries to include
existing families who had been living outside the
city. Too often, a city is viewed as an inhabited
oasis, surrounded by thousands of square miles of un-
inhabitated territory. Much of the time, the oppo-
site is true. That is,the area within the city is
mostly developed with urban -type activities, but the
adjoining land is not completely rural or agricul-
turally oriented; rather, it contains other incorpor-
ated areas or small urban -type subdivisions, or sub-
burban-type development. And, if the city, for vari-
ous reasons, should expand its boundaries, it could
show population growth without any real population
change occurring in the general area.
Thus, this section of the study will report on the
population growth of Jacksonville and the surrounding
area.
Jacksonville Growth
As shown by Exhibit 4.1t, Jacksonville has experi-
enced an unusually high population growth in the 60
years between 1910 and 1970. The majority of this
growth, after 1940, was generated by the creation of
the U.S. Marine Base, Camp Lejeune. Although the
Marine Base developed outside the city, a great deal
of its impact spilled over into the city of Jackson-
ville, helping to explain the growth from 505 people
in 1910, to 16,021 in 1970, an increase of 15,516
people or 3,072 percent.
Originally, Jacksonville was known as a "town",
and the change to "city" was effected in 1950.
Camp Lejeune and Jacksonville
Population comparisons of Camp Lejeune and Jackson-
ville are shown by Exhibit 4.2t. As neighbors, they
are the two largest urban concentrations in Onslow
County, accounting for 49 percent of the County's
4-2
Exhibit 4.1t: Jacksonville Population Growth*7
Year
Population
1910
505
1920
656
1930
783
1940
873*
1950
3,960*
1960
13,491
1970
16,021
1910-70 No. Changes
15,516
1910-70 % change
3,072%
*Parts of Jacksonville Township were annexed to
Jacksonville town in 1943, 1945, and between
1950-60.
population.
The Camp Lejeune figures, however, do not include
Camp Geiger and the New River Air Station, which have
a population of 8,699. When these are included, the
1970 population of the Marine Base would be 43,248,
or 42 percent of the County population. Added to
Jacksonville, the two areas would account for 58 per-
cent of the county's total.
The exhibit also shows the unusually large number
of persons housed in group quarters, which is almost
completely accounted for by the Marine barracks.
Exhibit 4.2t: Jacksonville -Camp Lejeune Population*5
Onslow
Jackson-
Camp
County
ville
Lejeune
%
%
%
Living
quarters
1970
of
1970
of
1970
of
type
Number
Co.
Number
Co.
Number
Co
Total
103,126
100
16,021
16
34,549
33
..Households
77,403
75
15,999
16
14,862
14
..Group Quart.
25,723
25
22
-
19,687
19
..Institution
383
.4
9
-
346
.3
..Other
25,340
25
13
-
19,341
19

Jacksonville Trends Compared to Other Areas
4-3
Exhibit 4.4t: Growth Rates by Decade *7
In the fifty years between 1920 and 1970, the pop-
ulation of North Carolina and the United States dou-
bled, as shown by Exhibit 4.3t. During the same time
period, however, the population of:
...Jacksonville City increased by 2,342%
...Jacksonville Township grew by 1,728%
...Onslow County increased by 600%, and
...Onslow towns (and city) grew by 1,000%.
Swansboro Township experienced the next highest
growth of any of the county areas, gaining over 18,000
people for a 818 percent increase.
The third largest growth area in the county was
White Oak Township, which experienced a gain of over
11,000 people, for a 45% increase.
Comparisons by Decade
The fluctuation in growth rates by decade are
shown in Exhibit 4.4t for Jacksonville and some other
areas. During this time, the range in the rates was:
..11% to 354% for Jacksonville City
..5% to 304% for Jacksonville Township
..3% to 154% for Onslow County
..12% to 23% for North Carolina, and
..7% to 18% for the United States.
Area
1920-
1930
1930-
1940
1940-
1950
1950-
1960
1960-
1970
Jacksonville City
1%
11%
354%
241%
19%
Jacksonville Twp.
5%
23%
148%
304% 1
31%
Onslow County
3%
17%
134%
105%
20%
North Carolina
23%
12%
13%
12%
12%
United States
16%
7%
14%
18%
13%
Population Density
The changes in population density (average number
of persons per square mile) are shown by Exhibit 4.5t.
In the fifty year period, Jacksonville has gone from
a density of 205 to 5,007 persons per square mile.
Exhibit 4.5t: Changes in Population Density *7
Year
Jacksonville
City
Onslow
County
persons/sq. mile
persons/sq. mile
1920
205
19
1930
238
20
_1940 _
-_- 273
---_ 24
1950
1,238
56
1960
4,210
114
1970
5,007
136
Exhibit 4.3t: Jacksonville Population Trends Compared to Other Areas, 1920-1970.
1920-1970 Changes
Area
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
Number
%
ONSLOW COUNTY
14,703
15i289
17.039
42i047
86i208
103,126
88i423
600%
..Onslow towns, city
1,624
1,680
2,015
6,748
16,405
18,578
16,954
1,000
..Remainder _ -
-------------
13,079 _
13,609 -
15,924
- - -
35,569
- - -
69,803
- - -
84 548
--i-
71 469
,L
_546-
Jacksonville.Twp.
3,104
3,282
4,059
10i089
40,z834
55_L 37
52i633
1,728%
..Jacksonville City
656
783
873
3,960
13,491
16,021
15,365
2,342
..Remainder --_ _ _ - _
--------
2,448
--------
29499 -
3,186
-----
6,129 _
_27,343 _
_ 39.716
37,268
1j 22
..Richlands Township
4,772
---
5,156
--
5,626
-
6,928
--
7,331
---
7,572
--
2,800
---
5%
---
..Richlands Town
548
503
688
877
1,079
935
387
71
..Remainder ---- - - _ _
-------
49224
---------
4,653
4,938
-----
6,051 _
_ 6,252 _
_ _6,i 37
-2i413
_ 57_
..Stump Sound Twp.
2,143
2,427
3,096
4,391
5,486
5,545
3,402
159%
..Holly Ridge Town
-
-
-
1,082
731
415
-
-
..Remainder _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2,143 _
_ 2,427 -
3,096 _
_ 3,309 _
_ 4,755 _
_ 5i130
-
-
..Swansboro Township
2,266
2,106
2,455
1h662
21i678
20i800
18i534
818%
..Swansboro Town
420
394
454
559
1,104
1,207
787
187
..Remainder _ - - _ _
1,846
1,712 -
2,001
11,103
20,574
19 593_
17 747_
_961
..White Oak Township
2,418
2,318
2,703
9,607
10,879
13,472
11,054
457%
North Carolina (add 000)
2,559
3,170
3,572
4,062
4,556
5,082
2,523
99%
United States (in millions)
106m
123m
132m
151m
179m
203m
97m
92%
4-3

4-4
while Onslow County has increased from 19 to 136 per-
sons per square mile. The 1970 Jacksonville density
is very close to that of the average urbanized, or
built-up, area of many American cities. This indi-
cates that most of any future growth will have to
occur only after additional land is incorporated by
the city.
1970 POPULATION
The Onslow County area is divided into townships,
incorporated places, unincorporated areas, and the
Marine Base areas. The population of each, by town-
ship, is shown by Exhibit 4.6t.
Exhibit 4.6t: 1970 Population by Township *7
r Area 1 1970 population 1
Onslow County 1 103,126 - 100% 1
..Jacksonville Twp.
..Marine areas
..Camp Lejeune (pt.)
..New River Air Ste.
..Camp Geiger
..Jacksonville city
..Unincorp. area
55s737 - 54%
22,534
(13,835)
(3,799)
(4,900)
16,021
17,182
..Richlands Township
7i572_ 7%
..Richlands Town
935
.—..Unincorp.—area _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 6,637
..Stump Sound Twp.*
5i545_ 6%
..Holly Ridge Town
415
..Unincorp. area
_ _ _ 59130 _ _ _ _
..Swansboro Twp. 20i800_ 20%
..Camp Lejeune (pt.) 15,352
..Swansboro Town 1,207
..Unincorp _area _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ 4,268 _ _ _ _
..White Oak Twp. I 13j,472_ 13%
..Camp Lejeune (pt.) 5,362
..Unincorp. area 8,110
*Although part of Camp Lejeune is located within
Stump Sound Township, there is no Marine population
listed -as residing in that area.
Parts of Camp Lejeune are located in four differ-
ent townships, and Camp Geiger and the New River Air
Station are completely within Jacksonville Township.
Population by Military or Nonmilitary Area
In terms of location, 42 percent of the Onslow
County population is in the military areas of Camp
Lejeune, Camp Geiger, and the New River Air Station,
as shown by Exhibit 4.7t.
The non-military areas, accounting for the remain-
ing 58 percent of the 1970 population, is divided
into incorporated and unincorporated places. The
four incorporated places contain 18 percent of the
county population, and the unincorporated areas ac-
commodate the remaining 40 percent.
4-4
Exhibit 4.7t: Population by Military/Non-Military
Area
1970 Pop.
and %
Onslow County
103,126 -
100%
..Military Areas
..Camp Lejeune
34,549
..New River Air Station
3,799
..Camp Geiger
4,900
._Nonmilitary Areas _ _ _
_ 59=878
_58%
..Incorporated Places
18i578 -
18%
..Jacksonville City
16,021
..Richlands Town
935
..Swansboro Town
1,207
_ _._Holy Ridge Town _ _ _
_ _ 415
..Unincorporated Areas
41,300 -
40%
-----
——.—.TcTcsonville Twp.
_ -------
17,182
..Richlands Twp.
6,637
..Stump Sound Twp.
5,130
..Swansboro Twp.
4,241
..White Oak Twp.
8,110
The Jacksonville Township population is almost
equally divided into three parts, with:
..16,021 people in Jacksonville
..17,182 people in unincorporated area, and
..22,534 persons in the military portion of the
township.
Population Distribution
The population distribution within Onslow County
is shown by Exhibit 4.8m. The five townships are
named and delineated, and each small dot shown rep-
resents 100 people. The larger dots indicate con-
centrations of 1,000 people, and the solid area con-
tains the urban concentration of 59,000 people, com-
prised of Jacksonville and the adjacent military
area.
Exhibit 4.8m: Population Distribution 1970*14
. E
IE ' ' • ' RTQi;LMOE
'I f • J%�
• ' • • • K! •' :WHIT[ OAK .�{"
' WIKTE OAK
STUMP sOUKD
/ Atto+IG
U•' (_)Ge4r)
'Y77

4-5
Population Distribution
Within Jacksonville Township, 1970
The 1970 population of Jacksonville Township was unincorporated area of Jacksonville Township, and the
distributed by governmental boundaries as follows: population of each. The Jacksonville City ED's are
111-20, and the military ED's in the township are
..55,737 Jacksonville Township total population #21-23, although these ED boundaries are not shown on
..22,534 population in military area the exhibit.
..16,021 population in city of Jacksonville
..17,182 population in unincorporated areas The ten unincorporated area ED's vary in population
size from 796 people in ED 30 to 2,596 people in
Each of these three areas was further subdivided ED26A. A portion of ED26A is not shown by the exhibit,
into "enumeration districts (ED)" by the 1970 Census, but it primarily is the Hoffman Forest area. It
and Exhibit 4.9m shows the ED's (#24-33) for the appears that 3,000 to 4,000 people resided in the
Jacksonville Planning area outside the city.
Exhibit 4.9m: Population Distribution Within Jacksonville Township by Enumeration District, 1970
ED.29
I
;i
V
G
� J
T
+
EA2
SAP
NoFFHAN
Z7
1, 383
0
2,596
E
!; 26
1 939
v��w.w
EP27 1,425.
S" 1,849 \
•
'�.►
796 0•
;: • s
a sax :eA
1,224
�'+ 1,008
f
C TY t AREA s `
x
1
;
MILITARY
H ( AREAi7
1 928
3

4-6
Population Distribution
Within City of Jacksonville, 1970
In the 1970 U.S. Census of population, the City of
Jacksonville was subdivided into eighteen "enumeration
districts" (see Exhibit 4.10m) in order to provide
population counts for areas smaller than the entire
city.
The exhibit uses a 1975 Jacksonville base map to
delineate the 1970 ED's and this emphasizes the
Jacksonville areas developed since the 1970 Census.
The enumeration district with the largest popu-
lation count was ED-8A, while the smallest count was
for ED-17. Population for each enumeration district
is shown by Exhibit 4.10t.
Exhibit 4.10t: Jacksonville Population by 1970 E.D.
Enumeration
district
Population
Enumeration
district
Population
ED-8A
1,405
ED-12
1,050
ED-8B
550
ED-13
1,006
ED-8C
471
ED-14
837
ED-8D
950
ED-15
1,145
ED-8E
874
ED-16
707
ED-9
965
ED-17
387
ED-10
1,090
ED-18
542
ED-11A
929
ED-19
827
ED-11B
1,091
ED-20
1 195
18 ED's
16,021
Exhibit 4.10m: City of Jacksonville Enumeration Districts (ED's) for 1970 U.S. Census
4-6

Breakdown by Sex, 1970
4-7
Age Breakdown, 1970
Population age group breakdowns by sex and race
are shown in Exhibits 4.11t through 4.14t for
Jacksonville City and the larger areas of which it
is a part --Jacksonville Township, Onslow County,
and the state of North Carolina.
In the exhibits, Onslow County and Jacksonville
Township are shown to have a much larger number of
males than females, where the other areas have the
more usual situation of a slightly larger female
population. For instance, the 1970 Census counted
2 percent more females than males for the nation as
a whole, the state of North Carolina (see Exhi-
bit 4.15t) showed 2.2 percent more females, and the
city of Jacksonville had 3.6 percent more females.
The location of the high male military population
showed up in Jacksonville Township, with over 17 per-
cent more males, and Onslow County with over 23
percent more males. For the entire military popu-
lation within Onslow County, there were 58 percent
more males than females.
Exhibit 4.15t: Sex Percentages, 1970 Census
Area
Female
%
Male
%
Female
minus male
North Carolina
51.1%
48.9%
2.2%
Onslow County
38.3%
61.7%
-23.4%
---------
-----------------
Jacksonville Twp
---------
41.3%
---------
58.7%
-17.4%
Jacksonville City
51.8%
48.2%
3.6%
Military total
20.9%
79.1%
-58.2%
Exhibit 4.16t shows the location of the military
population by township, as well as providing an age
and sex breakdown. A majority of the total military
population is located in Jacksonville Township
(22,500 out 43,200). By sex, almost half the males
and two-thirds of the females are located in
Jacksonville Township.
If the male military population in group barracks
were subtracted from the population, there would be
a 1 to 2 percent majority of females in Onslow County
and each of the townships*5, closely matching state
and national figures.
The large concentration of male Marines (almost
29,000 as shown by Exhibit 4.16t) in group quarters
substantially affects age breakdowns, especially the
grouping of 18 to 64 years. As shown by Exhibit 4.17t,
Onslow County and Jacksonville Township have a higher
percentage of population in the 18-64 years of age
group than does the state as a whole, or the city of
Jacksonville. As would be expected, this means that
the percentage under 18 years and over 65 years in
the county and township are lower than the state and
Jacksonville City.
Exhibit 4.17t: Age Percentages, 1970 U.S. Census*5
Area
Under 18
18-64
65 yrs +
North Carolina
*1,761-35%
*2,907-57%
*414-8%
Onslow County
33,305-32%
67,417-65%
2,404-2%
Jax Township
18,814-34%
35,868-64%
1,055-2%
Jax City
6,199-39%
9,330-58%
492-3%
Military total
9,656-22X
33,592-78%
0-OX
*add 000
However, if the 43,248 military personnel, and their
dependents living on military bases are deducted from
the population figures, the revised percentages show
very little difference between the County and its two
subdivisions (Exhibit 4.18t). In comparison to the
state, all three have about five percent fewer persons
under 18, and about five percent more persons over
18 years of age.
Exhibit 4.18t: Age Percentages Without Military *5
Under 18
Over 18
Total
North Carolina
*1,761-35%
*3,321-65%
*5,082-100%
Onslow County
23,649-40%
------------
36,229-60%
------------
59,878-100%
-----------
------------
Jax Township
13,162-40%
20,041-60X
33,203-100X
Jacksonville
6,119-39%
9,822-61%
16,021-100X
*add 000
Exhibit 4.16t: Military Population by Age and Sex for Townships, 1970 U.S. Census*5
Under 18 years
Over 18 years
14
Total
Area
Breakdown
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
..X of total
13%
10%
22%
66%
11%
78%
79%
21%
100%
Military total
5,542
--------
4,114
9,656
28,668
4,924
--------
33,592
---------
34,210
-------
9,038
---------
43,248
----------
--------------------
..Camp Lejeune total
4,725
---------
31473
-------
8,198
-------
22,171
4,180
26,351
26,896
7,653
34,549
..Jax Township
2,230
1,964
4,194
6,893
2,748
9,641
9,123
4,712
13,835
..Swansboro Twp.
962
45
1,007
14,120
225
14,345
15,082
270
15,352
..White Oak Twp.
1,533
1,464
2,997
1,158
1,207
2,365
2,691
2,671
5,362
..New River -Geiger
(Jax)
817
641
1,458
6,497
744
7,241
. 7,314
1,385
8,699
Jax Township total
3,047
2,605
5,652
13,390
3,492
16,882
16,437
6,097
22,534
4-7

4-8
Exhibit 4.11t:City of Jacksonville Age Breakdown by Sex and Race, 1970 U.S. Census
Age
White
Negro & Others
Totals
Breakdown
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Both
%
Total _ _ _ _ _
_6i775 _
7,117 _
_ 948
_ _1=181
_7i723 _ _
_ _j,2�9 L
_ 16s021 _
100
..Under 5 yrs
701
654
118
135
819
789
1,608
10
..5 - 14 yrs
1,536
1,489
284
311
1,820
1,800
3,620
23
..15 - 24 yrs
1,579
1,688
168
205
1,747
1,893
3,640
23
_.25 _34 yrs _
_ _935
1,004 _
137_
_ 220
1i072 _
_ 1i224
_ _2i296
14
..35 - 44 yrs
827
926
109
152
936
1,078
2,014
13
..45 - 54 yrs
715
751
55
54
770
805
1,575
10
..55 - 64 yrs
310
345
52
69
362
414
776
5
..65 and over
172
260
25
35
197
295
492
3
Exhibit 4.12t: Jacksonville Township Age Breakdown by Sex and Race, 1970 U.S. Census
Age
White
Negro & Others
Totals
Breakdown
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Both
%
Total _ _ _ _ _
27.0 7_ _
18,698 _
5i286
_ 4OL4.
32A593 _ _
_ _ 23j 44 _
_ _ SSi637
100
..Under 5 yrs
2,475
2,322
515
647
2,990
2,969
5,959
11
..5 - 14 yrs
4,029
3,841
1,044
1,074
5,073
4,915
9,988
18
.15 - 24 yrs
.
13,284
5,338
2,315
925
15,599
6,263
21,862
39
..25 - 34 yrs _ _
_3i446 _
3,002 _
_ 636
_ _ 752_
4kLC82 _ _
_ _ 3s754 _
_ _ _71836 _
_14
..35 - 44 yrs
1,965
1,814
340
448
2,305
2,262
4,567
8
..45 - 54 yrs
1,200
1,249
196
208
1,396
1,457
2,853
5
..55 - 64 yrs
571
648
129
169
700
817
1,517
3
..65 and over
337
484
ill
123
448
607
1,055
2 .01
Exhibit 4.13t: Onslow County Age Breakdown by Sex and Race, 1970 U.S. Census
Age
White
Negro & Others
Totals
Breakdown
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Both
%
Total _ _ _ _ _
53s64C _
32,677 _
10i009
_ _6:800
63i649 _ _
_ _ 39i477_ _
_ _1031126_ _
100
..Under 5 yrs
4,056
3,772
880
901
4,936
4,673
9,609
9
..5 - 14 yrs
7,508
7,077
1,720
1,732
9,228
8,809
18,037
17
..15 - 24 yrs
28,006
8,442
5,078
1,401
33,084
9,843
42,927
42
..25 -.34 yrs _ _
5z761 _
5,152 _
928
_ 1L086
6=689_ _ _
_ _ 6i238 _
_ _ 12i927
13
..35 - 44 yrs
3,923
3,429
583
737
4,506
4,166
8,672
8
..45 - 54 yrs
2,304
2,317
356
391
2,660
2,708
5,368
5
..55 - 64 yrs
1,223
1,382
259
318
1,482
1,700
3,182
3
..65 and over
859
1,106
205
234
1,064
1,340
2,404
2
Exhibit 4.14t: State of North Carolina Age Breakdown by Sex and Race, 1970 U.S. Census*5
Age
White
Negro & Others
Totals
Breakdown
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Both
%
Total _ _ _ _ _
12915i709
1,975,801
571,683
6181866
2=487i392 _
_ 2,594,667 _
_ 5s082i059
100
..Under 5 yrs
161,002
152,811
61,876
63,366
222,878
216,177
439,055
9
..5 - 14 yrs.
369,059
352,257
147,791
146,533
516,850
498,790
1,015,640
20
..15 - 24 yrs
382,938
352,177
124,158
124,387
507,096
476,564
983,660
19
..25 - 34 yrs _ _
2572.329
261,642
59,456
_ 66i241
_316i785 _
_ _ 327,883 _
_ _ 644i668
_13
..35 - 44 yrs
231,660
241,099
51,264
63,391
282,924
304,490
587,414
12
..45 - 54 yrs
217,807
232,010
51,333
59,513
269,140
291,523
560,663
11
..55 - 64 yrs
161,177
187,389
40,499
47,800
201,676
235,189
436,865
9
..65 and over
134,737
196,416
35,306
47,635
170,043
244,051
414,094
8
4-8

Race Breakdown for 1970
4-9
RECENT POPULATION ESTIMATES
By racial composition, whites accounted for 77 to
86 percent of the total population for Jacksonville
Township and City, Onslow County, and the state as
a whole. Negroes ranked next, ranging from 13 to 21
percent, and "other" races accounted for 1 to 2
percent of the population (see Exhibits 4.11t - 4.14t,
and 4.19t).
When negroes and others are grouped by govern-
mental unit, the following percentages result:
..14% in the city of Jacksonville
..18% in Jacksonville Township
..16% in Onslow County
..23% in the state of North Carolina
Exhibit 4.19t: Race Breakdown for 1970*5
Area
Population
% of Pop.
Jacksonville City _
_ _ 16.L 21 _
_ 100% _
..White
13,892
86%
..Negro
1,957
13%
..Other
172
1%
Jacksonville Tc _
_ _ 55i637_ _
_ _ _100%
..White
46,005
82%
..Negro
8,822
16%
..Other
910
2%
Onslow Co. -total-
_ _1032.126 _
_ _ _100% _
..White
86,317
84%
..Negro
15,387
15%
..Other
1,422
1%
North Carolina _
SZ,082Z059_ _
_ _ 100% _
..White
3,891,510
77%
..Negro
1,137,664
22%
..Other
52,885
1%
Exhibit 4.20t: Current Population Estimates
Population estimates of Onslow County and its
incorporated places have been made by the North
Carolina Dept. of Administration (D.O.A.), the
U.S. Census Bureau, and the Onslow County Office
of Manpower Planning (see Exhibit 4.20t).
D.O.A. Estimates for 1973
The D.O.A. estimate for Onslow County shows a 9
percent, or 8,926, decrease in population in the three
years since 1970. For the incorporated places,
however, a 5 percent increase is shown --meaning that
any population loss primarily was experienced by the
remainder of the county.
U.S. Census Estimates for 1973
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates are similar to
those of D.O.A., except that they show a higher loss
for the county (-10%) and for the nonincorporated
areas (-17%). In both estimates, Jacksonville was
the incorporated place with the highest population
gain--6%, or 939 people, by D.O.A., and 26%, or
4,226, by the Census Bureau.
Manpower Estimates for 1974*3
The Onslow County Office of Manpower Planning pre-
pared estimates of the 1974 county population. The
Manpower estimates are 17,800 higher than those by
the state, and 18,922 higher than those prepared by
the U.S. Census. The Manpower figures were based on
four factors:
(1) The civilian labor force growing from 18,500,
in 1970 to over 22,500 in 1974 (N.C.E.S.C.);
(2) the active duty military strength in December
of 1974 was at its highest recorded level
since the base opened in 1942;
(3) the number of electric meters installed since
1970 in residential units totaled 7,000; and
(4) births and deaths have followed the 1960-70
pattern.
1975 Flood Insurance Estimate
The February, 1975, flood insurance application sub-
mitted to the federal government by the city, estimated
the city's population at 16,962, based on a count of
5,601 dwelling units, at about three persons per unit.
This would be an increase of 941 people, or 6% since
1970.
1970
Po ulation Estimates
1970-73 Changes
'70-'74 change
Actual
1973 N.C.
1973 N.C.
1974
D.O.A.
US Census
Man ower
Popula-
Dept. of
Census
Onslow
Area
tion
Adminis.
Bureau
Manpwr.
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Onslow County _ _
103L126_
94,200 _ _
_ 93s078 _
112,000
_8j 26
-9%
-10.048
-10%
8,874
9%
..County, ex.
incorp. places
84,548
74,700
70,216
-
-9,848
-12%
-14,322
-17%
-
-
..Incorpor. places
18,578
19,500
22,862
-
922
5%
4,284
23%
-
-
-------------------
..Jacksonville
------------
16,021
-----------------
16,960
--------
20,047
---
*16,962
939
6%
4,226
26%
*941
*6%
..Holly Ridge
415
380
461
-
-35
-8%
46
11%
-
-
..Richlands
935
950
1,040
-
15
2%
105
11%
-
-
..Swansboro
1,207
1,210
1,3.4
-
3
-
107
9%
-
-
*City of Jacksonville estimate in 1975 flood insurance application.
4-9

4-10
1975 D.O.A. Estimate for Jacksonville
In May of 1975, the Jacksonville City Engineer
prepared a listing of all areas annexed to the City
of Jacksonville since the 1970 U.S. census. During
this five year period, it was found that:
...17_annexations had taken place
...894 acres was the annexed land area
...949 occupied_housing units were located in
the annexed areas and
...3,426 was the estimated annexed population, at
the national average of 3.53 persons per hous-
ing unit, plus adding 80 persons who were in
group quarters in the newly annexed areas.
...19i715 was _ the-
1975 estimated population of
the City of Jacksonville..1970 population of
16,289 plus 3,426 persons in the areas
annexed to Jacksonville since 1970.
It should be noted that the estimated increase in
Jacksonville's population was based exclusively on
annexed areas, and did not take into account any new
growth within the old City limits. If this growth
had been included, the 1975 estimate probably would
have been at least 20,000 persons -- more closely
approximating the U.S. census estimate of 20,047 for
Jacksonville in 1973.
The Jacksonville information on the annexed areas
was submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Administration (D.O.A.). In August of 1975, the
D.O.A. certified Jacksonville's population as 19i720.
1975 Jacksonville Township Estimate
In the 1970 U.S. census, Jacksonville Township had
a population of 55,737 people, or 54 percent of
Onslow County's total 103,126 population. Planning
research recently completed by the Marine Corps esti-
mates that 68 per cent of the County's 1975 popu-
lation resides in Jacksonville Township, but without
any of this growth having occurred in the Marine
portion of the Township.
On this basis, the 1975_p2pu1ation of Jacksonville
Township would be 76i160weople, or 6877 the
112,000 people estimated for 1974 for Onslow County
by the Manpower agency. In the five year period:
...Jax Twp. would have increased by 20,263 persons,
or 36%;
...The remainder of Onslow County would have lost
11,389 persons, or a 24% decrease; and
...Onslow County would have increased by 8,874,
or 9%.
For this tremendous increase to have occurred
within the Township, in a five year period, all of
the County's estimated real growth would have had to
locate in the Township -- plus over 11,000 people
would have had to move from the other Onslow Town-
ships into Jacksonville Township. Unless further
detailed substantiation can be secured, it appears
that the 1975 Township estimate of 76,160 (or 68%
of the County's total) is excessive and a far more
conservative estimate would be preferable. If one
4-10
assumed that most of the County's estimated growth
occurred in Jacksonville Township, the 1970-75 in-
crease would be approximately 8,000 persons (or 14%),
for a total of 63,737 pep le.
An increase of 8,000 persons for the Township
could be divided between:
...Jacksonville City, with a 3,426 increase
...Brynn Marr, with a 3,000 increase, and
...The Twp. remainder, with a 1,574 increase.
Estimates To Be Used For 1975
After reviewing the various 1975 estimates for
the County, Township, and City, it was decided to
use those shown in Exhibit 4.21t.
Exh. 4.21t: Population Estimates To Be Used For 1975
Area
1970
1975
1970-75
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
..Onslow Co.
103,126
100
112,000
100
8,874
9
----------
..Co. remain
-------
47,389
----
46
--------
48,263
---
43
------
874
---
2
..Jax. Twp.
----------
55,737
--------
54
----
63,737
--------
57
---
8,000
------
14
---
..Jax City
16,021
16
20,000
18
3,979
25
..Marines
22,534
22
22,534
20
0
0
..Unicorp.
17,182
17
21,203
19
4,021
23
The Onslow_County estimate_of 112,000 2e2p e in
1975 approximates the estimate of the county Manpower
office for 1974.
The Jacksonville_ Township figure of 63i737 people
te estimas that about 8,000 persons were added between
1970-75, while only 874 persons were added in the re-
mainder of the county.
The Jacksonville_ City estimate of 20i000 is based
on the recently approved D.O.A. figure. The popu-
lation in the Marine Corps portion of Jacksonville
Twp. is estimated not to have changed, and the
unincorporated area (which would include Brynn Marr)
is estimated to be 21i203_Persons. Each of these
three subdivisions of the township account for about
one-third of the Township's total population.

4-11
THE JACKSONVILLE AREA ECONOMY
INTRODUCTION
The economy of the Jacksonville area had always
been oriented to agriculture and fishing until the
development of the Marine Base in the 1940's and
1950's. The military operations not only created
civilian jobs on the base, but also generated the need
for increased services of many kinds outside the base.
One effect of the Marine Base on the Jacksonville
economy is emphasized by the per capita income in past
years for Onslow County:
..$1,932 in 1959,
..$2,210 in 1965, and
..$3,364 in 1968.
In each of these years, this was the highest per
capita income of any of the eastern North Carolina
counties.
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, 1960
In 1960, the influence of the Marine Base also was
evident in terms of the Onslow County employment dis-
tribution by type of industry, as shown by Exhibit
4.22t. Whereas the state had only 13 to 16 percent
of its employment in retail trade, Jacksonville and
Onslow County ranged between 21 and 31 percent.
Exhibit 4.22t; 1960 Employment by Industry*
Industry
group
North
Carolina %
Onslow
County
%
Jacksonville
%
Urban
Total
Agriculture,
forestry/fish.
1.0
13.0
12.1
0.0
-------------
Mining and
-----
------
--------
------------
quarrying
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
Construction
5.5
6.1
7.3
4.0
Manufacturing
31.3
31.7
8.8
8.4
Transportation,
communication,
and utilities
5.9
4.6
4.2
5.6
Wholesale
trade
3.7
2.7
1.7
2.0
Retail trade
15.9
13.3
21.5
30.8
-------- ------
Finance, insur-
-----
------
---------
-------------
ance, and real
estate
4.0
2.7
2.5
6.0
Service
T
industries
32.6
25.7
41.8
43.2
*U.S. Census of Population, 1960, North Carolina
General Social and Economic Characteristics.
4-11
Employment in service industries showed a similar rela-
tionship, with Jacksonville and Onslow County ranging
from 42 to 43 percent, while the state range was much
lower at 26 to 33 percent.
In a reverse way, the employment figures again
emphasized local dependence upon the military facil-
ities. Although the state averaged about 31 percent
of all employment representing manufacturing jobs,
Jacksonville and Onslow County had only 8 to 9 per-
cent of its jobs accounted for by manufacturing.
LABOR FORCE TRENDS
Past labor force trends are shown by Exhibit 4.23t.
In the five years between 1965 and 1970, the labor
force grew by 2,839 or 18%-the number employed
increased by 2,451 or 17%-and unemployment grew by
388 or 48%.
Exhibit 4.23t: Labor Force Trends for Onslow County
Item
Number and Percent
1965
1967
1970
Civilian Labor
Force
..Employed
15,620-100
14,808-94.8
17,749-100
16,844-94.9
18,459-100
17,259-93.
..Unemployed
812-5.2
905-5.1
1,200-6.5
1970 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
Onslow County's 1970 employment was dominated by
nonmanufacturing, with trade and services each
accounting for about one fourth of the total (Exhibit
4.24t.
Exhibit 4.24t: Employment by Industry, 1970
Industry
Number
%
Total Employment
17,259
100%
Agricultural
- 889
5%
Nonagricultural
16,370
95%
------------ ------ -
..Manufacturing
-----------------
1,738
------------
10%
..Nonmanufacturing
14,632
85%
...Construction
1,190
--------------
7%
...TCU*
1,169
7%
...Trade
4,610
27%
...FIRE**
781
5%
...Services
3,774
22%
...Other
775
5%
..Government
2,333
14%
*Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
**Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

4-12
EXISTING LAND USE*
INTRODUCTION
To accommodate the needs of its 20,000 citizens
and others in 1975, the City of Jacksonville has:
...5,600 dwelling units (3.5 persons per unit)
... 73 miles of streets (or 20 feet per person)
...and almost 5 square miles of urban development.
The different uses made of the land in Jacksonville
City, as well as that for the area outside the City
and the Jacksonville Planning Area, are shown by
Exhibits 4.25t and 4.26m. The delineation of the
three areas is shown by Exhibit 4.27m.
--------------
*The technical procedure used to make the land use
measurements, and other detailed land use data is
included in Appendix "B".
Three -fourths of —the —land in Jacksonville is
developed with urban activities. Of the remaining
undeveloped land, about half is water or wetland and
the other half is forest or vacant urban parcels.
In the portion of the Planning Area outside
Jacksonville, however, 83 percent of the land is
undeveloped and is mostly classified as forest land.
Jacksonville has over twice as much urbanized
land and four times more residential land than the
adjoining area, but it is interesting to note that the
adjacent 'outside" area has:
Exhibit 4.25t: Land Use for Jacksonville Planning Area, 1975
...9 times more mobile home land
...about 30% more commercial land
...about 20% more industrial land
...6 times more urban -type vacant parcels ready
for development
Acres
% of each area
% of Plan. Area Total
Land
Jackson-
Ouside
Total
Jackson-
Outside
Total
Jackson-
Outside
Total
Use
ville
Jackson-
Plan.
ville
Jackson-
Plan.
ville
Jackson.
Plan.
Category
Cityville
Area
Cit
ville
Area
Cit
ville
Area
TOTAL LAND USE ACRES
4.006
7,971
11.977
100%
100%
100X
1 33%
67%
100%
..TOTAL URBAN DEVEL.
3,056
_ 1,349 _
4kL OL..
76 — _
— 17_ — _
37 —
_26 _ _
_ _ 11 _
_ 37
—Residential Total
1,795
442
2,237
45
6
19
15
4
19
..Single Family
1,560
347
1,907
39
4
16
13
_5
1�
..Apartments
227
34
261
6
0.4
2
2
0
2
..Mobile Homes
7 _ _
_ _ —61 _
_ _ 68_
_ 0.2 _
_ 1 — _
— 1 _
_ 0 — _
— _ 1 _
_ _ 1
..Commercial
263
338
601
7
4
5
2
3
5
....Indust _____
34__
___34_
__68
_1
_ 1 __-1—
0
_— 0 _
1
...Trans, Comm,
& Util.
699
361
1,060
17
5
9
6
3
9
.....Streets
571
299
870
14
4
7
S
2
7
::::::Rail _& Util.
128
62
190
3
1
2
1
1
2
....Govt., Institu. _
— 242 _ _
_ _ 173 _
415
_ 6 _ _
_ —2 — _
— 3 _
2
_ _ 1 _
3
...Culture, Enter-
tainment & Recre.
23
2
25
1
0
0.2
0
0
0
..TOTAL UNDEVELOPED
950 _ _
_ 6,622 _
_7s572
_24 _ _
_ 83 _ _
63 _
— 8 _
_ — 55_ _
_ 63
....Undeveloped — — —
_ 194 _ _
_ 1,269 _
1i463
_ 5 _ _
_ 16 _ _
12 _
_ 2 _
11
12
.._.Agricultural ....18
.......33
.....
42.....
0.2 _ .......
0.4
0.4
_ 0 ......
0 _
0
....Forest Land — — _
-------
— 333 _ _
_ 4,929 _
_5i262_
8
----
_ 62 _ _
44 _
_ —3 _
41
-----
_ 44
....Water
228
162 _
390
6
_ 2
3 _
_ 2 _
_— 1 _
3
..Wetland
153
228
381
4
3
3
1
2
3
...Barren
35
0
35
1
0
0.3
0
0
0
4-12

CkAl

4-15
4-15

4-16
OVERALL LAND USE ANALYSIS
In the overall analysis of land use, each cate-
gory (as shown in Exhibit 4.25t) will be discussed
in relation to the Jacksonville Planning Area and
its two subdivisions: the City of Jacksonville
and the area outside the City.
TOTAL LAND USE AREAS
Within the entire planning area, there are
11,977 acres (or 18.7 square miles) of land and
water surface area. Of this total, one-third
(4,006 acres or 6.3 square miles) is located within
the City of Jacksonville, and the remaining two-
thirds (7,971 acres or 12.5 square miles) is located
in the area outside the City.
Total Urban Developed
Of the total Planning Area, only_37 per cent (4,405
acres or 6.9 square miles) is developed with urban
types of activities, such as homes, apartments,
stores, industry, parks, schools, streets, and simi-
lar activities. The remaining 63yer cent of the
land is not urbanized, but, rather, is either water,
wetland, barren, or used for forestry or agricultural
purposes.
Of the land which is urbanized, over two-thirds
is located within the City. The 3,056 acres (or 4.8
square miles) of City urban development represents
three -fourths (76%) of the'City's total area.
Outside the City, only 17 per cent of the land is
urbanized. This amounts to 1,349 acres or 2.1 square
miles.
Residential Land Use
About one -fifth of the land (2,237 acres or 3.5
square miles) in the Planning Area is used for resi-
dential activities, and the majority of this use is
located in the City... which has 1,795 acres or 2.8
square miles, as opposed to 442 acres or 0.7 square
miles of residential located outside the City.
When residential activities are subdivided by
single-family detached, apartments, and mobile homes,
the following results:
..Single family detached - 16 per cent, or 3
square miles, of the Planning Area is devoted
to single family detached residential ---and
over four -fifths of this is located in the
City. The City contains 2.4 square miles (39
per cent of the City's total area) of single
family, while the outside area contains 0.6
square miles (or 4 per cent of the total land
outside Jacksonville).
As shown by Exhibit 4.26m, the majority of
the single family dwellings are located in the
northern part of the community bounded by
Marine Boulevard, Gum Branch Road, Western
Boulevard, and New River.
..Apartments - Only 2 per cent, or 0.4 square
miles, of the Planning Area is occupied with
apartment residential units (including town-
4-16
houses, duplexes, fourplexes, etc) ---and the
majority of these are in the City (227 acres)
as opposed to the outside area (34 acres).
The largest concentrations of apartment units
are located in the vicinity of the Onslow and
New River shopping centers (see Exhibit 4.26m).
..Mobile Homes - Less than 1 per cent (68 acres)
of the Planning Area accommodates mobile homes,
and the majority of this activity is located
outside Jacksonville (61 acres), with only 7
acres existing in the City. Most of the mobil
homes are located at Sherwood Forest on Marine
Boulevard, northeast of Gum Branch Road; or
near U.S. 17 and 258, west of New River.
Commercial Land Use
About 5 per cent (601 acres) of the land in the
Planning Area is devoted to commercial use, with two -
fifths of it being located in the City and three -
fifths located outside.
Commercial land use generally is located, as
shown by Exhibit 4.26m, according to one of three
patterns:
..:As_strip develppment along arterial streets,
such as Marine Boulevard (US17), Lejeune Blvd.
(NC24), Bell Fork Road, and part of Henderson
Drive.
...As�lanned sho2BinR centers, such as Onslow and
New River Malls. Onslow Drive, north of Marine
Blvd. exhibits a combination of strip and plan-
ned center development.
...Ori asyart -of-the-Downtown area.
Industrial Land Use
Less than 1 per cent (68 acres) of the Planning
Area's land is used for industrial activities, and
it is locationally distributed equally, at 34 acres
each, for the City and the outside area.
As shown by Exhibit 4.26m, most of the industrial
activity is located along the railroad tracks, either
in the general Downtown area, northeast of Onslow
Drive along Marine Blvd., or along Marine Blvd. north-
east of Western Blvd.
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Most of these land uses are linear, ribbon-like
strips of land that are used for streets, railroads,
or utility rights -of -way. Except for residential
uses, this activity is the community's largest land
user ---occupying 9 per cent (1,060 acres or 1.7
square miles) of the land in the Planning Area.
About two-thirds of this land use is located with-
in the City (699 acres) where the most extensive
urbanization exists. On Exhibit 4.26m, streets have
not been colored and they are seen as long, thin
ribbons of white. Railroads and utilities (electric
transmission lines) are shown as long thin ribbons

4-17
in gray color. Within the Planning Area, streets
account for over 80 per cent of the land in this over-
all category.
In addition to acreage in street use, another im-
portant characteristic is the street mileage needed
to serve an urban area. Within the Planning Area
are 870 acres of streets, divided between the City
(571 acres) and the outside area (299 acres).
In terms of lineal miles of street, there are 106
miles in the Planning Area, with 73 miles being in
the City and 33 miles located outside the City (see
Exhibit 4.28t). In the exhibit, a separation is
made between the 100 foot right-of-way arterial
Exhibit 4.28t: Planning Area Street Mileage Breakdown
Street
Planning
Jacksonville
Outside
Right -of -Way
Area Total
City
Jacksonville
Total
miles
105.9miles
72.6m.
33.2m.
x
100%
69%
31%
..60 ft.
miles
85.3miles
63.8m.
21.4m.
ROW
%
81%
60%
20%
•.100 ft.
miles
20.6miles
8.8m.
11.8m.
IL ROW
x
19%
9%
11%
streets which should be carrying all of the through
traffic, and the 60 foot right-of-way local streets
for service to non -through traffic.
The arterial streets are primarily the federal
and and State designated routes such as U.S. 17
(Marine Blvd.), N.C. 24 (Lejeune Blvd.), and U.S. 258.
Other included streets would be Onslow-Henderson
Drives, Hargett St. -Country Club Road, Gum Branch
Road, Bell Fork Road, and Western Blvd. Within the
Planning Area, 19 per cent of the streets are of the
arterial type, with Jacksonville accommodating 9 per
cent, and the remaining 11 per cent being located
outside the City.
Local streets are those used primarily by vehicles
as*they are about to reach their destination. Their
traffic volumes and permitted speed are lower than
for arterials, and driveway intersections are quite
frequent (whereas they should not exist, generally
speaking, along arterials). Within the Planning
Area, 81 per cent of the streets are of the local
type, with 60 per cent of these located in the City.
Government and Institutional Use
These land uses include buildings for City,
County, State, or Federal use; schools, churches,
cemeteries, hospitals, etc. About 3 per cent
(415 acres) of the Planning Area is occupied by these
activities ---of which, 242 acres is located within
the City, and 173 is outside the City.
4-17
As shown by Exhibit 4.26m; these uses are dis-
persed throughout the Planning Area, with the most
apparent land uses being elementary, junior high,
and senior high schools.
Cultural, Entertainment and Recreational Use
These land used include libraries, museums, golf
courses, parks, tennis courts, swimming pools, and
similar uses.
Within the Planning Area, there are only 25 acres
devoted to these activities, with 23 acres being lo-
cated inside the City, and 2 acres outside. Exhibit
4.26m shows these locations primarily to be park
sites dispersed throughout the area.
Total Undeveloped Land
Undeveloped land is considered to be any area
not yet urbanized with buildings and streets, within
the Planning Area, the majority of the land (63% or
almost 12 square miles) is of this character. Most
of this is forest land (44% or 8 square miles) or urban
type -undeveloped land (12% or 2.3 square miles).
Of the 12 square miles of undeveloped, or non -
urbanized land, only 1.5 square miles are within
the City of Jacksonville ---and 0.6 square miles of
this is devoted to water (New River and its tribu-
taries) or wetland use. This leaves only 569 acres
(slightly less than a square mile) of potentially
developable land within the City -- which might
be sufficient to accommodate another 4,000 to
5,000 people. Thus, if the City is to add any
significant future growth, it must occur through
the process of annexing additional land to the
existing City.
Urban -Type Undeveloped Land Use
Within the Planning Area, 12 per cent (2.3 sq. mi.)
of the surface area falls into the undeveloped cate-
gory. Most of this urban type undeveloped land is
either south of Marine Blvd., between Bell Fork
Road and Western Blvd.; or south of Marine Blvd.,
between New River and Brinson Creek.
This type of land includes vacant subdivision
lots, and any other land ready for buildings to
be placed thereon. It does not include land that
is "open" and being used for agricultural purposes.
Agricultural Land Use
Only 42 acres of land are used for cropland or
farming in the Planning Area, and the majority of
this (33 acres) is outside the City.
Forest Land
As shown by Exhibit 4.26m, the majority of the
Planning Area's undeveloped land is used for Forestry
purposes (8.2 sq. miles), and generally is owned by
Weyerhauser Corporation. This type of land use is
located primarily west, north and east of the exist-
ing urbanized area.

4-18
Water Area
Slightly over 3 per cent of the Planning Area is
devoted to water areas, primarily the New River.
Over half of this is within the City limits of
Jacksonville.
Wetland Area
Wetlands include marshes, swamps, and other areas
receiving overflow or topographic support from the
following stream water areas. As shown by Exhibit
4.26m, most of these areas are adjacent to the banks
of New River. Of the 381 acres in this category,
153 are in the City and 228 are outside the City.
Barren Area
Barren areas, by definition of the Coastal
Resources Commission, includes beaches, quarries,
and graded land for building construction ---which
offers some conflict with the urban -type undeveloped
land category. Regardless, there is only 35 acres of
this land use in the Planning Area, and all of it is
located within the City on the old section of Gum
Branch Road.
SPECIAL LAND USE ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to identify any
significant land use compatibility problems, any
problems resulting from unplanned development, any
areas expected to experience major land use changes
in the future, and any areas of environmental concern.
Land Use Compatibility Problems
When different types of land uses (homes, stores,
industries, streets, etc.) can exist without harming
each other in a mixed or adjacent environment, they
can be assumed to be compatible. They are incompat-
ible, however, if the presence of one deteriorates
or harms the environment of another.
There is no standard formula that can be applied
in all situations in order to secure the desired
compatibility. At times, all 'uses can be mixed in a
sensitive physical, social, and economic design that
will produce an acceptable level of compatibility.
At other times, complete failure and incompatibility
result from the smallest of efforts to integrate only
two dissimiliar land use activities.
Generally speaking, manufacturing and processing
types of industrial uses are the urban activities
which can exist in, and create a more harsh environ-
ment than residential or commercial -service activities.
In more recent years, however, some industrial plants
have been developed in planned industrial subdivisions,
with a park type of atmosphere, making them very
acceptable as neighbors.
The most sophisticated, or highest economic return
land use activities are retail sale of goods and pro-
vision of services. In serving the public they strive
for locations that are highly visible and highly ac-
cessible to large volumes of auto traffic --especially
along arterial streets and at freeway intersections.
In many instances, commercian establishments that
4-18
cater to the auto in one way or another (auto repair,
auto junkyards, drive in theaters and restaurants,
etc.) often exist in, and help create, a more harsh
environment than do many industrial activities.
The low man on the land use economic totem -pole
is residential, since its land value generally is
lower than that for industrial and commercial use.
Residential uses generally demand an environment
that is the opposite of the previous two land uses.
The function of a residential area is to provide
places for families and others to sleep, eat, play,
raise children, entertain, etc; and these activities
are best performed in an area that is free of noise
and air pollution, that has low volume and low speed
traffic, has much plantlife and is surrounded by
similar uses.
Commercial and industrial uses, on the other hand,
often require or create an opposite environment.
Thus, too often when residential uses are unproperly
mixed with commercial and industrial activities or
arterial streets, the results are a reduction in the
livability quality of the residential uses.
Thus, Jacksonville's land use compatibility prob-
lems are the same as those experienced by practically
every other city in the United States. They include:
... ppr2p�er street design that forces through
traffic onto local residential streets
(Henderson, for instance);
...impr�er street and commercial area design
—------ — --
that permits commercial driveway— — inter-
-
sections every fifty feet or so along arte-
rial streets, thereby making the arterial
much more susceptible to unnecessary auto
accidents and reducing its capacity to
effectively move traffic (Marine, or Lejeune
Blvds., for instance);
...!npraer location of residential units along
arterial streets and permitting frequent drive-
way access. Generally speaking, the owners of
these residential units sooner or later will
request a change to commercial zoning, noting
that the City's high volume of traffic on the
adjacent arterial as having made their property
unsafe and unlivable for residential purposes.
(Henderson, Western Blvd., or Johnson Blvd.,
for instance) ;
.improaer conservation of the natural environ-
ment whenever urbanization replaces open or
agricultural land. Buildings in any of the
Jacksonville Flood Plains illustrate this in-
compatability whenever heavy rains flow down
the natural drainage lines and, in the
process, flood properties and buildings which
have encroached upon the flood plain. In
some recent development, more attention has
been given to preserving trees, other plant -
life, flood plains, etc.
Problems Resulting
From Unplanned Development
The Coastal Resource Commission guidelines also
ask for a recitation of problems resulting from un-
planned development. Again, this kind of problem in

4-19
Jacksonville would be similar to that of most U.S.
cities ---since the original question asks "do you
have problems that have resulted from some devel-
opment not conforming to the community's adopted
plans ---or a lack of plans?"
Very few American communities have up-to-date and
comprehensive community development plans --so, there
often are no plans to which new development can even
attempt to conform. At other times, any existing
plans are incomplete, out-of-date, or forgotten
about ---so that, again, there are no active guide-
lines for new development to follow or disregard.
To the extent that development has occurred
with no reference to non -existing community plans,
there are resulting problems in the Jacksonville
area which are similar to other American cities.
They include the land use compatability problems
previously described, as well as:
...a lack of neighborhood parks within walk-
ing distance of all residential units;
...a need for larger community parks within
a ten to fifteen minute maximum driving
time of residents;
...pressure created on the original Downtown Area
f in Jacksonville by the development ohew shop-
ping centers and strip commercial along arterial
streets, as well as the lack of Downtown action
policy;
...the development of areas adjacent to, or near,
the City ---but with the City having nojuris_
dictional control over the type of development.
This fragmentation of jurisdiction between
City, Township, County, and Marine Corps
presents an extreme challenge to Jacksonville
officials in trying to properly guide its
future growth in respect to land use, transpor-
tation, community facilities, and utilities;
and
..the problem of housing, and services for fami-
lies of insufficient income to be able to
privately purchase adequate housing within the
community.
Quality Features To Recognize
On the other hand, it should be recognized that
there are numerous features in the community that
describe good or high quality development, such as:
...a good recreational_program for the facilities
in existence;
..good programs and facilities for police and
fire_p.rotecticn;
..a liberal distribution of elementary, junior
high, and 1i&1 school facilities within the
Jacksonville area, provided by the County School
Board. Cooperation with the City's recreation
program also contributes to good community
quality.
...numerous local streets with proper curbs butter,
and sidewalk to help control storm water, provide
for pedestrian safety, minimize cost of repairs
and maintenance, and add to the aesthetic quali-
ties of the community; 4-19
.facilities for water su2Py and sewage disposal,
either in existence, under construction, or
under active planning preparation.
...lame scale planned development for adjacent,
or nearby, land that offers better oppor-
tunities for meeting the comprehensive needs of
new citizens than does the old piecemeal and
small development approach;
...cooperation of the Marine Base with City and
County officials in numerous areas in recogni-
tion of the vital relationship between the
military and civilian responsibilities to
achieve mutual benefits; and
...increasingcooperation and coordination between
the City and County is recognition of the mu-
tual interdependency applying to the welfare of
the citizens in each jurisdiction.
Areas Expected To Undergo
Major Land Use Changes In Future
The areas expected to undergo major land use
changes in the future would be, primarily, the land
which at present is vacant, open, or in forestry use
as shown by Exhibit 4.26m.
In the future, it is estimated that this land will
be transformed into urbanized areas with homes,
streets, business, schools, parks, and similar uses
in order to accommodate a growing population. The
undeveloped areas expected to undergo this change are
shown by generalized location on Exhibit 4.29m.
Areas of Environmental Concern
The areas of environmental concern within the
Jacksonville Planning Area would include, primarily,
the flood plain areas for the discharge of storm
water, and one historic building in the Downtown
area. This will be discussed more fully in
Chapter V: "CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT."
Any impact of development on estuarine water re-
sources primarily would relate to additional storm
water runoff and sewage treatment plant effluent
entering the New River and flowing into the estuary.
Such effects should be minimized, however, by im-
plementation of the 201 Plan proposals and by ad-
ministration of the Flood Plain and Land Subdivision
regulations.

4-20
4-20

4-21
CURRENT PLANS & POLICIES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to list and sum-
marize existing plans and policies, to list and de-
scribe existing means of enforcing any land use
regulations, and to list and summarize relevant
State and federal regulations affecting coastal land
and water resources.
EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES
Utilities in a community generally are considered
to be those which provide electricity, gas, water,
and telephone supply, as well as sewage and storm
water disposal.
These services are privately provided for tele-
phone, gas, and electricity ---and these private
utility companies maintain policies of trying to pro-
vide their service to anyone requesting such.
The City of Jacksonville provides the utility
services for water supply, and sewage and storm water
disposal. For water supply (which will be described
in more detail in Chapter V), the City is presently
carrying out a construction program to greatly
strengthen this service. For sewage disposal, a long
range "201" plan is presently under preparation to
coordinate the needs for Jacksonville, as well as a
much larger surrounding area. For storm water
management, the City has submitted a "Flood Insurance
Application" to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). As part of this program,
the City will regulate future building development
or redevelopment to prevent the creation of new
flooding problems or intensification of flooding
problems in existing areas.
Policies are being studied for the City owned
utilities in terms of extending services to non -City
areas, with or without annexation. In mid-1975, for
instance, the City had 5,581 connections to their
Water Supply System, but only 432 (about 8%) were
outside the City.
The existing plans and studies for the Jacksonville
area are listed in the Bibliography of Appendix "A".
These reports include:
...Soil studies by the Soil Conservation Service
...Population studies or reports by the N.C. Dept.
of Administration and Dept. of Natural and
Economic Resources, the Onslow County Planning
Department and Manpower office, and the Neuse
River Council of Governments.
...Community development plans for Jacksonville by
the N.C. Dept. of Community Planning, and for
Onslow County by the County Planning Board.
...Water quality manay ment�lana for the Jack-
sonvillea201 Study Area, and for Region "P"
of which Onslow County is a part.
...Thoroughfareylans for Jacksonville by the
North Carolina State Highway Commission.
...Preliminary Flood and Drainage Plan for
Onslow County, prepared by the Office of
County Manager.
...Recreation Studies for Jacksonville by the
Mayor's Recreation Study Commission and Con-
servation District, for Onslow County by the
County Planning Department and the Soil Con-
servation Service, and the State's outdoor
recreation plan.
...Water Supply System Improvement Plan for the
City of Jacksonville, prepared by G. Reynolds
Watkins Consulting Engineers.
MEANS TO ENFORCE LAND USE REGULATIONS
If plans and policies are to be of practical
assistance to a community, methods must be estab-
lished to enforce their implementation. In the
Jacksonville Area, some of the means employed to en-
force land use regulations include the following:
..Zoning Ordinance - a Zoning Ordinance helps to
implement community plans and policies pri-
marily in regard to the private uses made of
land (residential, commercial, and industrial).
The map portion of the Zoning Ordinance divides
the community into zones or districts, and
thereby establishes what property may be used
for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes.
The text portion of the Zoning Ordinance de-
scribes, for each zone, the specific type of
land use permitted, what size lot is required,
the portion of the lot's ground area that can
be built upon and the portions that must re-
main open, the permitted height and bulk of
any building constructed on the lot, and the
permitted population density (in terms of the
number of dwelling units permitted per acre).
Additional text provisions may apply to park-
ing, sign, landscaping, and other requirements.
The Jacksonville City Ordinance also has ex-
traterritorial jurisdiction that extends one mile
beyond the City limits. Enforcement is by the
Dept. of Public Works Inspection Office.
...Land Subdivision Regulations - As new land in
the community is developed with streets, build-
ings, utilities, and other urban features, Land
Subdivision Regulations may require that pro-
posals for subdividing land be submitted to,
and approved by, a Planning Board, before lots
can be sold or any type of construction begins.
These regulations offer an opportunity for
the City to insure that its plans and policies
are implemented for new streets, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, utilities, and acquisition of needed
public land for parks, schools, etc. Enforce-
ment by Dept. of Public Works Inspection Office.
...Flood Plain Regulation - Flood plain regula-
tions can help to implement community plans or
policies for protecting their natural flood
plains from building encroachment that would
not only expose the building occupants to flood
hazard, but also intensify downstream flood
4-21 potential.

4-22
The City of Jacksonville has applied to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD) for flood insurance coverage. This
coverage makes flood insurance available to
property owners at subsidized premium rates,
and covers building and building content
damages from flooding.
As part of the application, the Jackson-
ville Council adopted a resolution to the
effect that all building permits and subdivision
plans would be reviewed to insure that flood
plains would be protected from improper build-
ing encroachment. Enforcement by the Department
of Public Works Inspection Office.
..Building Code - The building code coverage for
Jacksonville enforces local policies to help
protect the public health and safety in build-
ing construction. This is achieved through
regulations designed to insure that all ele-
ments of the building construction (including
structure, electrical system, heating system,
plumbing system, etc.) are installed in such
a manner that the resulting building will be
safe for human occupancy and that the needed
heat, light, and energy will exist. Enforce-
ment is by the Building Inspector.
...Septic Tank Permits - The Onslow County Health
Department oversees regulation of septic tank
permits to insure that such installations have
sufficient septic field and soil conditions to
properly absorb sewage effluent.
...Sedimentation and Soil Erosion Control Ordi-
nance is in effect, as per the North Carolina
State model. When land clearance is proposed
for more than one acre of land, this ordinance
requires the securing of a permit to insure
safeguard controls for sedimentation and soil
erosion.
...Nuisance controls are part of the Jacksonville
City Code.
ZONING ORDINANCE IMPORTANCE
The zoning ordinance is of special importance in
the field of land use regulations because it controls
the use that _ can _be made —of anx land parcel, and it
controls the density or number of dwelling units
that can be constructed on a given land parcel.
Since this ordinance will be Jacksonville's prime
instrument to regulate future land use development,
additional review will be provided in this section.
The Jacksonville Zoning Ordinance establishes
nine zoning districts:
Residential Districts
1. ..RA-7_Residential_District, which primarily
permits single family detached dwellings
(although not specifically worded in this
manner), as well as schools, churches, and
similar uses, and home occupations.
2.... RA-6_Residential_District, which permits
same uses as RA-7, plus apartments, board-
ing houses, lodges, and similar uses.
3.... RA-5 Residential District, which permits
the same uses as RA-6, plus mobile home
parks, clinics, and charitable institutions.
4.... RA-5s Special Residential District,
4-22
which permits the same uses as in the
RA-7 zone, but has dimensional require-
ments primarily from the RA-5 zone;
and is especially oriented to grouped
single family residential development.
Apartments_and Office
5....A & 0 Apartments and Office District,
which permits offices and apartments,
and is especially oriented to transi-
tional areas around existing business
districts.
Business_ Districts
6....NB Neighborhood Business District,
primarily for business that serves
people in the immediate area, with
the building floor area restricted to
a maximum of 5,000 square feet. It
also seems to permit the RA-5 resi-
dential uses.
7.... B-1 Business —Zone #1, for uses with
a greater variety of services than
those in NB zone, including shopping
center type uses, auto repair, news-
paper offices, etc. Residential also
permitted, as per RA-5 and A & 0.
8.... B-2 Business —Zone #2, intended as a
highly concentrated building area,
permitted B-1 uses, as well as freight
terminals, storage, light processing,
and similar uses. Residential also per-
mitted as per RA-5 and A & 0.
Industrial
9....I Industrial_ District, for warehousing,
metal and woodworking, bulk petroleum,
and similar activities. Residential
also permitted as per RA-5 and A & 0.
Note: There is no agricultural, or other type
of non -urban, zoning district. Newly
annexed land falls under RA-7 zoning
until further action is taken.
Zoning Map
The zoning districts are shown on the map portion
of the Zoning Ordinance, and an official copy of the
zoning map can be reviewed in the City Engineer's
office at the Jacksonville City Hall. Exhibit 4.30m
attempts to show a generalized delineation of these
districts. No one should attempt to determine the
zoning of specific property by reference to the
exhibit; rather, only the official zoning map at
City Hall should be used for this purpose.
Residential Zoning Density
The maximum density (number of dwelling units per
acre) permitted by the Jacksonville Zoning Ordinance,
as shown by Exhibit 4:31t, ranges from 5 dwelling
units per acre (or 9,600 people per square mile) to
over 16 d.u.'s per acre (or almost 31,500 people
per square mile). Although the Zoning Ordinance
provides no density requirements for dwelling units
in non-residential zones, it would appear that two
to three times more units could be built per acre
than in the residential zones.
Existing residential development in Jacksonville
City, however, does not reflect the relatively high

4-23
Exhibit 4.31t: Residential Zoning Maximum Density
Zoning
Min.
D.U.'s
Net Acres*
Dist. S
Lot
Per
D.U.'s
D.U.'s
Persd
AC./
dwell-
Size
Gross
Per
Per
Sq.
1,000
in
S .Ft.
Acre
Acre
S .Mi.
Mile*3
D.U.
RA-7
7.000
6.2
5.0
3 200
9,600
200
RA-6
17W.u.
6,000
7.3
5.8
3,712
11,136
172
2 d.u.
8,000
10.9
8.7
5,568
16,704
115
3 d.u.
11,000
11.9
9.6
6,144
18,432
104
4 d.u.
16,000
10.9
8.7
5,568
16,704
115
10 d.u.*
34,000
12.8
10.3
6,592
19,776
97
20 d.u.
64,000
13.6
10.9
6,976
20,928
92
40 d.u.
124,000
14.1
11.2
7,168
21,504
89
RA-5
1 d.u.
5,000
8.7
7.0
4,480
13,440
143
2 d.u.
7,000
12.5
10.0
6,400
19,200
100
3 d.u.
9,000
14.5
11.6
7,424
22,272
86
4 d.u._
13,000
10.7
6,848
20,544
93
10 d.u.*
25,000
_13.4
17.4
13.9
8,896
26,688
Ti
20 d.u.
45,000
19.4
15.5
9,920
29,760
65
40 d.u.
85,000
20.5
16.4
10,496
31,488
61
Mobile home
park
8.0
-
-
-
-
RA-5s
1 d.u.
5,000,
8.7
7.0
4,480
13,440
143
The A60, NB, B-1, B-2, and I zoning districts per-
mit residential development, but no minimum lot
size or other land area per dwelling unit require-
ment is Riven.
* For RA-6, any additional dwelling unit (d.u.) above
4 d.u.'s requires an additional 3,000 sq. ft. of
lot area; in RA-5, this requirement is 2,000 sq. ft.
*
1Gross acres is based on total acreage (43,560 sq.
ft. per acre) with nothing deducted.
*
2Net acres deducts 20 per cent (8,712 sq. ft. from
each acre), leaving 80 per cent (34,848 sq. ft.)
as the "net" residential acreage.
*3Assumes
average of 3 persons per dwelling unit
density permitted by the zoning ordinance. For
instance, the land use inventory (see Exh. 4.25t)
showed 1,795 acres of land used for all types of
residential to accommodate the needs of an estimated
20,000 population. This would average out to:
....slightly over 11.2 persons per net residen-
tial; or
....slightly over 7,100 persons per square mile;
or
....about 3.7 dwelling units per acre (at 3 per-
sons per d.u.)
This would indicate that the majority of Jackson-
ville residential development has occurred on lots
much larger than the minimum permitted by the zoning
ordinance.
Future Considerations
In the near future, the Planning Board may want
to study certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance in
order to determine if they would like to recommend
any amendments to the Jacksonville City Council. Any
such changes would be oriented towards giv_ing_the
City_a better opportunity to manage its future growth,
and to help insure quality development.
4-23
Some of the areas that might be studied include the
following:
1-."Single family detached" - The RA-7 residential
zone is designed to permit only "single family
detached dwelling units." However, this is not
stated in the ordinance. Rather, Section 25-3
states only that..." the RA-7 zone is primarily
intended for residential use."
It is suggested that the following be studied
to replace the present wording: "In the RA-7
zone, the only type of residential use permitted
shall be single-family detached dwelling units".
Similar consideration might be given to Section
25.5B that deals with the RA-5 Special Residen-
tial Zone.
2._"Exclusive residential zones" - The only
two exclusive residential zones are RA-7, which
permits only single-family detached units on
7,000 square foot parcels, and RA_5s which permits
the same, but on a minimum lot area of 5,000 square
feet.
RA-6 permits single-family detached, townhouses,
duplexes, and any type of apartment development ---
with lot size related to the number of dwelling
units. RA-5 permits the same uses (with a lower
lot area requirement), in addition to permitting
mobile homes.
A different way of establishing residential
zones is to make each pertain exclusively to a
specific type of residential use, thereby pe_rmit-
tiag_the City to better gauge the number of
peqple who will need City services such as
water, supply, sewage disposal, fire protection,
etc.
...R-1A* could be only for single-family (SF)
detached units, with lot area minimum of
10,000 square feet (or whatever the domi-
nant lot size might be in a given area).
...R-lB* could be for the same SF purpose, but
with a smaller lot minimum of 7,000 sq. ft.
...R-lC could be the same, except permitting a
6,000 sq. ft. lot.
...R-lE could be the same, except permitting a
5,000 sq. ft. lot.
... R-2* could be only for duplexes (two-family
units), with a 7,000 sq. ft. or other
minimum lot size.
..R-3 could be only for townhouses, with
three or more single-family units attached
at the side, with a minimum lot area of
2,000 to 3,000 square feet, with other
requirements for open space, parking, etc.
*The 7'1" in R-1A, R-lB, etc. signifies that .these
are one -family or single-family dwelling unit
zones. R-2 signifies that duplexes, or two-
family units are permitted; and R-3 could permit
three or more family units; etc.

4-24
®1000�000
Q SCALE IN FEET
Warning: This is not the
City's Official Zoning Map,
nor is it an accurate copy
thereof. Anyone desiring
/ to know the zoning of a
particular property should
contact City Hall.
CAMP JLEJEUNE
LEGEND
Residential
RA-7 Residential District
RA-6 Residential District
RA-5 Residential District
RA5s Special Res. District
its_ & Offices
A&O Apts. &Office District
Business
9C Neighborhood Business
B-1 Business Zone #1
B-2 Business Zone lit
Industry
I Industrial District
NOTE: Areas not outlined
with black border are
P assumed to be RA-7 zoning
y districts.
J
Exhibit 4.30m
Generalized Zoning Districts in Jacksonville City
(2-'75)
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE N.C. C.A.M.A. LAND USE
4-24

4-25
...R-4 could be only for apartment buildings
containing four or more dwelling units, with
lot area related to the number of units.
...R-MH could be only for mobile home parks,
with special dimensional and density re-
quirements.
3.."Exclusive Commercial_and_Industrial Zones" - At
present, the Zoning Ordinance appears to permit
any type of residential use in the commercial
and industrial zones. Generally, it is felt
that there is a definite conflict between the
needs of these activities, and they should be
separated by exclusive zoning districts.
In a few cases, a sensitive design could re-
sult in an excellent residential -commercial
combination (such as a specialty shopping area),
but any such proposals should require submittal
of detailed plans and require special approval
of the Planning Board and/or Board of Adjustment.
4.."Residential Lot Size in Commercial_ Zones" - If
ridtial enuses are to continue as permitt
esed uses
in commercial and industrial zones, consideration
should be given to specifying minimum lot areas
per dwelling unit.
5._"Astricultural Zone" - At present, there is no
zoning district for agricultural or other non -
urban uses. All land in the planning area is
zoned for residential, commercial, or indus-
trial activities. Land that is used for agri-
culture, forestry, or similar uses generally is
zoned RA-7.
Thus, if an RA-7 type of subdivision is pro-
posed for development outside the City limits
but within the planning area, the City has no
direct legislative control to insure proper de-
velopment. This is because zoning has already
been granted, and the developer will not have
to appear before the Planning Board and City
Council for a zone change ---plus, the City cannot
require a subdivision plat since they do not
have extraterritorial jurisdiction for their
Subdivision Regulations.
A practical checkpoint does exist, however,
in the form of the availability of the City's
water and sewer service for an area outside the
City that is being contemplated for development.
Before granting such service, the City can re-
quire the property to be annexed and that its
development conform to City requirements.
In order to provide direct legislative con-
trol, the City and the Planning Board may want to
consider the creation of an "agricultural zoning
district" that would apply to all of the agri-
cultural, open, vacant, or now -urbanized land
within the planning area. Then, before any type
of urban development could take place, a request
for a zoning amendment would have to be processed
through the Planning Board and the City Council.
This would provide both groups an opportunity to
work with the developer to insure proper develop-
ment and conformance to community plans.
The zoning ordinance text provisions for an
4-25
"agricultural zone" might read somewhat like the
following:
"Section 25-9A. A -Agricultural Zone - The grin_
cipal permitted uses in this zone shall be agri-
culture, farming, dairying, stock -raising, horti-
cultural services, hunting, fishing, forestry, and
substantially similar activities.
"Other uses shall be permitted when they are cus-
tomarily accessory, clearly incidental, and subor-
dinate to the principal permitted uses. Such
accessory- uses could include a single-family de-
tached residence, tennant homes, agricultural
barns, and stables.
"The dimensional requirements of this zone shall
include (1) a ten acre minimum lot size, (2) a
250 foot minimum lot frontage, and (3) all build-
ings shall be located at least fifty feet from
any adjoining right-of-way."
6.."Automatic Zoning_of Additional Land" - Study
might be given to adding a new section to the zoning
ordinance to the effect that:
..."Any land under the jurisdiction of the
Jacksonville Zoning Ordinance that is not
specifically shown to be a part of a zoning
district on the official zoning map, shall
be considered as an A -Agricultural Zone,
until such time as official action is taken
by the Jacksonville City Council to amend
the zoning ordinance. This applies to any
land annexed to the City of Jacksonville, as
well as to any property that is within a one
mile radius of the City limits and, therefore,
within the Jacksonville Planning Area."
7.."Planni g_ rea Coverage" - At frequent intervals,
it might be desirable to check the official zoning
map to make certain that all property within the
Planning Area is designated as being in the proper
Zoning district.
8.. "Revelopment Plana - The present zoning re-
quirements for a mobile home park include the sub-
mission and approval of a plan that shows character-
istics of the proposed development.
The Planning Board and the City might want to
discuss extending this "development plan" require-
ment to include other zoning districts, especially
where the Land Subdivision Regulations are not
applicable.
9._"Subdivision extraterritorial urisdiction" - If
the present North Carolina enabling legislation for
local planning does not authorize extraterritorial
jurisdiction for land subdivision regulations (as
it does for zoning), the City may want to discuss
the possibility of requesting the State legislature
to consider making such an amendment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Appendix "E" describes the manner in which the
data was assembled and analyzed, along with a state-
ment of the major conclusions.

5-1
Chapter V
CONSTRAINTS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to gather informa-
tion on any growth constraints in the Jacksonville
area. Such information will be helpful in preparing
the land classification map of Chapter VII, and the
areas of environmental concern in Chapter VIII. The
constraints are divided into two groups; those
related to undeveloped land, and those related to
the capacity of community facilities. The outline
of these two groupings is shown below:
...Undeveloped Land_ Suitability and Potential: Analyze
the general suitability of undeveloped land to
accommodate new growth, with consideration given to:
...Physical Limitations_for Development: Areas
likely to have conditions making development
costly or causing undesirable consequences,
such as:
..Hazard Areas, including:
...Man -Made Hazards: Such as airports,
tank farms for storing flammable liquids,
etc.
...Natural Hazards: Such as ocean erosive
areas, estuarine erosive areas, and flood
hazard areas (flood plains and floodways).
...Areas with —Soil Limitations: Such as areas
presenting hazards for foundations, shallow
soils, poorly drained soils, septic tank and
other development related facilities.
...Sources of Water Supply: Including ground-
water recharge areas (bedrock and surf icial),
public water supply watersheds, and well -
fields.
...Steep Slope Areas: Those exceeding 12 per-
cent slopes.
...Fragile Areas: Areas which could be damaged
or destroyed by inappropriate or poor develop-
ment, including:
...Wetlands, frontal dunes, beaches, prime
wildlife habitat, scenic and prominent high
points, unique natural areas, estuarine
waters, and other surface waters, rivers,
lakes, or streams.
...Resource Potential Areas: Including archeo-
logical and historic sites, productive and
unique agricultural lands, potentially valuable
mineral sites, public -owned forests and parks,
and private -owned wildlife sanctuaries.
...Capacity ofmmuny itFacilities: Including Co
existing water and sewer service areas; desi.&n
capacity of existing water treatment plant, sewage
treatment plant, schools, and primary roads; and
percentage of present utilization of those facil-
ities.
Each of the constraints will be discussed in
detail in the remainder of this chapter.
5-1

5-2
HAZARD AREAS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to determine if
there are any natural or man-made hazard areas in the
Jacksonville Planning Area that could make future
development very costly or could cause undesireable
consequences.
MAN-MADE HAZARDS
There are only two areas that might be considered
as representing some degree of hazard to any future
development in their vicinity: The old airport site,
now under private operation, and portions of the
Marine Base (see Exhibit 5.1m). The airport site,
however, is expected to be replaced by a sub-
division and/or commercial development in the
near future.
NATURAL HAZARDS
The only natural hazard in the Jacksonville
Planning Area would be the flood plains, which is the
land along the New River and its tributaries that
is flooded when heavy rainfall occurs. Exhibit 5.2m
shows the flood plains as delineated by the
Jacksonville Area Soil Survey*22 and the Jacksonville
Flood Insurance Application.

5-3
5-3

5-4
SOIL LIMITATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The type of soil that exists in an area is
extremely important to a community's development --
and, expecially to new urbanization. When construc-
tion activities have not been properly related to
important characteristics of the soil, a large
number of unnecessary problems can result:
...Houses settle and cause walls to crack,
resulting in falling plaster, warped door
frames, and leaking basements;
...yards, garages, and living areas flood after
heavy rainfall;
...septic tank effluent bubbles to the ground
surface; and
...streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks crack
and become filled with pot -holes.
The proper approach to insure that these problems
to do occur in new development is to investigate the
soil limitations for.the type of development being
considered, and then making certain that these limi-
tations'are properly accommodated as part of the
construction work.
JACKSONVILLE AREA SOIL SURVEY
In 1975, Mr. A. B. Whitley, District Conserva-
tionist of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, in
cooperation with the Onslow Soil and Water Conser-
vation District, completed a "Jacksonville Area Soil
Survey." Using aerial photographs, the study delin-
eated twenty-three soil mapping units. Soil inter-
pretation sheets were prepared for each unit, des-
cribing the soil's physical and chemical properties,
suitability as a resource material, limitations
affecting selected urban -related uses, agricultural
capability, and wildlife and woodland suitability.
LIMITATIONS
. For most of the soil interpretation items, the
study ranked the mapping units in one of four levels
of limitations: Slight, moderate, severe, or very
severe limitations.* Jacksonville's planning con-
sultant, GRW Engineers, summarized this data and
transferred it to maps of the Jacksonville area,
which resulted in Exhibits 5.3m through 5.6m.
Since most of these exhibits show that "severe"
or "very severe" limitations exist for urban or
agricultural -type activities, it would be appropriate
to emphasise that this does NOT mean that all con-
struction or development is prohibited. Rather, it
means that, if an ample supply of land exists that
is better suited to the contemplated activity,.one
would be wise and more efficient to select the more
------------
*A more detailed description of the rankings and other
aspects of the Soil Survey are included in
-Appendix "D".
5-4
suitable land for development.. Since some areas,
such as Jacksonville, do not have an ample supply of
more suitable land, the only recourse, if more devel-
opment is to occur, is_to make -the -difficult -and
costly modifications needed to alter the soil or to
design a structure so as to compensate for a severe
degree of limitation.
DWELLINGS, LIGHT INDUSTRY, AND SEPTIC TANKS
Most of the undeveloped land in the Jacksonville
Planning Area has "severe" limitations for use for
dwellings, light industry, or septic tanks. The
primary. cause of the "severe" ranking for these uses,
as well as most others, is_theyroblem cf drainage.
Good drainage is difficult simply because
Jacksonville's land elevation is very close to sea
level, creating a high water table, and the topography
is relatively flat (see Exhibit 5.3m).
For dwellings, light industry, and similar con-
struction, the common problems are either a high water
table or shrink -swell characteristics of the soil. To
overcome these problems, it is necessary to install
drainage tile lines (at +80 cents per foot) approxi-
mately 100 feet on center (around $160 for a 100 x
200 foot lot), as well as add surface drainage
ditches. For septic tanks, the high water table
again is the problem. The soil is generally sandy
enough to percolate, but that is only after the
water table is lowered to a suitable level by means
of expensive drainage improvement.
ROADS, STREETS, AND AGRICULTURAL USES
Development of roads and streets, as well as
agricultural uses, also encounters severe soil limi-
tations (see Exhibit 5.4m). For streets and roads,
the common problem is the shrink -swell capacity,
which requires more stringent and expensive con-
struction methods, and sometimes requires the
expensive removal and replacement of unsuitable soils.
PLAYGROUNDS AND RECREATION AREAS
All of the undeveloped land is ranked as having
moderate or severe limitations for playgrounds and
recreation, which generally requires tile or ditch
drainage to lower the water table (Exhibit 5.5m).
Pedestrian traffic use is the most important char-
acteristic of playground use, and the high water
table simply turns playgrounds into giant mud
puddles.
WILDLIFE
The majority of the undeveloped land has only
slight or moderate limitations for wildlife, reflect-
ing the suitability of the land to sustain cover and
natural growth. This is shown by Exhibit 5.6m.

5-5
5-5

5-6
5-6

5-7
5-7

5-8
5-8

5-9
WATER SUPPLY SOURCE
INTRODUCTION
In 1972, a study was made of the Jacksonville
water supply system by G. Reynolds Watkins Consul-
ting Engineers, Inc. to include an inventory,
analysis, and projection of future needs. On the
basis of that report, the City has undertaken major
additions to its system that are now approaching com-
pletion. All of the material in this section is ex-
cerpted from the 1972 report.*
PAST AND PROJECTED WATER USAGE
According to the City's water pumping records,
the average daily water usage has increased from
1.2 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1954 when the
estimated population was 7,960--to 2.0 Mgd _(the
well field c�acity)_in 1971 when the population
had grown to an estimated 16,500. The average
maximum amount of water pumped on a single day dur-
ing this time period increased from 1.4 mgd to
2.3 mgd. These figures represent only domestic
usage.
Populationyrojections to the year 2000 were in-
cluded !,;__the report*:
...1970 at 16,021
...1980 at 18,500
...1990 at 21,300
...2000 at 24,400
...an increase of 8,379 or 52% in a 30 year period.
The 1992yrojected average daily water usage was
2.8 mgd, while the maximum daily water usage was
3.4 mgd. This would greatly exceed the 1971 well
field capacity of 2.0 mgd. Exhibit 5.7t shows the
Exhibit 5.7t: Population & Water Usage Changes
Year
Estimated &
Projected
Population
Water Usage Est.
Average
Maximum
Dail
Dail
Atyear
1954
7,960
1.2 mgd
1.4 mgd
1971
16,500
2.0 mgd
2.3 mgd
1992
-------------
21,900
------------
2.8 mgd
----------
3.4 mgd
No. changes
------------
1954-1971
8,540
0.8 mgd
0.9 mgd
1971-1992
-------------
5,400
------------
0.8 mgd
----------
1.1 mgd
% changes
------------
1954-1971
107%
67%
64%
1971-1992
33%
40%
48%
1954-1992 changes in terms of population and water
usage for the average day and the maximum day.
*"Water System Improvements for Jacksonville
North Carolina," for the City of Jacksonville,
by G. Reynolds Watkins Consulting Engineers,
Lexington, Ky., April 1972.
5-9
1972 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
The elements which comprised the Jacksonville
water supply system in 1972 included the source of
supply, treatment facilities, storage facilities,
distribution system, fire hydrants, and fire flow
requirements. Each will be discussed in'this section.
Source of Supply (1972)
The major source of water supply for the City of
Jacksonville in 1972 was Well Field #2, located ap-
proximately six miles northwest of the City along
U.S. 258, as shown by Exhibit 5.8m. The five wells
in the field had a maximum combined safe yield of
approximately 2 mgd. Pumping records indicated that
this amount of water was being pumped from the field
each day of the 1972 summer months.
The Peedee formation is the primary source of
water for Well Field #2. This formation extends into
northern North Carolina, and seems to "thicken" as it
proceeds in a northerly direction. Wells in Field 02
were spaced approximately 1,300 feet apart, and fol-
lowed the "strike line" as defined by the North
Carolina Department of Water Resources. The "strike
line" is an arbitrary line west of Jacksonville
running in a northerly direction. Wells west of
this line tend to yield good quantities of high qual-
ity water, while those to the east tend to produce
less water and of a lower quality.
A secondary source of water for Jacksonville in
1972 was Well Field ail located within the City, as
shown by Exhibit 5.8m. This field taps the Castle
Rayne formation, and produces water with a very
high hardness and an unusually high concentration
of hydrogen sulfide gas. Due to the undesirable
quality of the water from this well field, it is
used only on days when the domestic water demand
exceeds the capacity of Well Field #2.
Water Treatment Facilities (1972)
The City has a water treatment plant located on
Mill Street, which was formerly used to aerate and
chlorinate the water from Well Field O1 when it was
the only source of supply. When Well Field #2 was
established, extensive water treatment was no longer
necessary, due to the high quality of the water. As
a result, treatment operations in the plant were
suspended, and the plant now functions only as a
chlorination and pumping station.
Because of the natural softness and very high
quality of the water from Well Field U2, the only
treatment needed is chlorination. This is accomplish-
ed at two locations, a chlorine -control station lo-
cated along the supply main, and at the aeration
plant clearwell. Flouridation is not necessary
because the water naturally contains enough fluoride
to meet the requirements of the North Carolina.
Board of Health.

5-10
Exhibit 5.8m: The Well Fields That Serve as Jacksonville's Water Supply Source
ti�y� 3
4°tea
B
PROPOSED WELL
FIELD (CHLORINATION STATION
AND CLEAR WELL)
40
ati
N
NORTH
HALF MOON
EXISTING WELL
• FIELD NO. 2
,VO �
• 'y� 3
4°tea W
0
o�
n�
0
a
3
� Z N=
WS p?
er
a
•
a
—EJEuW
EXISTING WELL N+ •
FIELD N0. 1 JACKSONVILLE
5-10

5-11
Water Storage Facilities (1972)
In 1972, Jacksonville had three elevated storage
tanks in the water distribution system: a 500,000
gallon tank located on Gum Branch Road near Henderson
Drive: a 200,000 gallon tank on Marine Boulevard
at Cox Avenue; and a 200,000 gallon tank on Mill
Street behind the water treatment plant. The
Marine Boulevard tank is equipped with an.auto-
matic altitude valve, the Gum Branch Road tank is
controlled with a telemetering system, and the
water treatment plant tank is equipped with an
altitude valve.
The tank behind the water treatment plant is
valved off when the high service pumps at the
plant are running, and it is put back on the dis-
tribution system when the pumps are shut down at
the end of the work day.
The water treatment plant also has a ground
level clearwell with a storage capacity of 500,000
gallons, giving a total storage capacity of 1.4 MG
for the water system.
Water Distribution System (1972)
The water distribution system of the City is
served by a 16-inch transmission/supply main
that extends from Well Field #2 to the water
treatment plant. The water lines within the dis-
tribution system vary in size from 1 1/2 to 12 inches,
with six-inch mains as the most widely used size
in the system. The 8-inch and 10-inch lines are
located in the older sections of the City, and
12 inch lines are used to connect the outlying water
storage tanks with the pumping station at the water
treatment plant.
Fire Hydrants (1972)
A fire hydrant survey and flow test study was con-
ducted throughout the City to determine the adequacy
of the distribution system to provide fire flows.
There were approximately 325 fire hydrants on the
existing water distribution system, and 223 of these
were tested in this survey.
The static and residual pressures, and the quantity
of water discharged from a fully opened hydrant, were
measured and recorded. The condition of each hydrant
was also noted.
The present fire_flow requirements were determined
using the American Insurance Association formula.
Substituting the estimated 1972 population of 16,500
into the equation, the current fire flow demand was
approximately 4,000 gpm. This value, however, was
unattainable anywhere in the system.
To determine the ability of the water system to
provide the current fire flow requirements of
4,000 gpm, the total system requirements (domestic
use plus fire flow) also were calculated, as shown
by Exhibit 5.9t. The total required capacity for
1972 was 3.69 MG.
The actual capacity of the system was also calcu-
lated, and this value, as shown by Exhibit 5.10t
was 2.04 MG. Therefore, a deficiency of 1.54 MG
existed in the Jacksonville water system in 1972.
5-11
Exhibit 5.9t: 1972 Water System Requirements*
Item
Quanity
1.
Average Daily Consumption (1972)
2.00 MGD
2.
Average Maximum Daily Consumption
2.30 MGD
(1972)
3.
Peak Rate on Max _Dy (2.5 X 2.0)-
MG
4.
Required Fire Flow for 10 Hours
-5.00
4000 gpm
5.
Required For Fire (4000 x 60 x 10)
2.4 MG
6.
Consumption for 7 Hours - Max. Day
.67 MG
---(7/24
x 2_3),----------
7.
Consumption for 3 Hours - Peak
-----
.62 MG
Rate on Max. Da 3/24 x 5.0
8.
Total Required Ca acit for 1972
3.69 MG
To
fight a 10-hour fire.
Exhibit 5.10t: 1972 Water System Capacity
Item
1. Well Field No. 1 - Water Furnished 0.54 MG
in 10 Hr.
2. Well Field No. 2 - Water Furnished .83 MG
in 10 Hr.
3. Distribution System Storage .45 MG
(.90 X .50)
5. Actual Capacity 1 2.15 MG
PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The 1972 report proposed a number of improvements
to the Jacksonville water supply system, and the ma-.
jority of these improvements have been completed.
Future Water Supply Requirements
The 1992 water supply capacity for 21,900.peopie,.
and to fight a ten hour fire, was estimated at 4.55
million gallons (mg), as shown by Exhibit 5.11t. .If
Exhibit 5.11t: Future Capacity Requirements*
1982
1992
Item
Need
Need
1.
Average Daily Consumption
2.40
MG
2.85
MG
2.
Average Maximum Daily Con-
2.80
MG
3.30
MG
--
sum Lion _
____
____
3.
Peak Rate on Max. Day
6.00
MG
7.12
MG
4.
Require_Fire Flow
4250,.pm
4500_gpm
5.
_for _10 _
Quantity Required for Fire
2.55
M0
2.70
MG
6.
Comsumption for 7 Hrs. -
0.81
MG
0.96
MG
__
llax_DaY -
____
____
7.
Consumption for 3 Hrs. -
0.75
MG
0.89
MG
Peak Rate on Max. Da
8.
Total Required Capacity
4.11
MG
4.55
MG
9.
1972 Capacity WITHOUT
2.15
MG
2.15
MG
IMPROVEMENTS
10.
Future Deficiency WITHOUT
1.96
MG
2.40
MG
IMPROVEMENTS
*To
fight a 10-hour fire.

5-12
these improvements are not made, a deficiency of
1.96 mg is estimated for 1982 and 2.4 mg for 1992.
Water Supply Location
An increase in pumping from the existing wells
was considered for additional supply, but removal
of more water from these wells would increase the
"drawdown area" and possible cause salt water in-
trusion from the underlying geological formations.
Therefore, it was proposed to establish a new well
field as an additional source of water.
Several factors were considered in determining
the location of a new well field. Primary among
these was that the field be located near the "strike
line". It is possible to drill wells on this line,
but it is projected that the safe yield would be
less.
Another factor considered in the location was
the future potential growth direction of the City.
Since the growth direction was assumed to be gen-
erally to the north and northwest, it was felt de-
sirable to search for new well fields in the same
direction. A site along Gum Branch Road was selected
north of the City, and its location is shown by
Exhibit 5.10m.
In order to determine the suitability of the pro-
posed location and the adequacy of supply, a test
well was drilled and the quantity and quality of the
water proved to be satisfactory to meet the future
needs.
New Well Field Capacity
Based upon analysis of pumping tests from the
test well, it was proposed to drill three sets of
wells in the new well field: two sets immediately
and a third set for future demands. Each set consis-
ted of two wells, one at a depth of approximately 500
feet which taps the Peedee formation, and one at a
depth of approximately 300 feet which taps the Castle
Rayne formation. The water from the latter for-
mation generally has a high degree of hardness, but
when mixed with the soft water from the Peedee for-
mation, should produce water which has a combined
hardness of less than 100 ppm.
It was proposed that the wells be located a min-
imum of 3,000 feet apart to avoid the problems with
"drawdown" which currently exist in Well Field No. 2.
The safe yield capacity of each set of wells is
projected to be 1,000 gpm or 1.4 MGD. Using this
value, and the additional storage capacity proposed
hereinafter, the system capacity was calculated
assuming two sets of wells were drilled. The results,
given in Exhibit 5.12t, show that this arrangement
should be adequate until 1982. It is then proposed
to drill the third set of wells to supply the City
with the water needed until 1992. This phasing of
the construction will produce capacities that exceed
the required capacity for each year.
It was proposed to equip each well with a 500 gpm,
dual -driven well pump. The controls for these pumps,
as well as the controls for the pumps in the existing
well field, were located in the water treatment plant
on Mill Street. By this arrangement, all pumping
operations are controlled from one location.
Exhibit 5.12t: Future Water System Capacity
1982
1992
Item
Capacity
a acit
1.
Well Field No. 1: Water
0.54
MG
0.54 MG
Furnished in 10 Hrs. - 900
--gpm
X 600 Min._______
___---
___
2.
Well Field No. 2: Water
0.83
MG
0.83 MG
Furnished in 10 Hrs.
-1330
gpm X 600 Min.
3.-ell
___
WFieNo. 3: Water_
___
_1.20
MG
- --
1.80-MG
---
Furnished in-10 Hrs.
4.
-- -----
Clearwell Storage: 1.0 MG
----
0.67
MG
---
0.67 MG
---
X 0.67-
5.7
-
Eleva-ted Storage:-- - - 1-.9-MG-
- 0-.95-
- MG
----
0.95 MG
X 0.50
6.
Total Capacity
4.19
MG
4.79 MG
7.
Required Capacity
-4.11
MG
-4.55 MG
8. Excess System Capacity
0.08
MG
0.24 MG
A new transmission/supply main was required from the
new well field to the City. This supply main was a
16-inch pipe and connects with the existing distri-
bution system at the Gum Branch Road elevated storage
tank. The construction of this new supply line in-
sures partial water service even if there were a break
and disruption of service in the existing supply line.
Water Treatment Facilities
A new chlorination station was installed with the
new well field. It was large enough to handle the
entire 3,000 gpm flow that will eventually be pro-
duced by the well feild, and is sized and arranged
to provide additional treatment capacity as required.
The chlorination station is equipped with two chlor-
inators, one of which is used as a standby.
The North Carolina State Board of Health re-
quires a 20-minute chlorine contact time for munici-
pal water systems. A 500,000 gallon clearwell also
was constructed at the chlorination station to pro-
vide additional storage required by the total system.
Two 2,000 gpm, high service pumps were
installed to pump the water from the .:learwell
into the distribution system and elevated storage
tanks. One of these pumps serves as a standby to
insure uninterrupted service.
Water Storage Facilities
Along with the additional well field and the
resultant increase in the supply capacity of the
water system, additional elevated storage facilities
were needed to provide enough pressure in the dis-
tribution system to satisfy the requirements of the
North Carolina Fire Insurance Rating Bureau. Two,
new 500,000 gallon elevated storage tanks were con-
structed: one located on Ellis Boulevard and the
other constructed on Northwoods Park Jr. High School
grounds. The Ellis Boulevard tank has an overflow
elevation of approximately 140 feet and was equipped
with a control valve for flow control. The Northwoods
tank has an overflow elevation of approximately 142
feet and is equipped with a control valve.
5-12

5-13
Additional control valves were needed on the exist-
ing tanks due to the addition of more trunk lines and
supplying of water from different directions. The
Marine Boulevard tank no longer functions as the con-
trol tank since water is pumped directly to the Gum
Branch tank from the new well field. Therefore, con-
trol valves were required on the two existing tanks.
To limit the size of the surge wave that could be
created if these control valves slam shut, the valves
were of the slow -closing type.
Distribution System Improvements
The Jacksonville water distribution system is
generally capable of delivering ample water for the
current domestic consumption. However, because of
residential and commercial growth in certain areas
of the City, the existing water lines are not capable
of delivering sufficient fire flow as discussed pre-
viously. A major problem is head loss in the 6-inch
and smaller lines. The required residual pressure
in the lines is 20 psi. Due to flat topography, the
only head available is from the elevated storage
tanks. The static head on the distribution system
is approximately 50 psi or 115 feet of water. There-
fore, head loss in the pipes must be limited to
30 psi or 69 feet of water. In a 6-inch pipe, a
flow of 1,000 gpm will have a resulting head loss of
12.1 feet of water per 100 feet of pipe. Therefore,
6-inch pipes longer than 570 feet should be eliminated.
To strengthen the distribution system and to cor-
rect the areas with deficiencies in fire flow, it
was recommended that a loop system of 12-inch water
lines be constructed throughout the City. The
interior sections of the 12-inch loops were strengthen-
ed by using 8-inch feeder lines and short sections of
6-inch line along some of the existing 2-inch lines.
The 8-inch interior lines are the major feeder lines
between the main 12-inch arteries. The 6-inch lines
extend along streets which now have only 2-inch lines
and needed fire hydrants.
It should be noted that some of the new lines ex-
tended beyond the City limits of Jacksonville. These
lines were proposed to provide a "full -loop" system
of distribution. It was not proposed that all out-
lying lines be constructed at present, but used for
future construction as the City grows. The only
major lines outside of the City that were pro-
posed for construction at this time were the supply
lines from the new well field and the 12-inch line
along Western Boulevard to Gum Branch Road. The
latter was necessary to supply the proposed storage
tank on Ellis Boulevard and to provide the necessary
fire flow for Parkwood Elementary School.
The North Carolina Fire Insurance Rating Bureau
has also established requirements for the maximum
spacing of fire hydrants on a municipal water dis-
tribution system, recommending that a City the size
of Jacksonville space fire hydrants not farther than
800 feet apart in residential districts, and not
farther than 300 feet apart in school, hospital,
shopping centers and business districts. In order
to comply with these requirements, it was proposed
to install approximately 30 new fire hydrants
throughout the City.
The plan proposals, and the existing system, are
shown by Exhibit 5.13m.
5-13
STEEP SLOPE AREAS
There are no steep slope areas, exceeding twelve
per cent slope in the Jacksonville Planning area.
The City has been built on a shallow bluff above
New River and its many tributaries. This forms a
relative flat plain, except where it rises from
the river and along the major drainage ways.
There is a gentle upward slope in the topography
away from the river, rising from twenty feet near
the shoreline to slightly over forty feet at the
edge of the planning area near the old airport.

5-14
CxniDit D.lJm: clty or JacKsonyiile water SIIDDiy SVStem And service Area
5-14

5-15
FRAGILE AREAS
The only areas in Jacksonville which could be con-
sidered as fragile, and which could be damaged by
inappropriate development are New River, its tribu-
taries, and the flood plains. All are shown by
Exhibit 5.2m.
An inquiry to the Natural Areas Study Coordinator
of the Division of•State Parks, N.C. Department of
Natural and Economic Resources, brought the follow-
ing reply.*
"...I have checked my files for.information on
fragile or unique natural areas, and find none
specifically identified within the planning
area you defined. However habitats suitable
for the American alligator and the Red -cockaded
Woodpecker, two species on the Federal endangered
species list, do exist within Camp Lejeune."
The Atlantic Ocean beaches, frontal dunes, and
other similar fragile areas are to the south and
southeast of the City.
*Letter from Robert P. Teulings 8-11-75, Natural
Areas Study Coordinator, Division of State Parks.
5-15
RESOURCE POTENTIAL
In terms of areas with resource potential in
Jacksonville, there are no unique agricultural lands,
potentially valuable mineral sites, public owned
forests, or privately owned wildlife sanctuaries.
In searching for any historic properties or arche-
ological sites in the Jacksonville planning area,
contacts were made with the Archeology Section and
the Historic Properties Section of the North Carolina
Division of Archives and History; the Research
Laborabory of Anthropology at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill; the Department of Sociology/
Anthropology of the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington; and the Natural Areas Study Coordinator
of the North Carolina Division of State Parks.
Historic Properties
The CAMA guidelines require the inclusion of any
historic or archeological sites which are listed in
the National Register of Historic Places, sites
which are owned or assisted by the State of North
Carolina pursuant to G.S.121, or sites that have
been designated as National Historic Landmarks.
An inquiry to the N.C. Department of Archives and
History brought the following response*l:
"To date, there are no properties in Jacksonville
or within a one mile radius thereof, which fall
into the above listed categories. That does not
mean that there are no important buildings in
that area, but rather that we have not yet inven-
toried that part of the county. If we find prop-
erties which meet the criteria of the National
Register, approval to nominate will be requested
from the North Carolina Historical Commission.
Because this commission meets twice each year, the
list of properties under category O1 is expanded
semi-annually. Should any properties in the
Jacksonville area be approved by the Historical
Commission at their Fall meeting, I will let you
know."
As is the case in many urban areas, the homes and
other buildings of the early settlers have disap-
peared because of fire, disrepair, or demolition.
The Onslow Historical Society is housed in the
Pelletier House on New Bridge Street in the City.
The house is of local interest because it was the
birthplace of the first child born in Jacksonville.
Archeological Sites
An inquiry to the N.C. Division of History and
Archives received the following response*2
"...Although we have no recorded sites in the
Jacksonville area, sporadic site surveys along
the sound to the north on the mouth of New River
have located in the neighborhood of 200 aboriginal
*1Letter from Janet Seapker, 8-26-75, N.C. Division
of Archives and History.
*2Letter from Stephen Gluckman, Chief, Archeology
Section, 8-20-75.

5-16
sites. The location of Jacksonville at the head of
the New River estuary indicates that its ecology in
prehistoric times would have supported a large ab-
original population. Although many of the remains
of this occupation would have been destroyed by
the development and expansion of the City, there
are undoubtedly still some remains, and the entire
area should be regarded as archeologically
sensitive."
The state also would welcome the support of the
City of Jacksonville in conducting a countywide
inventory of archeological resources.
Another inquiry was made to the Department of
Sociology/Anthropology of the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. The reply stated in part*l:
"....We have on record several important
archeological sites within the area your
letter described and would be interested in
extending our survey in conjunction with this
Land Use Plan."
Further information on the sites was immediately
requested, but no response has been received to date.
Resource Areas Summary
From all information received to date, there are
no known historic or archeological sites within the
planning area which meet the CAMA guidelines. It
is felt by some persons, however, that such sites
do exist, and a countywide inventory needs to be
undertaken in order to make -a final determination.
*15etter from Thomas C. Loftfield, Department of
Sociology/Anthropology, 9-17-75.
5-16
CAPACITY OF FACILITIES
The purpose of this section is to determine the
capacity of various community facilities in order to
determine needs for the existing, as well as the
future, population. A review will be made of the:
..existing water and sewer service areas;
..the design capacity of existing water treat-
ment plant, sewage treatment plant, schools,
and primary roads; and
..the per cent of present utilization of
capacity for water treatment plant, sewage
treatment plant, schools, and primary roads.
EXISTING WATER
AND SEWER SERVICE AREAS
The service areas for the Jacksonville water
supply system and sanitary sewage system are shown
by Exhibits 5.13m and 5.14m. The water supply
service area map indicates existing water supply
lines and hydrants, as well as proposals for ad-
ditions or changes made by the 1972 report. The
majority of the proposals have been implemented,
and all property within the City is served by the
system.
The map of the existing sanitary sewage system
indicates that all property within the City also
is serviced by sanitary sewers.
DESIGN CAPACITY
Design capacity will be discussed for the water
treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, schools,
and primary roads.
Water Treatment Plant Capacity
In 1972, the capacity of the Jacksonville water
supply system was 2.15 mgd. At that time, the 2.15
mgd was not adequate to meet the demands for the
peak day and also meet the fire flow requirements of
the N.C. Fire Insurance Rating Bureau.
Proposals were developed in the same year to in-
crease the capacity immediately to 4.11 mgd in order
to service 21,900 people by 1992. A secondary ex-
pansion also was proposed, going to 4.55 mgd, in order
to accommodate an estimated 25,000 people by 2000. If
additional capacity should be needed, it is felt
that the newest well field could absorb additional
wells.
The 4.11 mgd expansion is almost completed, and
the present utilization of that capacity is about
50 per cent.
Sewage Treatment Plant Capacity
The City of Jacksonville is served by two waste
treatment facilities: an oxidation lagoon facility
and a trickling filter facility.

5-17
lblt S.14m: City of Jacksonville Sanitary Sewage System Service Area
5-17

5-18
Oxidation Lagoon Facility
The lagoon facility is located in the area marked
as number "11" on Exhibit 5.14m. This facility
serves development in areas 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and
17. This area generally is northwest of Mill Creek
and it encompasses 1,088 acres or 1.7 square miles
of land.
The facility was completed in 1964 and consists of
a primary lagoon with a surface area of 15 acres
in series with a secondary lagoon with a surface area
of 5 acres. Disinfection is achieved in a 4,100 cubic
feet chlorine contact pond.
The design capacity is 0.516 million gallons
per day (mgd) of domestic sewage. There is no
industrial flow to this facility. In 1973, the
average daily flow was 0.49 mpid, which was gener-
ated by an estimated 8,000 people in the service
area. This would mean that approximately 95 per
cent of the capacity is being utilized.
Trickling Filter Facility
The trickling filter sewage treatment plant is
located in the area marked as number "1" on
Exhibit 5.14m. This facility serves develop-
ment in areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and
14--- which covers 2,035 acres or 3.18 square miles
of land.
The facility was constructed in the early 1940's,
with the final improvements added in the mid 1960's.
It consists of a coarse bar screen, grit collector,
fine bar screen, primary settling tanks, high rate
fixed bed trickling filter, final settling tank,
chlorine contact chamber, anaerobic digester,
sludge drying beds, and a centrifuge.
The nominal design cAp city of the facility is
2.56_mgd. In 1973, the average daily flow to
the plant was 1.56 mgd, which was generated pri-
marily by approximately 9,000 people. Industrial
wastewater accounts for a small protion of the .
flow, but even this is primarily domestic sewage.
Approximately 61_per cent of the plant's capacity
is being used.
Proposed Trickling Filter Upgrading
The 1973 average daily flow to both Jacksonville
facilities was 2.05 mgd, while the combined plant
capacity was 3.08 mgd. This means that 67 per cent
of the combined capacity was being used.
In looking at the future needs of the Greater
Jacksonville area, the "201 study*" considered
several different alternatives for increased
sewage treatment plant capacity. The selected al-
ternative was to abandon the present lagoon facility,
and concentrate on upgrading the trickling filter
plant.
The upgraded facility would have a design
capacity of 4.0 mgd, and would accommodate the
needs of an estimated 30,000 people by 1995. It
7"Greater Jacksonville 201 Faciltiies Plan," pre-
pared for the City of Jacksonville by G. Reynolds
Watkins Consulting Engineers, 1975.
5-18
was further recommended that the facility be con-
structed as soon as possible, and definitely before
1980.
School Capacity
Public school services for the City and the re-
mainder of the County are provided by the Onslow
County Board of Education. There are twenty-three
schools in the County system, and a 1974-75 en-
rollment of approximately 15,000. In addition to
the County system, educational services also are
provided by:
...the Camp Lejeune-M.C.A.S. System, which
serves about 4,000 students, with
...1 kindergarten
...5 elementary schools
...1 junior high school
...1 senior high school
...Parochial Schools, which serve about 900
students, with two elementary schools; and
...the Coastal Carolina Community College, with
a fulltime enrollment of 500 students, and
offering two year degrees in liberal arts and
technical programs, a one year vocational pro-
gram, and various occupational short courses
through their extension service.
Present Onslow Enrollment
The present enrollment for the Onslow County Public
Schools is about 15,000. Each school and its enroll-
ment is shown by Exhibit 5.15t.
The exhibit also provides a separate listing of
the County schools which are located in the City, and
which, according to the Superintendent's office,
serve children within the Jacksonville City limits.
The eight schools within Jacksonville serve 5,751
City children, which is 39 per cent of the total
County enrollment.
Past Enrollment
The total County enrollment for the past five
years, 1970-75, remained fairly static at around
15,000, with less than a one per cent yearly fluctu-
ation (see Exhibit 5.16t.)
The Jacksonville total enrollment, for the same
period, remained around 7,000, but with a higher
fluctuation of around ten per cent, and with a
more or less steady decline in enrollment.
When the past five years are reviewed by grade
level:
.the grades 1-6 showed a decline of about
ten per cent for the County as a whole and
for Jacksonville;
..grades 7-9 remained static in the Jacksonville
area, but increased by less than ten per cent
in the entire County; and
..grades 10-12 showed an enrollment increase of

5-19
Exhibit 5.15t: Onslow County Public Schools*
School
Enrollment
Onslow County total
14,956
..Jacksonville City total _ _ _ _ _
5z751 _
..Clyde Erwin ......................
456
..Northwoods Elementary............
507
..Parkwood .........................
422
..Thompson .........................
524
..Bell Fork ........................
-------------------------
436
..Jacksonville Junior High.........
863
..Northwoods Junior High ...........
_ _ _956 -
..Jacksonville Senior High.........
1,587
..Other Count' Schools total
9 205 _
..Blue Creek .......................
608
..Dixon Elementary .................
1,003
..Dixon High .......................
449
..Morton Elements .. .......
652
..Richlands Elementary .............
927
..Richlands High ...................
629
..Silverdale .......................
191
..Summersill.......................
----------------------
- _ - 545
..Swansboro Elementary .............
402
..Swansboro Middle .................
429
..Swansboro Junior High............
341
..Swansboro High_._._._............
---------------
_ 674
----
..Tabernacle .......................
734
..Trexler ....................6.....
564
..White Oak ........................
1,057
-•rrom unsiow county noara or naucauon
about 17 per cent for Jacksonville, and about 25 per
cent for the County.
Future Enrollment Projections
Exhibit 5.16t shows the future enrollment projec-
tions made by the Onslow County Board of Education.
The overall projection for the Countywide system, to
1980, is a slight decrease of about two per cent.
A similar projection is made for the Jacksonville
area.
When the projected years are reviewed by grade
level:
..grades 1-6 are practically static for the City
and County;
..grades 7-9 are projected to increase the first
couple of years, but then decline by about
ten per cent for the City and County; and
..grades 10-12 are projected to increase by
about ten per cent for the City and County.
Thus, while it has been estimated that the City
and County experienced growth in their total popu-
lation from 1970-75, this did not automatically
generate a similar increase in school enrollment,
as has generally been the case in past decades. The
enrollment projections_ reflect similar trends of
overall population growth, but no student enroll-
ment increase.
Present Capacity
With approximately 15,000 students enrolled in
we school buildings, the County Board of Education
reports that their building capacity is fully utilized
and there is no unused space.
Exhibit 5.16t: Past and Projected Enrollment for Onslow Countv Public Schools*1
Year
Jacksonville Attendance Area
Onslow County Totals
Grades
Grades
Grades
Grades
Grades
Grades
Grades
Grades
1-6
7-9
10-12
1-12
1-6
7-9
10-12
1-12
1970-71
4,109
1,859
1,423
7,391
8,296
3,880
2,894
15,070
1971-72
-----
3,892 _
1,896
-----
_ 1,459 _
_ _7:247_
8,042
-----
_ 3,982 _
_ 3,094 -
- 15:118 _ -
1972-73
3,680
1,871
1,490
7,041
7,749
4,025
3,168
14,942
1973-74*2
3,567 _
_ 1,825 _
_ 1,599 _
_ _6i691
_ 7,470 _
_ 4,154 _
_ 3,358 -
- 14.L9.8 _
1974-75
3,538
1,867
1,668
7,073
7,386
4,062
3,603
15,051
1975_76 _
3,390 _
_ 1,979 _
1,665
_ _7s034
_ 7,102 _
4,249
_ 3,616 _
_ 14L967_
1976-77
3,314
1,986
1,717
7,017
6,967
4,249
3,713
14,929
1977-78
3,338 _
_ 1,905_ _
_ 1s715 _
_ 6,958 _
6.2 43 _
_ _4=103 _
3z758 _
-14,804 - -
1978-79
3,300
1,773
1,888
6,961
6,979
3,829
3,961
14,769
1979-80
3,348
1,743
1,834
6,925
7,072
3,719
3,900
14,691
-1From Onslow County Board of Education
*2End of third month.
NOTE: The above figures do not include kindergarten. If such were added, the enrollment would increase by 500
for Jacksonville, and over 1,000 for the Countywide total.
5-19

5-20
The Board also notes that a future Southwest
Junior/Senior High on Highway #43 will accommodate
800 students presently at Jacksonville Junior High
and Jacksonville Senior High.
Capacity of Primary Roads
Inquiries were made of the North Carolina Highway
Commission as to the present capacities of Jackson-
ville's primary roads, and the extent to which
these capacities were presently utilized. The
Commission responded that the only information avail-
able was contained in the 1969-70 thoroughfare plan
prepared for Jacksonville,* and the report was still
considered to be adequate. The remaining information
is taken from that report.
Existing Street System
Jacksonville's major street system is character-
ized by a random arrangement of urban and suburban
streets feeding into U.S. 17 and N.C. 24, which are
part of the N.C. primary highway system.
Within this system, N.C. 24 and U.S. 17 are clas-
sified as part of the North Carolina trunk system.
The trunk system provides for the movement of large
volumes of interstate and intrastate traffic, along
with a major volume of intercity traffic.
These facilities should provide a high level of
service with a minimum amount of marginal interfer-
ence. Either partial control of access or full con-
trol of access is desirable for these facilities.
1966 Traffic Volumes
The 1966 average traffic volumes for a 24 hour
period are shown by Exhibit 5.17m. The highest
recorded volume was 30,380 at the intersection of
U.S. 17, N.C. 24 and Old Bridge Street. Volumes on
N.C. 24 east ranged from 19,600 to 28,680. On
U.S. 17 the volumes ranged from 25,610 near Court
Street to 8,050 north of Gum Branch Road. Volumes
in excess of 8,000 vehicles per day were recorded
on Henderson Drive, Hargett Street, New Bridge
Street, Court Street and Onslow Drive.
Capacity
A relatively good indication of the adequacy of
the existing street system is a comparison of traffic
volumes with the ability of the streets to move
traffic. In an urban area, a street's ability to
move traffic is generally controlled by intersection
capacity. Capacity is defined as the maximum number
of vehicles which has a reasonable expectation of
passing over a given section of a lane or a roadway
in one direction, or in both directions for a two-
lane or a three -lane highway, during a given time
period under prevailing roadway and traffic
conditions.
The relationship of traffic volumes to the capacity
*"Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan," prepared for the
City of Jacksonville By the Advance Planning Dept.
of the N.C. State Highway Commission, March, 1969.
Supplement prepared in September of 1970.
5-20
of the roadway will determine the level of service
being provided. Six levels of service have been
selected to identify the conditions existing under
various speed and volume conditions on any highway
or street. The level of service usually suitable
for urban design practice is "level of service
C," and is defined as being in the zone of stable
traffic flow with most drivers restricted in their
freedom to select their own speed, change lanes or
pass. A relatively staisfactory operating speed is
attained at this level of service.
The existing traffic volumes are close to ex-
- --- --- ----- — — --
ceedinps the capacity at level of Service C at the
following intersections: N.C. 24 at the main gate
entrance to Camp Lejeune, Bell Fork Road and Tarawa
Terrace, U.S. 17 at Old Bridge Street, and Johnson
Boulevard and Chaney Avenue. There are three inter-
sections that are operating above capacity at
level of Service C: Johnson Boulevard at Bayshore
Boulevard and Warn Street, and U.S. 17 at Henderson
Drive. (See Exhibit 5.18m)
1990 Traffic Volumes
The "Thoroughfare Plan" projected 1990 population
as being:
...128,615 for Onslow County
... 61,607 for Jacksonville Township, and
... 22,302 for the City of Jacksonville
Projected 1990 travel desires were assigned to
the existing major street systems to determine its
future adequacy and to locate problem areas. The
assignment was accomplished by use of an electronic
computer and all traffic movements were assigned to
the designated existing major street system on an all
or nothing nondirectional basis, that is, the routing
with the shortest travel time was assigned all of a
specific movement. The 1990 assigned volumes are
shown on Exhibit 5.17m.
A comparison of the assigned 1990 volumes with the
1966 volumes indicates that traffic will become in-
tolerable long before 1990 if significant improvements
to the existing major street system are not made.
Almost all existing major streets would be subjected
to traffic volumes considerable above their existing
capacities.

5-21
S
3352
13091
2618
•=�'4 11168 7413
3� ``\ 16170
II198
2618
�17647
3571
i 13<85 A
123
10297 2230 °1�
13389 a 21770 /
8964
23219
6031 8026
88Is 23062
8145
2704
7514
II
LEGEND
EXISTING MAJOR STREETS
00000 1966 TRAFFIC VOLUME OL
1990 TRAFFIC VOLUME
IIjj
s
I U,y ya [, 1 X-
Exhibit 5.18m
Intersection Capacities_
Mae
41066
6962
17652
Exhibit 5.17m
Existing Major Streets With
1966 And 1990 Traffic Volumes
LEGEND
® DEMAND BMW 50% CAFAUTY AT LEVEL C
® DEMAND 50%TO75% CAFAMY AT LEVEL C
DE3AAND 75%TO 90% CAPACTY AT LEVEL C
DEMAND 90% TO 100% CAPAMY AT LEVEL. C
• OEM" ABOVE CAPADTY AT LEVEL C

6-1
Chapter VI
ESTIMATED
DEMAND
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to estimate the
future growth potential for the Jacksonville area.
The chapter sections will include:
.....Population Projections
.....Future Economy
.....Future Land Needs
.....Future Community Facilities Need
The cost implications of Jacksonville's potential
growth should be fully understood by local officials
and citizens, for any new growth will definitely
require an expansion of community facilities and
public services.
Some of the needed improvements will be fully,
or partially, paid for by local developers or by
State and/or Federal funds. Other costs, however,
for continuing public services and certain capital
construction needs, will be a local government respon-
sibility. Taxes from new development will pay for some
portion of the added costs, but no assurance can be
given that this will be sufficient to cover all
additional costs.
6-1

6-2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Over the years, estimates of the future population
for Jacksonville, and larger areas, have been made by
several agencies. Each of these will be reviewed in
order to provide background for making future projec-
tions as part of this report.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 1975*18
In 1975, the North Carolina Department of Adminis-
tration made population projections for Jacksonville
and Onslow County, in order to comply with legisla-
tive directions of the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA). The projections are shown by Exhibit 6.1t.
Exhibit 6.1t: 1975 D.O.A. Projections
Year
City of
Jacksonville
Onslow
County
1970
---------
16,021
---------------
103,126
1980
---------
22,077
---------------
124,312
1990
31,487
130,356
2000
51,417
146,127
1974 D.O.A. PROJECTIONS TO 198Ot2O
An August 6, 1974 projection from theNorth
Carolina Department of Administration*20 (DOA) es-
timated the 1980 population of Onslow County as
124,312, which is an increase of 21,186 or 21 per-
cent over the 1970 figure of 103,126. This projec-
tion for 1980 is identical to that of the 1975 DOA
work.
1969 PROJECTIONS BY HIGHWAY COMMISSION*11
In 1969, the North Carolina Highway Commission
prepared a Major Street Plan for the.city of Jackson-
ville. As part of that report the estimates of Exhi-
bit 6.2t were included. The estimates for 1970, as
Exhibit 6.2t: Population Projections
Area
1960
1966*
1970*
1980*
1990*
Onslow
County_
82i706
-_ —
97Az 86
117,029
128=615
Jackson.
Twp._ —
O 34
-_ —
48,648
58,866
61i607
Jacks.
City —
134A9-
15,z717
172611
21, 309
22, 302
Jacks.
Plan.
Area*
--
30,577
--
--
41,262
*As used in the Major Street Plan report
6-2

6-3
well as the forecasts for 1980 and 1990 generally
were lower than the D.O.A. projections for Jackson-
ville and Onslow County.
population projections as shown by Exhibit 6.3t , and
all are much more conservative than the previously
discussed projections.
The delineation of the "201" stud area is shown
1975 Protection of 201 Plan*13 by Exhibit 6.4m. The study area is much larger than
In 1975, the firm of G. Reynolds Watkins Consul- the City of Jacksonville or the Jacksonville Planning
Area, but it does not include all of Jacksonville
ting Engineers prepared a "Water Quality Management Township,although the township boundaries are
8 P
Plan (201)" for Jacksonville. This plan included followed in places.
Exhibit 6.3t: 1975 Population Projections Contained in Jacksonville 201 Plan.
1970-1995
Area
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Number
2
Onslow County* _ _ _ _ _
_103j.26_
104,813
106i500
110,000
113A 00
116,650 _
_13,524 _
_13%
Outside 201 area
.,Inside-201—area
..Inside 201 area _ _ _ _
71,005
32:121
72,127
_32,686
72,425
34i075
74,535
34,465
76,646
36:854
78,406
38,244
7,401
_ 6,123
102
19%
..Outside Jacksonville
16,100
16,406
17,536
18,382
19,228
20,128
4,028
25%
..Inside Jacksonville**
16,021
16,280
16,539
17,083
17,626
18,116
2,095
13%
*"Population by County, Historic (1940-1970) and Projected (1980-2020)," prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, July, 1972.
**"Water Quality Management Plan, Phase II, Region "P", prepared by the Neuse River Council of Government,
Regional Planning Division, New Barn, North Carolina, June, 1974.
Exhibit 6.4m: Jacksonville "201" Study Area. Planning Area, and Township Boundary
6-3

6-4
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECTION 1974
The 1974 "Water Quality Management Plan, Phase II,
Region P*14, prepared by the Neuse River Council of
Government contained future population estimates for
Jacksonville City and Township (see Exhibit 6.5t).
In the thirty year projection period, the "Water
Quality Management Plan" estimates an increase of
only 16 percent for the city as well as the town-
ship --an average of slightly over five percent per
decade.
Exhibit 6.5t: Neuse River COG Population Projections
Year
City of
Jacksonville
Township of
Jacksonville
1970
16,021
55,737
1980
16,539
57,510
1990
17,626
61,290
2000
18,605
64,690
1970-2000
+2,584
+8,953
% change
+16%
+16%
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND
ECONOMIC RESOURCES (DNER) PROJECTIONS, 1975
In a 1975 draft of the "North Carolina Water Plan
- Technical Report *23" for the Neuse-White Oak River
Basin, the Department of Natural and Economic
Resources (DNER) made population projections to the
year 2020.
The average change in population by decade for
each area was as follows:
..11% for the Neuse-White Oak total
..11% for the Neuse River Basin
.. 7% for the White Oak Basin
.. 6% for Onslow County
In addition to the "medium range" projections, the
DNER report also included "low range" and high range"
projections. All three levels for Onslow County are
shown by Exhibit 6.7t.
Exhibit 6.7t: Onslow County 3-Level Projections*23
Low Range
Medium Range
High Range
Year
Pro ection
Pro ection
Pro ection
1970
103,126
103,126
103,126
1980
100,000
116,100
125,600
1990
102,500
119,000
132,600
2000
103,000
122,500
138,900
2010
103,500
125,100
144,200
2020
105,000
138,000
157,100
1970-1980
-3,126;-3%
+12,974;13%
+22,474;23%
1980-1990
+2,500;+3%
2,900; 3%
7,000; 6%
1990-2000
+ 500;+l%
3,500; 3%
6,300; 5%
2000-2010
+ 500; 1%-
2,600; 2%
5,300; 4%
2010_2020
+11500;_2%
12i9OQLIOX _
12,900; 9%
Average
by decade
+1X
+6%
+9%
The average population increase per decade for the
three projection levels was as follows:
- The projections were for the counties within each ..1% for the low range projection
basin, and Onslow County was included within the ..6% for the medium range, and
White Oak Basin. The projections and the decade ..9% for the high range projection.
changes are shown by Exhibit 6.6t for the "medium
range" values. In all three levels, the lowest projections gen-
erally were for the years between 1980 and 2010, with
the highest projections for 1970 to 1980 and 2010 to
2020. The low range was an exception, however, with
the only projection population loss occurring between
1970-1980, as well as a low projection for 2010-2020.
Exhibit 6.6t: DNER Population Projections (medium range).to the Year 2020*23
Area
1970 actual
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Neuse-White Oak Total _
_ _ 1,1 29s243_ _
1i236:500
1,353,700
1,504,400
1s669,z000 _
_ 1,870,200
..Neuse Basin
994,514
1,085,700
1,198,400
1,344,700
1,502,700
1,685,400
..White Oak Basin
_134i,729_
150L800_
155,300
159,700 _
- 166i300 _
8400
- _ 1,8
_ _ _
.Onslow County
_ _ _ _ _
103,126
_
116,100
_
119,000
_
122,500
125,100
F
138,000
1970-80
1980-90
1990-2000
2000-2010
2010-2020
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Neuse-White Oak Total
-----------------------
107,257-1OX
------
117s200_10%
150,700-11%
------
164.600_11%
_201.200_12%
..Neuse Basin
91,186- 9%
112,700-10%
146,300-12%
158,000-12%
182,700-12%
..White Oak Basin
4i500_ 3X
4,400 _3%
4%
- 18i500_11%
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.Onslow County
_16,071-12%
12,974-13%
2,900- 3%
_
3,500- 3%
_6=600_
2,600- 2X
12,900-1OX
6-4

6-5
SUMMARY OF PROJECTIONS
Previous sections of this chapter have described
the population projections made by various govern-
ment agencies and others. They include seven dif-
ferent projections for Onslow County, two for
Jacksonville Township, one for a "Jacksonville High-
way Planning Study Area," one for the Jacksonville
"201" study area, and four for the City of Jackson-
ville. These are summarized by Exhibit 6.8t for
1970 through the year 2000. Over the thirty year
projection period, the figures:
..for Onslow County range from a .1% decrease to
a 42% increase,
..for Jacksonville township show a 16% to an 18%
increase, and
..for the City of Jacksonville, range from a 16%
increase to a 221% increase.
SELECTED POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The selected population projections estimate that
Onslow will increase by over 26,000 people (or 26%)
from 1970 to the year 2000, with the majority of
this growth occurring in Jacksonville Township
(see Exhibit 6.90.
For the 1975ation, the selected figures were
those developed by the Onslow County Office of Man-
power Planning (for the County), by the City and
D.O.A. (for the City); while the Township was esti-
mated to contain about 57 per cent of the County's
total population.
For 1976-80, the 16 percent increase for Onslow
is halfway between the D.N.E.R. midrange estimate,
and the DOA estimate, while the Township is esti-
mated to accommodate about 59 per cent of the
County's population. For 1980-2000, the County is
estimated to grow by 8 percent, -which is slightly
higher than the DNER midrange estimate; while the
Township is estimated to contain 61 per cent of
the County's population by the year 2000.
Future growth for the City of Jacksonville will
depend primarily on its annexation policy, since
there is little undeveloped land remaining within the
City's boundaries. As shown by Exhibit 6.9t, the
"low" estimate for the year 2000 is 25,000 people_,
an increase of 9,000 or 56 per cent over 1970. This
projection is based on the assumptions that no annex-
ation occurs and growth occurs on the remaining
vacant land, or the City annexes land within its
Planning Area containing 2,000 people plus the 3,000
in Brynn Marr as of 1975.
The "high" estimate is for 41,000 people by 2000,
an increase of 25,000 or 156 per cent. This is based
on annexing all of Brynn Marr (+10,000 people ulti-
mately) and much of the other developed land in the
Jacksonville Planning Area. By the year 2020, the
projected population total would be 56,000.
Exhibit 6.9t: Selected Population Proiections
Jacksonville
Year
Onslow Jacksonville
Cit
Hi h
County ITownshipLow
At Year No.
..1970
103,126
55,737
16,000
16,000
..1975
112,000
63,737
20,000
20,000
..1980
119,840
70,737
25,000
--------
29,000
-----
..1990
----
124,640
-----
74,737
25,000
37,000
..2000
129,630
78,737
25.000
41,000
No. Change
(8,847)
(8,000)
(4,000)
(4,000)
..1970-75
..1975-80
(7,840)
(7,000)
(59000)
(9,000)
..1970-80
16,714
15,000
-----
9,000
------
13,000
- -----
..1980-90
----
4,800
4,000
0
8,000
..1990-2000
4,990
4,000
0
4,000
..1970-2000
(26 504)
(23,000)
(9,000)
(25 000
% Change
..1970-75
(9%)
(14%)
(25%)
(25%)
..1975-80
(7%)
(11%)
(25%)
(45%)
..1970-80
16%
_27%
_ _56%
_ 81%
..1980-90
_ _ _
4%
_ _
6%
0
28%
..1990-2000
4%
5%
0
11%
..1970-2000
(26%)
(41%)
(56%)
(156%)
Exhibit 6.8t: Summary of Population Projections, 1970-2000
Area, and agency
At -year population Droiectionsi
Between- ear chap a number and X
1970-80
1980-90
1990-2000
1970-2000
making projection
1970
1980
1990
2000
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Onslow Co. Projections
.Dept. of Admin., 1975
103,126
124,312
130,356
146,127
21,186
21
6,044
5
15,771
12
43,001
42
..N.C. Hwy Comm., 1969
1 97,686
117,029
128,615
-
19,343
20
11,586
10
-
-
-
-
..Dept. of Admin., 1974
103,126
124,312
-
-
21,186
21
-
-
-
-
-
-
..201 Study (EDA), 1975
103,126
106,500
113,500
120000
3,374
3
7,000
7
6,500
6
16,874
16
..DNER, low range, 1975
103,126
100,000
102,500
1.03:00.
-3,126
-3
2,500
3
500
1
-126
-.1
. DNER, med. range, 1975
103,126
116,100
119,000
122 500
12,974
13
2,900
3
3,500
3
19,374
19
..DNER, high range, 1975
103,126
125,600
132,600
138:900
22,474
23
7,000
6
6,000
5
35,774
35
Jacksonville Twp_
.N.C. Hwy Comm., 1969
48,648
58,866
61,607
-
10,218
21
2,741.
5
-
-
-
-
..Neuse River COG 1974
55,737
57,510
61,290
64 690
1,773
3
3,780
7
3,400
6
+8 953
16
..Hwy. Planning Area
32 000
-
41,262
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
201 Study Area
32.121
34,075,
36,854
39,6001
1,954,
6
1 2.779
8
2.746
8
7 479
23
Jacksonville City
..Dept. of Admin., 1975
16,021
22,077
31,487
51,417
6,056
38
9,410
43
19,930
63
35,396
221
..N.C. Hwy Comm., 1969
17,611
21,309
22,302
-
3,698
21
993
5
-
-
-
-
..2G1 Study, 1975
16,021
16,539
17,626
18,605
518
3
1,087
7
979
6
2,584
16
..Neuse River COG, 1974
16,021,-
16,539
17,626
18,605
518
3
1,087 1
7
979 1
6
2,584
16
6-5

6-6
FUTURE ECONOMY
INTRODUCTION
In researching the available literature, no employ-
ment projections could be found for the City of
Jacksonville or Onslow County. Projections were
available, however, for a much larger multi -county
"State planning region" designated as region "P"*l,
and these figures were used as a means to develop
projections for Onslow County. The methodology
included:
..Using 1970 actual employment figures to de-
termine the percentage of region "P" employ-
ment accounted for by Onslow County.
..Projecting future Onslow employment by assum-
ing it would continue to share the same per-
centage of the region's employment as for 1970
(except that "total employment, non-ag employ-
ment, and non- manufacturing" were obtained by
adding the employment figures of their respec-
tive sub -categories).
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT
Between 1970 and the year 2000, it was projected
that Onslow County's employment would grow from
17,259 to 23,587, an increase of 6,328 or 37 per
cent, as shown by Exhibits 6.10t and 6.11t.
non-agricultural employment would increase by 6,717
or 41 per cent (see Exh. 6.10t and 6.11t).
Manufacturing vs. Non -Manufacturing
When non-agricultural employment was subdivided,
there was a larger absolute growth in non -manufac-
turing jobs (5,775), but a larger relative growth in
manufacturing (54 per cent).
Manufacturing was projected to grow from 1,738
jobs to 2,680, an increase of 942 or 54 per cent.
Non -manufacturing was projected to grow from 14,632
to 20,407, an increase of 5,775 or 40 per cent.
Non -Manufacturing Breakdown
When manufacturing jobs were subdivided and ranked
according to absolute increases, the following order
resulted:
..Service jobs would increase by 2,074, or 55 per
cent.
..Trade (retail and wholesale) would increase by
1,765, or 38 per cent.
..Finance, insurances and real estate (F.I.R.E.)
would increase by 479, or 61 per cent.
Agricultural vs. Non -Agricultural
..Construction would increase by 442, or 37 per
In the first breakdown of total employment, it cent; government jobs by 380 or 16 per cent;
was projected that agricultural jobs in Onslow T.C.U.*2 by 334 or 29 per cent; and "other"
County would decrease by 389 or 44 per cent, while jobs by 301 or 39 per cent.
Exhibit 6.10t: Employment Projections for N. C. Region "P"*1 and Onslow County, 1970-2000
Employment
1970 Actual Employ.
1980 Pro ection
1990 Pro ection
2000 Pro ection
1970-2000 Chanize 14
N.C.
Co.
N.C.
Onslow
N.C.
Onslow
N.C.
Onslow
N.C.
Onslow
Category
Region
Onslow
% Of
Region
Co.
Region
Co.
Region
Co.
Region
Co.
"P"
Co.
"P"
"P"
est.
"P"
est.
"P"
est.
"P"
est.
Total Employment
163*280
17,259
(10_6
175s200
4:.9
184,300
20.693
202 Oq
231587
38,720
6i328
Agricultural
14,620
889
6.1
12,100
738
9,400
573
8,200
500
-6,420
-389
Non-Agricultura
148,660
16i370
(11.0
163i100
18,541
174,900
20=120
193 OQ
23i087
45,140
6i717_
..Manufacturing
20,670
1,738
8.4
24,900
2,092
27,800
2,335
31,900
2,680
11,230
942
..Non -Mfg._ _ _
127,990
14i632
(11_4
138,z2OC
16,449
147,100
17,i785
161i900
20=407
33,910
Si775
...Construction
5,990
1,190
19.9
6,600
1,313
7,200
1,433
8,200
1,632
2,210
442
...T.C.U.*2
4,050
1,169
28.9
4,200
1,214
4,600
1,329
5,200
1,503
1,150
334
...Trade
18,130
4,610
25.4
21,100
5,359
22,200
5,639
25,100
6,375
6,970
1,765
...F.I.R.E.*3
2,910
781
26.8
3,700
992
4,100
1,099
4,700
1,260
1,790
479
...Services
8,770
3,774
43.0
9,900
4,257
11,100
4,773
13,600
5,848
4,830
2,074
...Other
16,510
775
4.7
18,200
855
20,100
945
22,900
1,076
6,390
301
...Government
71,630
2,333
3.3 11
74,5001
2,459 11
77,800
12,567 1182,200
1 2,7131110,570
1 380.
*1From "N.C. Water Plan - Technical Report, Neuse-White Oak River Basin, Volume I (Draft)", by the N.C. Dept.
of Natural and Economic Resources, Water Resources Planning Section, March, 1975, p 2-15.
*2Transportation, communication, and utilities. 6-6 *3Finance, insurance, and real estate.

6-7
IMPACT ON FUTURE LAND USE
If the projected trends are realized in the future,
the resulting impact on land use probably would in-
clude some of the following characteristics:
..Increasing_!'total employment" would probably
reflect additional population and urbanization
in Onslow County, as well as more commuter
employment from adjacent counties.
..Decreasing_aZicultural employment would prob-
ably reflect the preemption of agricultural
lands by urbanization, increasing farm mechani-
zation, and voluntary departure from farm job
for better paying urban jobs.
..Increases in manufacturing Land non -manufactur-
ing jobs emphasize the increasing demand for
shifting land from open or agricultural activ-
ities to urbanized uses.
..The growth in services, wholesale and retail
trade, and other non -manufacturing uses would
illustrate demand for additional strip commer-
cial zoning along arterial streets, more plan-
ned shopping centers, and possible redevelop-
ment of some portions of the Downtown area.
JACKSONVILLE IMPLICATIONS
It is probable that the majority of Onslow County's
employment growth will occur in and around the City
of Jacksonville. The extent to which it occurs within
the City will depend primarily on the City's annexa-
tion policies.
Exhibit 6.11t: 1970-2000 Employment Changes for Onslow County and N.C. Region "P"
1970-2000 Change
In Number
1970-2000 Change
In Percentage
County As Per Cent
Of Region "P"
N.C.
N.C.
Employment
Region
Onslow
Region
Onslow
Category
"P"
County
"P"
County
1970
2000
Total Employment .....................— ...
- - - ---------------
38i720
- --
6,328
- --
24%
----
37%
- -
10_6%
- -
11_7%
-- -
Agricultural ............................
-6,420
-389
-44%
-44%
6.1%
6.1%
Non -Agricultural ........................
45 14C
_ 6,717 _
30%
41%
_ 11_0% _
11.9%
.. .........................
11,230
942
54%
54%
8.4%
8.4%
—Manufacturing
..Non -Manufacturing.._._._._._._._._._._._ _
--------
33i910
5,775
-----
_ 27% —
40%
----
11.4%
-----
_ 12_6%
....Construction ........................
2,210
442
37%
37%
19.9%
19.9%
....Transport, commun. utilities........
1,150
334
28%
29%
28.9%
28.9%
....Trade ...............................
6,970
1,765
38%
38%
25.4%
25.4%
....Finance, insur., real estate........
1,790
479
62%
61%
26.8%
26.8%
....Services ............................
4,830
2,074
55%
55%
43.0%
43.0%
....Other ...............................
6,390
301
39%
39%
4.7%
4.7%
....Government ..........................
10,570
380
15%
16%
3.7%
3.7%
6-7

6-8
FUTURE LAND NEEDS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is (1) to allocate age of 154 acres of urban land needed to meet the
the projected ten year population growth to moderate needs of each 1,000 people.
to high density areas (transition lands), or to low
density areas (community lands); and (2) to allocate Subdividing the total urban area in categories
the land area needed to accommodate the projected can provide further insight into the character of
growth. Jacksonville. Exhibit 6.13t not only provides such
a breakdown for Jacksonville, but also compares those
figures with similar categories for other U.S. areas.
EXISTING LAND USE RATIOS
In 1975, the City of Jacksonville's 4.8 square
miles (3,056 acres) of urban development accommodat-
ed the needs of an estimated 20,000 people. In other
words, it required one square mile of development to
provide for the urban needs of each 4,167 people ---or
one acre for 6.5 persons.
This urban land use/people ratio is compared with
other U.S. areas in Exhibit 6.12t. In the comparison,
Jacksonville ranks about in the middle, with an aver -
Exhibit 6.12t: Comparing Urban Land Ratios
Area
People/
Urban acre
People/
S . mile
Urban acres
1 000 eo le
Owensboro,
- Ky_ _ _ _ _
_ _6_3
_ 49032 _
- 159 _ _
Pinellas Co.,
Florida
_ 6_5 _ _
_ 4,180
154
Jacksonville,
- N.C._ - _ _
_ 6_5 _ _
- 4,167 _
_ 154 _
Lexington,
_Ky___-_
__7_1 ___4,583_
_140_
Nicholasville,
Ky.
8.0
5,166
125
In comparing the categories for various cities,
the following observations are made:
...For residential land use, Jacksonville's rel-
atively high 59 per cp_ossibly reflects a predom-
inance of single family homes on relatively large
lots, with relatively few apartment areas ---as well
as a less extensive land use for insustrial and semi-
public uses.
...For commercial_ land use, Jacksonville's rela-
tively high 9 per cent possibly reflects its commer-
cial servicing of many of the Marine Base personnel
needs more than anything else.
..For industrial_ land use, Jacksonville's rela-
tively low 1 per cent simply reflects the fact
of its low level industrialization, and its
economic dependence upon other economic areas.
...For public/semi-public land use, the City's rel-
atively low ranking especially reflects the
lack of public parks --which, incidentially, is
the case with Nicholasville, Kentucky.
...For transportation, Jacksonville is fairly sim-
ilar to the other U.S. areas.
Exhibit 6.13t: Comparing Jacksonville Urban Land Use Categories With Other U.S. Areas
Land
use
categories
(174,000*)
Lexington,
Kentucky
1970
(20,000)
Jacksonville,
N.C.
1975
(522,000)
Pinellas Co.,
Florida
1970
(91000)
Nicholasville,
Kentucky
1975
(varies)
Rand data
on 48 cities
(50,000)
Owensboro,
Kentucky
1970
urban Land Total-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
...Residential
-------
59
-----
59
-------
47
-------
40
---------------
39
38
-------
...Commercial
-------
4
-----
9
-------
6
-------
5
---------------
5
7
-------
...Industrial
-------
_ _ 4_ -
_ _ _ _1 _ _
_ _ _ _3_ _ _
_ _ _ _22 _ - _
_ _ 11 _ _ _
11
-------
...Public/Semi
13
8
13
8
20
15
...Transportation
20
23
32
25
26
29
*Population
6-8

ESTIMATED POPULATION GROWTH
6-9
As discussed earlier in this chapter, future
growth for the City of Jacksonville will greatly de-
pend upon whether or not the City annexes adjacent
undeveloped, as well as developed, land. If no fur-
ther annexation should occur, it is doubtful that the
City could grow beyond 25,000 people, as shown by the
"low" estimate in Exhibit 6.14t. With annexation,
Exhibit 6.14t: Jacksonville Population Projection
City of Jacksonville est.
Year
Low est.
High est.
At -year number
...1970...............
16,000
16,000
...1975...............
20,000
20,000
_ .1980. - _ _ _ _ _
_ 25i000
_ 29i000
...1985...............
25,000
33,000
...1990...............
25,000
37,000
...2000................
25,000
41,000
Number change
...1970-75............
4,000
4,000
...1975-80............
5,000
9,000
_ _ - -85_._ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 0
_ 4i000
...1980=90.........
0
8,000
...1990-2000..........
0
4,000
... 1970-2000...........
9,000
25,000
Per Cent change
...1970-75.............
25%
25%
...1975-80............
25%
45%
... 1980-85.............
-------------------------
0
14%
...1980-90.............
0
28%
...1990-2000...........
0
11%
...1970-2000...........
56%
156%
it is estimated that the city could grow to 41,000
people by the year 2000.
ALLOCATING TEN YEAR GROWTH BY DENSITY
As shown by Exhibit 6.14t, Jacksonville's ten year
growth (from 1975 to 1985) could vary from 5,000 to
13,000 people. For this growth, the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC) guidelines require that an estimate
be made as to what form the new development will take
in terms of density.
Two classes of density are established by the
guidelines for new development:
..Transition for moderate to high density de-
velopment, with at least 2,000 people per square
mile.
..Community - for low density development, with
640 persons per square mile, or one person
per acre.
Jacksonville's future growth will be allocated to
the transition class, with its higher density. This
choice is more compatible with the density of Jack-
sonville's past growth, as well as being more illus-
trative of carrying out the community's objectives
of having efficient and well planned growth.
ALLOCATING LAND AREA NEEDED
The land area needed to accomodate Jacksonville's
ten year growth of 5,000 to 13,000 people could vary
from 1.25 square miles to 6.5 square miles, as shown
by Exhibit 6.15t. The variation is caused by the
Exhibit 6.15t: Land Area Needs for New Growth
Density,
or number of people
per square mile
Land
needed for
5,000 people
Land
needed for
13,000 people
2,000 per sq. mile
2.5 sq. mi.
6.5 sq. mi.
3,000 per sq. mile
1.67 sq. mi.
4.33 sq. mi.
4,000 per sq. mile
1.25 sq. mi.
3.25 sq. mi.
two population figures and three ranges of density.
Regardless of the population figure, the least amount
of new land would be required of course, by the high-
est density figure of 4,000 people per square mile,
which is similar to the City's present gross density.
The 2,000 people per square mile density was used
in the exhibit to illustrate the needs if development
followed the lowest density mentioned in the CRC
guidelines.
The 3,000 persons per square mile was used in the
exhibit to establish a mid -range between the other
two density figures. For instance, if development
were generally to follow past trends, with the ex-
ception of allocating a higher land percentage to
parks and industry (two areas for which Jacksonville
has allocated an extremely low percentage of its
total land), the mid -range estimate would be more
appropriate than the high estimate.
A rule of thumb ratio for the amount of park land
needed in a city is ten acres for each 1,000 people.
At this rate, Jacksonville should have 200 acres to
serve its present 20,000 people instead of the 23
acres measured in the land use survey. And, if this
deficit of 177 acres were made up in the near future,
it would contribute to the validity of using the mid-
range population density.
The 23 acres of existing parks represents less
than one per cent of Jacksonville's total land area.
If this same percentage were continued as the city
adds another 4.33 square miles (the mid -range figure
for 13,000 people), there would be only 27 acres of
new park land acquired -or about 2 acres per 1,000
people instead of the 130 acres needed if the stan-
dard of 10 acres per 1,000 people were followed.
Thus, over 300 acres of park land would be needed
6-9 if the Citv were to make up its past deficit, and

6-10
also properly meet the needs of an additional 13,000
people in the future. This 300 acres is not reflected
in the present gross density of about 4,000 people per
square mile of urban development.
Considering all these factors, it is suggested
that the mid -range population density of 3,000 per-
sons per square mile be used. This means that 4.33
square miles cf land_wil1 be allocated to serve the
new urban needs of 13,000 more people between 1975
and the year 2,000.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
As the new residential, commercial, and industrial
areas are constructed by private enterprise to meet
the needs of an additional 13,000 people, they will
also generate the need for various community facili-
ties which are primarily provided by local government.
Some of these facilities would include:
..Public activity areas, such as
,,,schools
...parks
...fire stations
..Energy supply, such as
...water
...electricity
..Waste disposal, for
...storm water
...sewage
...solid waste
..Transportation system, including
...walkways
...bikeways
...highways and streets
To the extent that the City's growth comes from
annexation of developed land, some of the above
facilities may already be installed. In other cases,
and especially for newly developed land, the City and
others would be responsible for acquisition and con-
struction, or meeting the needs from unused capacity
of existing facilities.
SCHOOLS, PARRS, AND FIRE STATIONS
The Onslow County Board of Education would be
responsible for meeting the public school needs
of any population growth. However, there is a
distinct possibility that total population growth
will not necessarily mean a proportionate increase in
school enrollment.
For instance, between 1970 and 1975 the county
school enrollment changed very little although there
was an estimated 12,000 (or 12 per cent) increase in
the total county population. The School Board's en-
rollment projections to 1980 reflect no appreciable
increase in total, although some minor shifts occur
by grade level.
If events should turn out differently and a size-
able student increase did occur, the School Board
would have to add to existing schools, or consider
new construction, since they report all presently
available space is being utilized.
6-10
The park needs of an added.population would have
to be met by the City and its Parks Department. To
accommodate annother 13,000 people by 1985, the City's
park land should be increased by 130 acres. And,
to make up a deficit in existing park land would
require another 177 acres, or an overall total of
307 acres.

The majority of the park needs should be met by
two types of parks:
...Neighborhood Walk -To Parks - which are within
walking distance (5 to 10 minutes) of all citi-
zens, and at least 10 to 15 acres in size.
For 13,000 new people this could mean anywhere
from 3 to 6 new neighborhood parks.
..City-wide Drive -To Parks - which would be with-
in a 5 to 15 minute driving distance of all
citizens, although some residents would be
able to walk to them. These parks would have
no size limit, although their minimum size
should be at least 50 to 100 acres.
If the Marine Corps should ever consider its
Montford_Point area to be surplus to their needs,
it would be an excellent location for a City=wide
park. City officials may want to consider discussing
such possibilities with the Marine Base authorities.
This would place the City's desire officially on rec-
ord in case future events should declare the land as
being surplus.
The fire_pjgection needs of a growing population
would be the responsibility of the City. The two
City stations presently provide a good service area
coverage, and a third station is being planned for
on the east side of town. Any new growth should be
amply covered by these three stations, although re-
view of adequacy should be performed periodically
with state authorities.
WATER SUPPLY
As mentioned earlier, the City's water supply
system is undergoing expansion from 2.15 million gal-
lons per day (mgd) to 4.11 mgd, with later planned
expansion to 4.55 mgd.
This expansion should accommodate future growth
needs, but if unforeseen events should occur, the
new well field probably will be able to accept new
wells which could meet the demand.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
The City's two sewage treatment plants have a com-
bined capacity of 3.08 mgd. Only 67 per cent of this
capacity (or 2.05 mgd) was being used in 1973 to
serve approximately 17,000 people. The capacity of
the two plants should not be reached until the pop-
ulation served is approximately 25,000 people.
In addition, the Jacksonville "201 Study" also
recommended that the lagoon facility be abandoned
and that the trickling filter facility be upgraded
to a design capacity of 4.0 mgd, which could serve
approximately 30,000 people. The upgrading is rec-
ommended for completion prior to 1980.
If annexation or unforeseen population growth
should occur, further expansion of the sewage plant
facility should be studied.
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
The State of North Carolina is primarily responsi-
ble for the primary or major roads in the Jacksonville
area. In the earlier discussion of the "1969 Thorough-
6-11
6-11
fare Plan" prepared by the State, it was noted that
some major street intersections were already serving
beyond their capacity or were very hazardous. The
study also pointed out that future population growth
would make the situation even more intolerable unless
certain major street improvements were carried out.
The remainder of this section quotes directly from
the thoroughfare proposals made by the 1969 Study.
Proposed Thoroughfare Plan
The major problems that need to be solved in de-
veloping an adequate thoroughfare system for handling
existing and anticipated volumes of traffic in the
Jacksonville urban area are:
1. To locate alternate thoroughfares to handle
existing and anticipated traffic movements
presently using US 17 and NC 24.
2. To provide alternate exit and entrance routes
for the Northwoods residential area.
3. To determine cross sections required on exist-
ing thoroughfares to carry 1990 volumes of
traffic.
4. To locate a loop around the Jacksonville ur-
ban area to provide for travel movements be-
tween outlying residential developments.
The recommended thoroughfare plan with estimated
1990 traffic volumes is shown by Exhibit 6.16m. A
listing and discussion of the functional elements of
the plan follows:
Major Thoroughfare System
Radial and Crosstown System: The radial thorough-
fares provide for the movement of traffic from points
in outlying areas to the central business area, and
crosstown thoroughfares provide for the movement of
crosstown traffic in the central area. In Jackson-
ville these thoroughfares are synonymous in the cen-
tral area and are as follows:
1. NC 24 (Le eune Boulevard) - NC 24 is one of the
most important radials in Jacksonville. This
facility carries large volumes of traffic serving
the abutting commercial land use as well as being
the only access route to Jacksonville from Camp
Lejeune. This five -lane divided facility is
presently operating above capacity at level of
service C and volumes continue to increase year
after year. Two alternates were analyzed for
the purpose of providing enough capacity to
handle future traffic in this corridor. One was
to provide additional lanes, control the access
to reduce the side frictions resulting from the
strip commercial development, and develop inter-
changes at major intersections to handle turning
movements. The second alternate was to provide
a controlled access facility parallel to NC 24
to provide for through trip movements with NC 24
continuing to serve the strip commercial develop-
ment. On the basis of alternate traffic assign-
ments of projected travel patterns and cost
estimates of the alternate improvements, the
second alternate is recommended.
2. US 17 (Marine Boulevard) - US 17 presently func-
tions as an important radial serving large

6-12
Exhibit 6.16m: Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan with 1990 Traffic Volumes
Note: Map is taken directly from "1970 Supplemental
Report on the Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan,"
by the N.C. Highway Commission
6-12
LEGEND
—EXISTING MAJOR
--EXISTING MINOR "
---PROPOSED MAJOR
--PROPOSED MINOR C
—INTERCHANGE s
Q —GRADE SEPERATION
izc9—VEHICLES PER DAY
o ---c.A.M.A.rLAM ALrEk-

6-13
volumes in excess of 30,000 vehicles a day were deficiency, the committees proposed an
recorded on US 17 at Old Bridge Street. In the alternate routing northwest of this area
central area it also functions as an important in order that Western could be extended
crosstown thoroughfare. without driveway intersections (see Exhibit
6.16m).
3.— New Bridge Street -Old Bridge Street - This fa-
cility is presently functioning an a crosstown
facility serving Jacksonville's original Central
Business District. New Bridge Street from Court
Street west is proposed to be widened to 44' and
extended across New River to connect with Old
Bridge Street. This proposal is expected to in-
crease the capacity of this crosstown facility to
adequately handle 1990 traffic.
4.— Johnson Boulevard Extension - This proposed fa-
cility will function as a radial serving the
Northwoods residential area. Presently Henderson
Drive serves as the only entrance -exit route to
the Jacksonville central area from this large
residential development. Anticipated volumes on
Henderson Drive without the Johnson Boulevard
extension dictated the necessity of providing an
alternate access to the area. Several alterna-
tives were investigated for the location of this
proposed facility, however, the recommended
location was selected since it would (1) be less
disruptive to the neighborhood, (2) provide
several alternative routes from the neighborhood
to the facility, and (3) could be extended west
as new development occurs.
5.— Country Club Road -Hargett Street - This radial
serves the northeast area of Jacksonville. Har-
gett Street also functions as a crosstown facility
serving traffic from NC 24 to Bell Fork Road with
origins and destinations in the New River Shop-
ping Center area.
6. Gum Branch Road -Henderson Drive-Onslow_Drive -
This facility serves a tant fvery imporunction in
the thoroughfare network. Gum Branch Road is the
only radial serving the area northwest of Jackson-
ville. Gum Branch Road connects Richlands with
north Jacksonville and is expected to increase
in importance as development in this area occurs.
Facilities not included in the above dis-
cussion, but which will function as radials are:
(1) SR 1406, (2) Montford—Point—Road, (3) US 258
NC 24, (4) Chaney Avenue, and (5) Court Street
Loep—System: The development of a loop system for
Jacksonville is proposed to provide for more direct
movements between outlying areas, to relieve the
central area radials of considerable traffic by
providing more direct movements, and to generally
provide a better distribution of traffic. Two exist-
ing loops are currently in existence - they are
Henderson Drive-Onslow Drive -River Drive and Gum
Branch Road -Bell Fork Road.
An additional more extensive loop is proposed that
would consist of Western Boulevard and the extension
of Western Boulevard west and south to US 17. This
loop would provide additional access into the North -
woods area from the area west of the New River.
Note: The C.A.M.A. Land Use Plan Advisory Com-
mittees noted that the portion of Western
Boulevard in the Northwoods area had been
developed with driveway access to individ-
ual homes, thereby destroying its major
thoroughfare potential. To counteract this
6-13
Bypass System:
1.— Southern E2�pressway - This proposed expressway
is an important element in the Jacksonville
thoroughfare system. It is designed to relieve
NC 24 and Johnson Boulevard of through traffic
movements, allowing NC 24 to serve the existing
strip commercial, development presently bordering
this facility. The traffic analysis indicated
that with the inclusion of the Southern Express-
way, future traffic volumes along NC 24 could be
held to acceptable levels.
Note: The C.A.M.A. Land Use Plan Advisory Com-
mittees observed that the Southern Express-
way routing might incur considerable op-
position due to its proximity to Downtown
development. As an alternate, they sug-
gested moving the Expressway further south,
where it would cross New River at its
narrowest width, proceed across Montford
Point, and then proceed to tie in with
the original Expressway proposal (see Ex-
hibit 6.16m). Since the alternate route
would involve more Marine Base property,
further discussion should be held with
Marine authorities... especially in regard
to the future possibility of the Montford
Point area being considered as surplus.
2._ Eastern Freeway - US 17 is a major coastal route
in eastern North Carolina carrying large volumes
of through traffic. The purpose of the proposed
Eastern Freeway is to provide an alternate route
for this through traffic to permit existing US 17
to better serve Jacksonville's internal traffic
movement needs. Without the Eastern Freeway
future volumes of traffic onexisting US 17 would
increase to a level where intolerable congestion
and delay would be experience. An alternate
route for a US 17 bypass around the west and
northern side of the urban area was investigated
but was not found to provide as good a service
for internal movements. Access points along the
proposed freeway to major radials would allow
for more direct traffic movements and better
distribution of Jacksonville's internal traffic.
Minor Thoroughfares
The purpose of minor thoroughfares is to collect
the traffic from the surrounding area and carry it
to the major thoroughfare system. The following
streets will function as minor thoroughfares in the
Jacksonville thoroughfare system.
I. Decator Road and River Street - These two minor
----------------a—
thoroughfares will provide ccess routes from
the Northwoods area and the proposed Johnson
Boulevard extension.
2.— Doris Road - It is proposed that Doris Road be
extended to Gum Branch Road to provide more
direct access to northeast Jacksonville from the
Northwoods area.
3.— Pine Valley Road

7-1
Chapter VII
LAND
CLASSIFICATION
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to prepare a map
for five classifications of land use:
..Class #1: Developed - For land that is already
urbanized.
..Class #2: Transition - For presently undevel-
oped land that is expected to be urbanized in
the next ten years, 1975 to 1985, with a density
of at least 2,000 persons per square mile.
..Class #3_ Community - For urban type, but iso-
lated, uses in a rural environment, whether
existing or proposed, at density of 1 person
per acre, or 640 persons per square mile.
..Class #4_ Rural - Land for long term manage-
ment for productive resource utilization, and
which may be urbanized beyond the ten year
forecast period
..Class #5: Conservation - Land which should
remain essentially in its natural state, in-
cluding river and flood plain areas.
This classification is intended to assist in
providing cooperation and coordination between the
three levels (federal, state, and local) of govern-
ment by:
..1._Encours&ing consistency and coordination
between local land use policies and those of
the State of North Carolina.
..2. Providing a guide for public investment
in land, by assisting local and State govern-
ment to know in advance the need for parks,
schools, highways, etc.
..3._Serving as a framework for budgeting and
planning for the construction of community
facilities.
..4. Aiding, in better coordination of regulatory
policies and decisions.
..5. Helpieg to provide guidance for a more
equitable distribution of the land tax burden.
The land classification map is intended to be up-
dated at least every five years. The classification
for Jacksonville is described on the following pages.
7-1

7-2
JACKSONVILLE CLASSIFICATION
The classification scheme for the City of Jack-
sonville is shown by Exhibit 7.1m, and is further
described in the remainder of this chapter.
DEVELOPED CLASS
Land classified as developed must have an ex-
isting population density of at least 2,000 persons
per square mile, and be adequately served with
water supply, sewage disposal, schools, and primary
roads.
All of the urban developed area within Jackson-
ville falls into this category.
TRANSITION CLASS
The transition class identifies land where mod-
erate to high density growth is to be encouraged,
and where any such growth that is permitted by
local regulation will be provided with the necessary
public services.
The area to be designated as transition must be
no greater than that required to accommodate the
estimated population growth at a minimum gross
density of 2,000 persons per square mile. Lands to
be classified as transition should be considered in
the following order:
..First priority is for lands which presently
have a gross density of 2,OOO people per square
mile, but which lack the necessary public ser-
vices to qualify as "developed." Such areas
may not be expected to accommodate additional
population, but they will require public funds
in the future for adding the needed services.
..Seccndyriority is for lands which have all the
necessary public services, but which lack the
population density of 2,000 persons per square
mile.
..Third Priority is for additional land necessary
to accommodate the remainder of the estimated
transition area growth for the ten year plan-
ning period.
For Jacksonville, it was estimated that yy_to
4.33 square miles of new urbanized land could be
required to accommodate the needs of another 13,000
people by 1985. This amount of land is shown on
Exhibit 7.1m as being located within the Jackson-
ville planning area, and all of it falls into the
third priority.
If land, such as Bryn Marr, should be annexed,
it could reduce the estimated transition land need,
since the majority of Bryn Tarr is located outside
of the Jacksonville planning area.
COMMUNITY CLASS
The community class identifies existing and
new clusters of low density development not re -
7-2
quiring major public services. It includes:
..Existiny_clusters of one or more land uses such
as a rural residential subdivision or a church,
school, general store, industry, etc.
..New rural arrowth when the lot size is ten acres
or less. Such new growth should not occur on
land with severe physical limitations for devel-
opment, on "conservation" lands, or on fragile or
other similar sensitive lands unless no other
reasonable alternative exists.
For Jacksonville, it was considered that no com-
munity class land existed at present, and that none
would be allocated for such development in the
future.
RURAL CLASS
The rural class identifies lands for long term
management for productive resource utilization, and
where limited public services will be provided.
Development in such areas should be compatible with
resource production, and would include any land not
assigned to one of the other four classifications.
This category also would include land for future
needs which are not currently recognized.
For Jacksonville, as shown by Exhibit 7.1m, two
large areas to the north and northwest were grouped
into this classification. The CAMA Land Use Plan
Advisory Committees feel that these are the areas
where Jacksonville's growth will, and should, occur
after 1985 or beyond the 13,000 population addition.
CONSERVATION CLASS
The conservation class identifies lands which
should be maintained essentially in its natural
state and where very limited or no public services
are provided. They are the least desirable for
development because they are too fragile, have
severe or hazardous limitations, or are natural re-
sources too valuable to endanger. They include:
..Fragile lands - such as wetlands, surface
waters, wildlife habitats, historical and
archeological areas, and steep slope areas.
..Hazard lands - such as floodways, erosive
areas, etc.
..Other areas - such as public owned forests or
parks, private sanctuaries, water supply water-
sheads, etc.
For Jacksonville, the only land designated as
"conservation" was that which was located within the
flood plains, as illustrated by Exhibit 7.1m.

cao.

8-1
.Chapter VIII : POTENTIAL
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
INTRODUCTION
The 1974 North Carolina Coastal Area Management
Act requires that "particular concern be given to
the nature of development which shall be appropriate
within the various types of Areas of Environmental
Concern (AEC) that may be designated by the Coastal
Resources Commission."
The Land Use Plan shall include a description of
any potential AEC, along with a statement of specific
land uses which may be allowed in such area, consis-
tent with policy objectives. These are areas in
which uncontrolled or incompatible development might
result in irreparable damage to the very features of
the Coastal Area which make it economically, aesthet-
ically, and ecologically rich. The six basic cate-
gories for potential AEC's are:
..Coastal Wetlands
..Estuarine Waters
..Renewable Resource Areas
..Fragile, Historic or Natural Resource Areas
..Public Trust Areas
..Natural Hazard Areas
JACKSONVILLE POTENTIAL AEC's
Of the six basic categories, Jacksonville has land
that fits only one: the natural hazard area which
is concerned with flood plains.
The Jacksonville floodplain areas were previously
discussed in Chapter V, and illustrated by Exhibit
5.2m. The Coastal Resource Commission guidelines
further describes a floodplain as follows:
..Description - River flood plain is defined as
a land area adjoining a river, stream, or watercourse
which is likely to be flooded once every 100 years
(i.e., that has a one per cent chance of being flooded
each year).
..Significance - Floodplains store floodwaters,
thereby reducing inundation of adjacent lands. Flood
plains also absorb and dissipate the energy of flood-
waters, thereby reducing downstream destruction.
..Poli.EObjective - To protect the public health,
safety, and welfare by restricting land uses within
the flood plain which have a significant potential
to increase flood damage and cause loss of life.
..Appropriate land uses - Appropriate land uses
shall be those consistent with the above policy
objective.
FLOOD PLAIN LAND USES
describe the uses permitted in each. The most ap-
propriate way to provide the necessary regulations
would be to prepare and adopt a "floodplain zoning
ordinance".
Definitions
The flood plain, for regulatory purposes, is cal-
led the "general floodplain". With proper hydrologic
studies, it can be subdivided further into a "flood -
way" and "flood fringe" (see Exhibit 8.1m).
Exhibit 8.1m: Flood Plain Delineated and Subdivided
General Flood Plain
Flood Floes wav Flood
Fringe Fringe
General Flood Plain District (GFP) - is the channel
of a stream, and the adjacent land which has been,
or may be in the future, covered by water, and in-
cluding, but not limited to the regulatory flood.
This area of coverage may be referred to as the flood
plain or flood hazard area. With proper hydrologic
studies, the GFP may be subdivided into a "floodway"
and "flood fringe" as defined in the following:
..Floodway (_FW) - is the channel of a stream and
that adjacent land that are required to carry
the deep and fast moving floodwater, and the
two principal factors in its determination are
the selected flood discharge and the permitted
increase in flood heights.
..Flood Fringe (FF) - is the portion of the GFP
beyond the floodway that carries the flood-
waters that usually are shallow and slow moving.
Regulatory Flood - is the flood of a 100 year fre-
quency, and the flood protection elevation shall be
one foot higher. The regulatory flood shall be the
basis for determining the discharge, profile, pro-
tection elevation, floodway, and flood fringe.
Permitted Uses
The land uses permitted in each area are described
in the following sections.
General Flood Plain Uses
The delineation of a flood, and its later sub-
division, is shown by Exhibit 8.1m. The remainder of The permitted uses within the general flood plain
this section will define these different areas, and district (GFP), which are allowed as a matter of
8-1 right, are open space uses and do not involve

8-2
structures, fill, or storage of materials or equip-
ment ... such as agricultural activities, industrial
loading or parking, private and public recreation
uses, and residential lawns, play, or parking areas
All other uses must meet the requirements for a
special permit, after determining if it is in the
floodway or flood fringe.
Floodway District Uses
The uses permitted as a matter of right are the
same as those for the GFP district. The "special
permit uses" primarily include activities that would
not suffer great damage from flooding, are extensive
uses that must be located within a floodway for con-
tinuity (streets, utilities), or could be moved or
taken down prior to flooding (signs, carnivals, etc.).
Standards imposed by a Board of Adjustment on
any special permit may include a prohibition against
unduly affecting floodway capacity or increasing
flood heights. The Board also must take into consid-
eration that future requests of a similar nature may
be received for the opposite side of the stream.
Fill must be minimized and protected against erosion,
and any structures permitted shall not be for human
habitation, must have a low damage potential, and be
situated to minimize effect of flood flows.
Flood Fringe District Uses
Not only are the GFP uses permitted outright in
this district, but additional uses can be considered
if they are flood -proofed or elevated above the reg-
ulatory flood level. Fill extending at least 15 feet
beyond the structure is the preferred method of pro-
tecting structures in this district because it acts
as a buffer for the buildings, protects streets and
utilities, and discourages walk -out basements that
are easily flooded.
Special permit uses may include buildings placed
on stilts, piles, or partial walls (as opposed to
fill) if such supporting members have a proper foun-
dation to withstand flooding and do not create other
undesirable effects. In permitting such for build-
ings, one should not forget that this may provide no
protection for lower elevation streets or utilities.
Special Permit Procedure
Detailed procedures would have to be developed for
guidance in filing special permit applications, as
well as any other steps leading up to the Board's
decision in regard to a special permit request in the
floodway or flood fringe districts.
The type of information required by the Board
shall include the hydrologic data delineating the
floodway and flood fringe, and the relation of the
lot and any structures thereto. Cross -sections and
profiles of the districts also will be needed, as
well as specifications for floodproofing, filling,
dredging, or other'pertinent construction activities.
Upon receiving this information, the Board will
transmit the data to qualified professionals for their
advice and recommendations.
The Board of Adjustment within a reasonable time,
shall review the special permit request to determine
the suitability of the proposed use in relation to
8-2
the flood hazard, considering factors such as the
danger to life and property, water pollution effect,
alternative locations for the proposed use, and the
need to attach special conditions.
WATER CLASSIFICATION
The streams within the Jacksonville Planning Area
are classified as "C" by the North Carolina Stream
Classification System. The "C" classification means
that the water is suitable for fish and wildlife prop-
agation, boating, wading, and fishing, but is not fit
for human use of bathing, diving, waterskiing, or as
a water supply. These waters have a decreased di-
versity of fish species, but an increased population
of fish such as catfish, gizzard shad, bass, gar, and
mosquito fish.*13
Outside the Planning Area, from the New River rail-
road bridge south to Hickory Point, the water classi-
fication is "SB". From Hickory Point south to the
Atlantic Ocean, the water classification is "SA."
The best usage of "SA" waters is shellfishing for
market purposes and any other usage requiring waters
of lower quality. For "SB" waters, the best usage
is bathing and any other usage except shellfishing
for market purposes.
Implementation of the "201 Water Quality Plan"
recommendations will provide higher treatment for
the Jacksonville domestic and nondomestic sewage
generated by existing and future urban development.
This could lead to the consideration of upgrading
the water quality classification and standards,
unless non -point pollution sources overbalance
the improved point source treatment.

A-1
Appendix "A"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1... Coastal Area Management Act for North Carolina,
being Senate Bill #972 amending G.S. Chapter 113A
by adding a new Article 7, and ratified by the
General Assembly of North Carolina in its 1973
Session (2nd Session, 1974).
2._.Develogment Potential of Onslow County, N.C.,
prepared by the Onslow County Planning Department
and Moore, Gardner, and Associates, Inc., for the
Onslow County Planning Board, October, 1969.
3._.Manpower Application_for Onslow County, prepared
by Ken (loan, Executive Director, for the Manpower
Planning Office of Onslow County, 1974.
4... Onslow County Preliminary Study for Flood and
Draioape Plan, prepared by the office of the
County Manager of Onslow County, N.C.,
December 31, 1970.
5._.PlanninpLTomorrow for Onslow County, N_C_
prepared by the Onslow County Planning Department
for the County of Onslow, N.C., May, 1972.
6... Plan for Jacksonville, N_C_,_1966, prepared by
the North Carolina Division of Community Planning,
Department of Conservation and Development,
August, 1966.
7._.Population Growth Trends and Projections for
Onslow County, North Carolina, prepared by the
.;.-17 County Planning Department for the County
of Onslow, N.C., October, 1968.
8...Recreation Study for Onslow County, N.C. prepared
th by e Oaslow County Planning Department for the
County of Onslow, North Carolina, December, 1968.
9... Recreation Study for Jacksonville. N.C., prepared
by the Mayor's Recreation Study Commission for
the City of Jacksonville, May, 1970.
10_.State Guidelines for local planning in the
coastal area under the Coastal Area Management
Act of 1974, prepared by and for the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, Raleigh,
N.C., January 27, 1975.
A-1
ll..Thoroughfare Plan for Jacksonville, N.C., 1969,
prepared by the North Carolina Highway Commission
for the city of Jacksonville, N.C., March, 1969.
12_.Th010ughfare Plan for Jacksonville, N.C., Supple_
mental Report _1970, prepared by the North
Carolina State Highway Commission for the city of
Jacksonville, N.C., September, 1970.
13_.201 Facilities Plan for Jacksonville, N.C.,
prepared by G. Reynolds Watkins Consulting
Engineers for the city of Jacksonville, N.C.,
1975.
14..Watq _Quality Management Plan for Region "P'i
Phase II, prepared by and for the Neuse River
Council of Governments, New Bern, N.C., February,
1973.
15_.Zoaing_Ordinance for Onslow County, N.C.,
prepared by the Onslow County Planning
Department for the County of Onslow, N.C.,
February 17, 1969.
16_.ZoninsOrdinance—for—Jacksonville. N.C., pre-
pared for and adopted by the city of Jacksonville,
N.C., August 22, 1972.
17..Water System Improvement Plan for Jacksonville,
N.C., preparad by G. Reynolds Watkins Consulting
Engineers for the city of Jacksonville, N.C.
April, 1972.
18_.PoPulation Projections for Jacksonville sad
Onslow County.-N.C.. prepared by the Office of
State Planning, N.C. Department of Administration,
Raleigh, May, 1975.
19..1973 st Population Eimates for Jacksonville and
Onslow County, N.C., prepared bq the Office of
State Planning, N.C., Department of Administration,
Raleigh, July 1, 1973.
20_.1980 Population Trend Projections for Onslow
County, N.C., prepared by the Office of State
Planning, N.C. Department of Administration,
Raleigh, August 6, 1974.

A-2
21— An Appraisal of Potentials—for--Outdoor—Recreation- 24..North Carolina —Statewide —Comprehensive —Outdoor
-----------------------------
al_Develppment n Onslow County, North Catrolina, Recreation_ Plan, prepared by the N. C. Depart -
prepared by soil Conservation Service of the U.S. wenof Natural and Economic Resources, 1973.
Department of Agriculture for Onslow Soil and
Water Conservation District, May, 1974. 25_.Private Recreation —Enterprise Inventory, by
National Association of Conservation Districts,
1975.
22..Jacksonville_Area Soil Su for the City of
Jacksonville, prepared by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1970.
23..Nuese-White Oak River Basin - Volume I of the
-----------------------por
--
North Carolina_WateRer_Plan - Technical t
(Draft), prepared by the Water Resources Planning
Section, Division of Resources Planning and Eval-
uation, Department of Natural and Economic Re-
sources, State of North Carolina, March, 1975.
A-2

B-1
Appendix "B" - PROCEDURE FOR EXISTING
LAND USE INVENTORY
INTRODUCTION
The procedure followed to map, measure, and delin-
eate areas for the existing land use data of Chapter
IV will be described in this appendix in terms of:
..Area of Coverage
..Map to be Used
..Land Use Categories
..Land Use Colors
..Preparing Exist Land Use Map
..Selecting Areal Analysis Units
..Measuring Areal Analysis Units
..Land Use Measurement Technique
and Resulting Tabulations
AREA OF COVERAGE
The area of coverage not only for the land use in-
ventory, but also for all other aspects of this study,
was required to be the Jacksonville Planning Area.
This area includes the City of Jacksonville, plus all
other territory within a one mile radius of the city
limits (excluding Camp Lejeune). This is illustrated
by Exhibit B-lm.
BASE MAP TO BE USED
In gathering land use data, the base map should
contain at least the following information:
..rights of way for streets, railroads, utilities,
and any other similar "movement" strip.
..names of streets and other rights -of -way, as
well as'"place" names for parks, schools, etc.
..property lines that are accurate and up-to-date.
..drainage lines, ponds, lakes, streams, and any
other water bodies.
..city limit lines, as well as any other govern-
mental boundaries.
..at a scale large enough to permit accurate color-
ing and measuring of the smallest land parcels.
Fortunately, the Jacksonville City Engineer had a
map meeting all of these requirements, and was drawn
at a scale of 1"=+690', which was large enough to in-
sure accurate work. The map size, for the planning
area, was approximately 42 inches square. Although
this size was too large to include in the final re-
port, it was very useful at meetings for audience
review and discussion.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
The Coastal Resources Commission's guidelines re-
quired twelve categories of land use, with local
agencies encouraged to use more categories where ap-
propriate. For Jacksonville, fourteen categories
were used, with the additional two developed by sub-
dividing residential into single family, apartments,
and mobile homes. The categories were:
..Urban 6 Built -Up Uses (heading, not a category)
..Residential, Single Family
..Residential, Apartment
..Residential, Mobile Home
..Commercial - includes places where one can
purchase goods and/or services, such as retail
stores, restaurants, bars, theaters, offices,
motels, wholesalers, auto -oriented activities,
etc.
..Industrial - includes places where goods are
processed and/or manufactured, including man-
ufacturing plants, storage yards, warehouses,
etc.
..Transportation. Communication and Utilities -
tran portation includes rights -of -way for
streets, walkways, and railways, as well as
bus terminal, rail yards, etc; communication
includes telephone rights -of -way, as well as
telephone exchanges, radio and television sta-
tions and towers, etc; and utilities includes
any rights -of -way or facility buildings for
water,gas, electricity, sewers, etc.
..Government and_ Institutional - includes build-
ings or facilities for city, county, state,
or federal agencies, as well as schools,
churches, cemeteries, hospitals, etc.
..Cultural. Entertainment, and Recreation -
includes libraries, museums, golf courses,
parks, tennis courts, etc.
..Undeveloped land - in this "urban" category,
such uses are restricted to vacant lots or any
other land ready for buildings to be placed
thereon. .
..Agriculture - cropland, live stock, farming
..Forest Land
..Water - streams, lakes, ponds
..Wetlands - marshes, swamps
..Barren - beaches, quarries, graded land for
B-1

B-2
B-2

building construction.
It should be noted that this land use classifica-
tion system has certain conflicting categories. The
government category, for instance, is the only one
based on ownership, whereas all others try to reflect
the use made of the land. As a result, government
owned parks, libraries, and golf courses could be
counted as either "government" or "cultural...".
Government owned utilities present a similar problem,
whether to place under government or under utilities.
LAND USE COLORS
The Coastal Resources Commission guidelines estab-
lished the land use colors, with Jacksonville adding
two more for the extra residential categories. The
categories and colors were:
..Urban and Built-up
.Residential, single family - canary yellow, sol-
id, Eagle Verithin 0735
..Residential, apartment - yellow ochre, solid,
#736
..Residential, mobile homes - orange, solid, #736
..Commercial - carmine red, solid, #745
..Industrial - violet, solid, #742
..Transportations Communication,_& Utilities -
dark grey, solid, #747-1/2
..Government and Institutional - Ultramarine blue,
solid, 11740
..Culturali Entertainment,_& Recreational - true
green, solid, #751
..UndeveloQed - no color, leave blank
..Agriculture - dark brown, hatched, #756
..Forest Land - true green, hatched, #751
..Water - sky blue, solid, #740-1/2
..Wetlands - sky blue, hatched, 0740-1/2
..Barren - dark brown, solid, #756
PREPARING LAND USE MAP
Using the previously described base map, land use
categories, and colored pencils, the Jacksonville City
Engineer and staff field surveyed the entire Planning
Area and prepared the land use map. In fact, they
surveyed and mapped several areas beyond, but adjacent
to, the Planning Area. This additional information
proved to be quite helpful.
SELECTING AREAL ANALYSIS UNITS
Before land use measurements were begun on the
completed map, a decision had to be made as to the
B-3
B-3
subdivision of the Planning Area into smaller areal
units in order that helpful analyses could be perform-
ed on the distribution of existing uses. It was de-
cided to use the following hierarchy* (also see Exh.
B.2m):
.Whole - starting with the entire Planning Area,
and then dividing it into:
.Halves - identified as the "north half" and the
"south half", with the division line being U.S.
Highway 17.
._Quadrants - using the already established halves,
the Planning Area was then divided into quadrants
by using Gum Road and Bell Fork Road as the divi-
der, along with the division line already estab-
lished for the halves. The resulting quadrants,
in the north half, were NA and NB; and, in the
southern half, were SA and SB.
Sectors - using the established quadrants, the
Planning area, was divided into sectors,
S1Z quadrant NA being dividing into four sectors,
with Sector NA-1 bounded by previously described
lines plus the addition of Highways US258 and
NC24; Sector NA-2 bounded by previous descrip-
tions and the New River; Sector NA-3 bounded by
e previous and Onslow Drivand H_enderson Drive;
and Sector NA-4 bounded by previous and Gum
Branch Road;
12Z _quadrant NB not being further subdivided, and
the Sector—NB-1 has the same boundaries as the
quadrant.
S3) _quadrant SA being divided into five sectors,
with Sector SA-1 bounded by Brinson Creek, New
River, and US17; Sector SA-2 bounded by Johnson
Boulevard, US17, New River, and Camp Lejeune pro-
perty; Sector SA-3 bounded by Johnson Boulevard,
Hargett Street, 6S17, Onslow Drive, and New River
Drive; Sector SA-4 bounded by US17, Onslow Drive,
Hargett Street, New River Drive, and Bell Fork
Road; and Sector SA-5 bounded by Hargett Street,
Bell Fork Road, and Lejeune Boulevard.
,541 _quadrant SB being divided into four sectors,
with Sector SB-1 bounded by US17, Bell Fork Road,
Country Club Road, and Western Blvd; Sector SB-2
bounded by Country Club Road, Western Blvd. Le-
jeune Bld., and Bell Fork Road; Sector_SB-3
bounded by Western Blvd., Marine Blvd., and the
Planning Area boundary; and Sector SB-4 bounded
by Western Blvd. and the Planning Area boundary.
.Districts - using the established sectors, the
the Planning Area was divided into districts,
which separate Jacksonville from the remaining
area.
S1Z Sector NA-1 not being further subdivided
and District NA-lnj has the same boundaries as
the sector.
*the classification terms in the hierarchy are not
intended to be literally interpreted; rather, they
are used for descriptive purposes. For instance,
the halves are not equal in size, nor are the qua-
drants, etc. But it was felt that these terms.
would be more understandable than use of terms such
as "two parts", "four parts", etc.

B-4
Exhibit B-2m: Hierarchy of Five Aeral Subdivision Units for Jacksonville (and Use Analysis)
Ste _#l• The Total Area
T
-t/x5
•I
c
� The
n v Tof4-�
e�a PlnnDlnq
(� a Area 1�
I \
1
v CAMP cejeune
Sty 412: The Total Area �•
Divided into Halyes
/ 1
1
/ N- th& Ucr4h Het I('
I \
'15 ^
1
Jh •'S'- {he'5DUIh Halt
—,. J
Sty #4: Division
into Sectors
NA-3
/ t,
I NA-2
AS A -I -A-'-
v
s a-3
NA-4 N ,,0,-8,
i �B 2 ? SB +
SFl-i
B-4
Sty 1i3: Division .-
into Quadrants 1 \
�• �� Qua�ront NB
97
/ •4 4 I
1 � \
Q441drant tJA
JS
I � Quad.
5B
Cuadeant 5A J
.1
Sty �i5: Division
into Districts \
` •1
y i ��•� ' J o G� Ng"�j
ell—
N � L r1A-4i `I J ISB
1 Rwe� NA-15 se l^i
1 NA-2nj o S, can t�� 56
SR-1n j
yp-Inj \� SA-Zi 4►r`� SA Snj
1
v
CAMP Lajeune

B-5
S2Z Sector NA-2 being divided into two distircts,
with District NA-2j being the portion in Jackson-
ville, bounded by New River, a tributary of New
River, and US17;
..and District NA-2nj bounded by the Planning Area
boundary, New River, a tributary of New River,
NC24, and US17.
S3Z Sector EA-3 being divided into two districts,
with District NA_3j being the portion in Jackson-
ville, bounded by US17, New River, Onslow Drive,
Henderson Drive, Gum Branch Road, the back pro-
perty line of urban subdivisions, Little Creek,
and New River; and District NA-3nj bounded by Gum
Branch Rd., the Planning Area, New River, a New
River tributary, and the back property line of
urban subdivisions.
S4Z Sector NA_4 not being further subdivided, and
District NA-4j has the same boundaries as the
sector.
,S5) Sector NB-1 being divided into two districts,
with District NB-ljjbounded by Gum Branch Rd. and
the city limits line; and District NB-12i bounded
Gum Branch Rd., the Planning Area boundary, US17,
and the city limits line.
16Z Sector SA_1 not being further subdivided, and
District SA-1aj has the same boundaries as the
sector.
,S7Z Sector SA-2 not being further subdivided, and
District SA_21 has the same boundaries as the
sector.
,S8Z Sector SA-3 not being further subdivided, and
District SA_3j has the same boundary as the sec-
tor. -
,S9Z Sector SA_4 being divided into two districts,
with District SA-4j_ bounded by US17, the railroad
tracks, Hargett St., New River Road, and Onslow
Drive; and District SA_4.j bounded by the rail-
road tracks, Bell Fork Road, and Hargett Street.
110) Sector SA-5 being divided into two districts,
with the city fim-Its separating District SA-5j
from District SA-5nj.
111) Sector SB-1 not being further subdivided,
and District SB_1nj has the same boundary as the
sector.
S12) Sector SB-2 not being further subdivided,
and District SB_2nj has the same boundary as
the sector.
,i13) Sector SB_3 not being further subdivided,
and District SB-3pj has the same boundary as
the sector.
114) Sector -4 not being further subdivided,
and District IA-4nj has the same boundary as the
sector.
These units may be grouped as follows:
...the entire Jacksonville Planning Area
...the city of Jacksonville
...the Planning Area excluding Jacksonville
...the Planning Area by halves
B-5
...the city by halves
...the non -city area by halves
...the Planning Area by quadrants
...the city by quadrants
...the non -city area by quadrants
...the Planning Area by sectors
...the city by sectors
...the non -city area by sectors
...the Planning Area by districts
...the city by districts
...the non -city area by districts
The matrix design for tabulating data for this hi-
erarchy could follow two designs, depending only on
method preferred for displaying the data collected
for the areal units. The "horizontal -spread" design
would be as shown by Exhibit B.3t. In this design,
Exhibit B.3t: Horizontal -Spread Matrix Design
Areal
Residential
in
acres
Same for
Total
Jackson-
Not
Unit
Other
Hierarchy
Area Iville
Jack.
Land Uses
Planning Area Total
.North half
-.NA quad ----
--
----
--
----
.NA-1 Sector _
NJ*
-
..NA-2 Sector
- ..NA-27jdist_.-
..NA-2nj dist.
NJ
NA-3-Sector
.NA-3j dist.
J
..NA-3nj dist.
NJ
Sector
_ _
_ _ - _
J -
_ _ _ _
-.NA_4
.NA_4j dtst_
—•jE�—quaa
—
--
--
---
.NB-1 Sector
--
----
--
----
--------
..NB-lj dist.
J
..NB-lnj diet.
NJ
.South half
..SA quad _ _ _ _
--
----
--
----
..SA-1_Sector
NJ_ _
_ _
_ _ _ _
_
..SA-lnj dist.
_ -
-
NJ
..SA-2 Sector
_
.SA-2j dist.
J
..SA-3 Sector
_
..SA-3j dist.
J
..SA-4 Sector_
..SA-4j dist.
J
..SA-4nj dist.
NJ
..SA-5-Sector
--
- - - -
--
----
------
..SA-5j dist.
J
_.SA_5 diet.
_ _
NJ
..SB quad___-
__
__-
__
_-_-
..SS-1 Sector
--
NJ
----
--
— — — —
-------
..SB-laj dist.
NJ
..SB-2 Sector
NJ
_
B-
..S2nj dist.
NJ
..SB-3 Sector
--
NJ - -
--
- - - -
-------
..SB-3nj dist.
-
N-J
..SB-4 Sector
NJ_
_
..SB-4nj diet.
_ _
- _
NJ
_ _
_ _ - -
in Jacksonville
**..*J-In
**J-In Jacksonville

B-6
shown by the residential columns, data for the
three major areal units are placed side by side.
In the "vertical -spread" design, there would be
only one areal unit listed under each land use. In
effect, this means the preparation of three tables...
one for the "total planning area", one for Jackson-
ville, and one for the area not in Jacksonville.
The "horizontal -spread" design is preferred because
it pulls everything together in one table. If the
number of land uses to be measured is such that this
design cannot be accommodated by the paper being used,
one would be forced to go to the "vertical -spread"
design.
MEASURING AREAL ANALYSIS UNITS
Having selected the areal analysis units, it was
necessary to measure them in an accurate manner, prior
to beginning any land use measurement.* The method
used for this Measurement is described in the follow-
ing:
Total - measure the total planning area four times,
add the results, divide by four, and use this aver-
age as the overall control figure.
.Halves - measure each half four times, add the re-
sults, and divide by four to get the average for
each half. Add the two halves and figure percent-
age that each half is of the total obtained by
adding the two halves. If they do not add to the
figure obtained previously for the total area,
find the difference and distribute it proportion-
ately to each half.
Quadrants - measure each quadrant in the north
half four times, add the results and divide by
four to get the average for each quad. If they
do not add to the figure for the north half pre-
viously obtained, find the difference and dis-
tribute it to proportionately to each quadrant,
thereby forcing the two quads to add to the north
half figure. Repeat for southern half.
.Sectors - measure each of the sectors in the NA
quadrant four times, add the results and divide
by four to get the average measurement. If these
averages do not add to the previously obtained
area for the NA quad, find the difference and
distribute it proportionately to each sector.
Repeat for sectors in IM, SA, and SB quads.
.Districts - measure each of the districts with-
in a sector four times, add the results and di-
vide by four. If the averages do not add to the
previously obtained sector figure, find the dif-
ference and distribute it proportionately to the
districts.
In taking these measurements from the 1"=690' land,
use map, the map was first taped down to a drafting
table and a piece of mylar drafting film placed on
top. The outline of the entire planning area was
traced on the mylar, and the area was measured. A
*If this step is skipped, and one proceeds directly
to measuring the individual land uses and accumula-
ting them to the desired sub -totals and total, an
unacceptable degree of error almost invariably re-
sults.
B-6
combination of grids and planimeter were used in
measuring. Paper with a one inch square grid was
slipped under the mylar, with each grid equalling
10.93 acres (690'x690'=476,100 = 43,560=10.93 acres).
Where an irregular boundary did not permit use of the
grid, the area was planimetered. All measurement
data was retained on work sheets to permit later
checking for accuracy.
After measurement was completed for the total plan-
ning area, a similar procedure was followed for the
halves and the other units. Where streets were invol-
ed, the boundary or division line was placed in the
middle of the street right-of-way. The resulting
figures are shown by Exhibit B.4t, while the unit de-
lineation are shown by Exhibit B.5m.
Exhibit B.4t: Area Unit Measurement
Areal
Total
Jackson.
Not in
Unit
Area in
part in
Jackson.
Acres
Acres
in Acres
Planning Area Total
11 977.1
4,006.3
7,970.9
..North half _ - _
8,493.7
2i758_9_
5,734.9
5,063-
2i373_3
2,690.2
..NA-1-Sector
248.0
NJ_ _
_ 248.0
_ _
.NA-lnj dist.
_
248.0
_
NJ
248.0
806.5
161.6_
_ 644.9
.NA-2j dist.
61
1.6
_
161.E
J
..NA-2nj dist.
644.9
NJ
644.9
..NA-3-Sector
3,274.E
1i477_3
1,797.3
_ _
.NA--3j dist.
1,477.3
1,477.3
J
..NA-3nj dist.
1,797.3
NJ
19797.3
..NA-4- Sector
- 734.4
734.4-
- ----
-- J
--
--------
..NA-4J dist_ _
_ 734.4
_734.4
_ _ J _
]B_quad _ _ _ _ _
3,430.3
_385.6
3,044.7
NB--1 Sector
3,430.3
85
3.044.7
NB-lj dist.
385.6
_3.6_
385.6
3,044.7
..NB-lnj dist.
3,044.7
NJ
3,044.7
..South half _ - _
3,483.4
1Z247_4
2,236.1
.SA quuad _ _ _ _ _
..SA-1-Sector
2,194.5
559.6
1L247.4
- NJ_ _
_ 947.1
_ 559.6
_ _
SA-lnj dist.
_
559.6
NJ
559.6
..SA-2-Sector
475.4
_ _ J _
_
SA-2j dist.
_
475.4
_475.4
475.4
J
..SA-3 Sector
262.3
262.3
----
J
--J
--------
..SA-3j dist.
----
262.3
262.3
J
..SA-4 Sector
278.7
_239.8_
_ _38.9
_
.SA-4j dist.
_
239.8
239.8
J
..SA-4rj dist.
38.9
NJ
38.9
..SA-5 Sector
618.6
_ 348.6
_
.SA-5j dist.
_
269.9
_269.9_
269.9
J
..SA_5n dist.
348.E
NJ
348.6
..SB quad _ _ _ _ _
1,288.9
_ NJ_ _
1,288.9
.SB-1_Sector
297.8
NJ_
_ 297.8
_ _
.SB-lnj dist.
_
297.8
_ _
NJ
297.8
..SB-2_Sector
751.0
NJ_ _
_ 751.0
_ _
SB-2nj dist.
_
751.0
_
NJ
751.0
..SB-3_Sector
135.8
NJ _
_ 135.8
_
.SB-3nj dist.
_
135.8
_
NJ
135.8
..SB-4_Sector
104.3
NJ_ _
_ 104.3
_ _
SB-4nj dist.
_
104.3
_
NJ
104.3

B-7
B-7

B-8
LAND USE MEASUREMENT METHOD
In measuring the areal units, the work proceeded
from the largest area down to the smallest area. In
the land use measurement, however, the procedure was
erse revd and work began at the smallest area, the dis-
trict, and these were accumulated to the larger areas.
Each of the 14 land use categories in each district
were measured twice, their percentages figured, and
the acres totalled. If totals did not agree with the
the areal measurement previously obtained, the differ-
ence was distributed proportionately to the land use
categories.
Transportations communication, and utilities (TCV)
were the first land uses measured because of their
linear nature, and because streets had,to be divided
when they formed part of a boundary. All TCV uses
were tabulated on a separate sheet, as shown by Exhi-
bit B.6t, and the TCV total was entered on the final
land use summary. As each TCV item was measured, it
also was outlined in the appropriate color on the my-
lar firm overlaying the land use map. Boundary half
streets were measured, with the lineal footage multi-
plied by half the right of way, and the resulting
square footage was divided by 43,560 square feet to
obtain acres. Full streets inside the district were
measured using the full right-of-way.
The other land uses were measured after the TCV
Exhibit B.6t: Transportation, Communication, and Utilities (TRV) Measurement for the Planning Area.
Areal
Boundary half streets
Interior full streets
Total
Rail & Util.
Total
lineal
1/2
=square
=43,560
lineal
=square
=43,560
lineal
Unit
street
TCU
Hierarchy
feet X
row
feet
=acres
feet X
ro
feet
=acres
acres
feet
acres
acres
Planning Area Total
217,783
50
10,609,617
249.96
450,140
60
27,008,325
620.03
869.99
86 120
189.81
059.8
..North half - _ _ _
--
91i512
-
50
4,575.164
- --
105_04
-
270,912
60
-
16i254,675
373.16
- -
478_20
43,211
- -
99.20
577.4
- -
..NA
69z432
50
3,471,563
_ 79_69
210.192
60
12.611s475
289.52
369_21
41,658
95.63
464_9
..NA-1 Sector
1Oj695
50
_ 534,750
12_28
12,593
60
_755i55C
_17.34
29_62
_ _ 0
0 _
_ 29_6
_
.NA-lnj dist.
10,695
50
534,750
_
12.28
12,593
60
755,550
17.34
29.62
0
0
29.6
..NA_2_Sector
50
491,626
11.28
1,725
60
2.38
13_66
8,021
18.41
_ 32.1
.NA-2j dist.
_9,z833
2,674
50
_
133,688
_
3.07
0
0
_103i500
0
_
0
3.07
5,865
13.46
16.5
..NA-2nj dist.
7,159
50
357,938
8.21
1,725
60
103,500
2.38
10.59
2,156
4.95
15.5
..NA-3 Sector
25.L75
50
1,293,750
29_70
124,804
60
7=488i252
171.91
201.61
21,045
48.31
_249_9
.NA-3j dist.
19,320
50
966,000
_
22.18
123,165
60
7,389,900
169.65
191.83
21,045
48.31
240.1
..NA-3nj dist.
6,555
50
327,750
7.52
1,639
60
98,325
2.26
9.78
0
0
9.8
..NA-4-Sector
23i029
50
1,151,437
_ 26_43
71,070
60
4i264,2.O
_97.89
124_32
12,592
28.91
153_2
.NA_4j dist_
-
23i829
50
-
1,15I,437
_ 26_43
71,070
---
60
-
41264,Z200
97.89
- -
124_32
-
12,592
- -
28.91
-
153.2
- -
..NB quad _ _ _ _
22i08C
5.0
1,104,001
_ 25_35
60,720
60
3i643,z200
83,64
108_99
1,553
3.57
112.6
.NB-1 Sector
22i080
50
1,104,001
25_35r-6,720
60
3i643i20083.64
108_99
1,553
3.57
1126
_
.NB-lj dist.
6,469
50
323.438
_
7.438,980
60
1,738,800
39.92
47.35
518
1.19
48.5
-
-
780,563
--- --
17_921,740
-
60
-
1i904i400
93.72
- -
61_64
1,035
-
2.38
-
64.0
- -
..South half _ _ _
-- -
126, 71
50
-
6,034,053
- --
144_92
-
179,228
-
60
-
10i753i65C
246.87
---
391_79
-
42,909
- -
90.61
482.4
- -
..SA quad _ _ _ _
67i534
50
3,376,690
_ 77_50
149,040
60
8i942i400
205.29
282_79
26,349
54.44
_337.2
..SA-1 Sector
_ a.366
50
_ 418,313
_9_60
28,290
60
1i697i400
_38.97
48.57
4,313
8.91
_ 57.5
.SA-1nj dist.
8,366
50
418,313
9.60
28,290
60
1,697,400
38.97
48.57
4,313
8.91
57.5
..SA_2_Sector
5i865
50
_ 293,250
_ _6.73
68,655
60
4i119i300
_94.52
101_30
4,571
9.44
_110_7
_
..SA-2j dist
5,865
50
293,250
6 73
68,655
60
4,119,300
94.52
101.30
4,571
9.44
110.7
..SA_3_Sector
14i231
50
711,163
16_33
15,525
60
37.71
3,795
7.84
45.6
..SA-3j dist.
14,231
50
_
711,563
_
16.33
15,525
60
_931i500
931,500
_21.38
21.38
37.71
3,795
7.84
_
45.6
..SA-4 Sector
15,Q.O
50
_ 750,376
_ 17.22
19,492
60
1i169i550
_26.85
44.07
6,770
13.99
_ 58.1
_
.SA-4j dist
11,644
50
582,188
13.36
16,560
60
993,600
22.81
36 17
6,641
13.72
49.9
..SA-4nj dist.
3,364
50
168,188
3.86
2,932
60
175,950
4.04
7.90
129
.27
8.2
..SA-5 Sector
24i064
50
1,203,188
27_62
17,078
60
1i024i650
51.14
6,900
14.26
_ 65_4
.SA-5j 7 .
9,488
50
474,375
_
10.89
13,110
60
786,600
_23.52
18.06
28 95
2,587
5.35
34.3
..SA_5ej dist.
14i576
50
728,813
_ 16_73
3,968
60
238i050
5.46
22_19
4,312
8.91
31.1
..S quad _ _ _ _
58i737
50
2,657,363
_ 67_42
30,188
60
1i811i250
41.58
109_00
16,560
36.17
145_2
.SB-1 Sector
19i493
50
_ 974,625
_ 22_37
5,693
60
341i550
_ 7.84
30_21
7,417
15.77
_ 46.0
.SB-lnj dist.
19, 493
50
974,625
22.37
5,693
60
341, 550
7.84
30.21
7,417
15.77
46.0
..SB-2-Sector
25i875
50
1,293,750
29_7_
14,145
60
49_18
5,347
12.28
_ 61.5
.SB-2nj dist.
25,875
50
1,293,750
_
29.7
14,145
60
_848i700
848,700
_19.48
19.48
49.18
5,347
12.28
61.5
..SB-3_Sector
50
4,312
60
258i750
5.94
13_07
2,587
5.35
18_4
.SB-3nj dirt.
_6i210
6,210
50
_ _31,050
31,050
_ _7_13
7.13
4,312
60
258,750
_
5. 947
13.07
2,587
5.35
_
18.4
..SB-4 Sector
7i159
50
_ 357,938
_ _8.22
6,037
60
362=250
_ 8.32
16.54
1,207
2.77
_ 14_3
. -_4nj dist.
7,159
50
357,93818.22
6,037
60
362,250
8.7527
16754
1,287
2.77
19.3
*No communication land uses (telephone, tv, radio) were catalogued separate from other rights -of -way locations.
B-8

B-9
data had been completed. Generally, the land uses
with the smallest amount of land area in the district
were measured first, and those with the largest areas
left until last. Each land use was delineated in the
appropriate color on the mylar film to insure no areas
were overlooked.
When a large number of separated, but similar land
uses occurred within a district, they were colored on
the mylar and then copied onto tracing paper with
matched sides abutting. This provided a singular,al-
tho irregular in shape, mass to planimeter. For large
parcels the 10.93 acre grid was used whenever possible
to reduce the need for planimetering.
The final detailed land use tabulations for the
Planning Area, the City of Jacksonville, and the Area
Outside Jacksonville are shown by Exhibits B.7t, B.8t,
and B.9t. The existing land use map, and other land
use information, is contained in chapter IV.
B-9

Exhibit B.7t: Land Use Measurements for the Jacksonville Planning Area, in Acres
Single
Mob-
Resi-
Com-
In-
Trans.,
Gov.,
Total
Cul.
Urban
Jun-
Agri-
Total
Aerial Unit
Fam.
Apt.
ile
dential
mer-
dus-
Comm.,
Inst-
Ent.
Built
devel-
cul-
Forest
Wa-
Wet
Bar-
Iren
Undev-
Land
Resid.
Res.
Home
Total
cial
try
IUtil.
itut.
Rec.
Total
o ed
tur.
Land
ter
Land
elo .
Use
(/)
z>
[3)
(v=7z*3)
(r)
(67
O)
(r)
(9)
C/o.r+s»
Gil
pa)
(/3)
0*,)
03. )
is
or.n*u
(it=io+o
Planning Area Total
1,907
261
68
2 237
601
68
1 060
415
25
4,405
1,463
42
5,262
390
381
1 35
7,572
11 977
..North half
-------------------
1,283
------
101
-----
53
-----
1,437
-------
205
-----
2
----
577
-------
163
------
12
----
2,396
-------
319
42
5,028
294
381
35
6,098
8,494
..NA quad — _ _ _ _
_980
_ 68_
_ _2
1,071 —
178 _
— 0
465_
146
_8_
1i868
------
_ 279
-----
_42
------
2,203
----
291
----
381
----
-------
3=195—
-------
5,064
..NA-1—sector _
_ —3
_ _0
_ 13_
_ _16 _
—47 _
_ 0
_ 30
_ _0
93
145
0
0
10
—0
156_
248
..NA-lnj dist.
3
0
13
16
47
0
30
C
_6
0
_
93
_
145
_
0
_ _
0
_
10
_0
C
_0
0
156
_
248
..NA-2—sector _
_ 13—
_ _0
— —7—
— —19 —
—15 —
— 0
_ 32
67
501
142
807
.NA-2j dist.
0
0
0
0
12
0
17
_ _0
0
—0
0
_
29
_ —34
16
—19
8
—
57
_45
0
51
_0
0
_740
133
_
162
..NA-2jn dist.
13
0
7
19
3
0
16
0
0
38
18
10
444
45
91
0
607
645
..NA-3 sector _
_667
_ 20
_ —1
— 687
_46
_ 0
—250
—145
—8
1i136
_ _51
_23
1,616
210
239
_0
2i139
3,275
.NA-3j dist_
663
20
1
684
46
0
240
145
8
1,123
51
0
28
174
101
0
355
1,477
..NA-3nj dist.
3
0
0
3
0
0
10
0
0
13
0
23
1,588
36
138
0
1,784
1,797
..NA-4—sector _
_298
_ 49—
— —3
— 350
_69
_ 0
_153
8
574
48
0
86
734
_
.NA_4 ist
298
49_
—3—
350
69
0
153
_ _2
2
_0
_574
_
—48
_
0
_
_86
_26
26
_0_
_0
—0
_0
_161_
161
_
734
..NB quad _ _ _ _
_303
_ 33_
_ 30
_ 366
_27
— 2
_113—
— 16—
—3—
528
_ 40
_ 0
2,825
— 2
0
35
2i903—
3,430
..NB-1 sector _ _
----
_303
_ 33_
_ 30
_ 366
_27
_ 2
_113
_ 16
—3_
528
_ 40
_ 0
2,825
_ 2
_0
35_
2 903
3 430
..NB-lj dist.
180
31
0
211
15
0
49
13
3
291
0
0
57
2
0
35
95
—'--
386
..NB-lnj dist.
123
2
30
155
12
2
65
3
0
237
40
0
2,768
0
0
0
2,808
3,045
..South half
-------------------
624
-------
160
-----
15
-----
800
-------
396
-----
66
----
482
-------
252
------
13
-----
2,009
-------
1,144
------
0
234
97
0
0
1,475
3,483
..SA quad — _ _ _ _
_482
156
_ 15
_ 653
274
_40
_337
—151
13
1i468
_ 405
------
_ 0
------
_ 225
-----
97
----
—0
-----
-------
726_
-------
2,195
..SA-1 sector
_ 38
_ 27—
_ 12
_ —78
_39
_ 2
_ 58_
_ 51
_ _0
264
0
0
69
_0
333—
560
..SA-1nj dist.
38
27
12
78
39
2
58
51
0
_226
226
_
264
_
0
_ _
0
69
—0
0
_0
0
333
_
560
..SA-2 sector _
_214
_ 5_
_ —3
— 223
49
749
—15
—ill
_ 56_
8
461
7
0
0
8
0
15
475
.SA-2j dist.
214
9
3
223
15
111
56
8
_
461
_ _
7
_
0
_ _
0
_
8
_0
C
_0
_
15
—
475
..SA-3 sector _ _
_ 62_
— 53
— —0
— 114
45
— 0
_ 46_
— 19—
_2
_ —226
_
0
37
262
.SA-3 dist.
62
53
0
114
45
0
46
19
2
226
_15
15
_
0
— _11
11
_10
10
_0
0
_0
0
_
37
_
262
..SA-4 sector
--A----—.
_ 84
_ 41
_ _0
_ 124
—13
—24
_ 58
_2
0
52
0
0
6
0
57
279
S dis— t—
..4j
70
41
0
119
3
19
50
_
2
_ _
0
_ _221
193
_ _
42
—
0
_ —
0
_
5
_
0
_0
0
—
47—
_ 240
..SA-4nj dist.
6
0
0
6
10
4
8
0
0
28
10
0
0
1
0
0
11
39
..SA-5 sector —
_ _ 84_
— 30
_ —0
— 114
128
_ 0
_ 65
— 24
0
214
3
619
_
.SA-Sj dist
66
30
0
96
23
0
34
6
— —3—
1
— _334
161
_ _67
14
—
0
_
93
_
2
—0
0
—0
C
_284_
109
_
270
­SA_5nj—dist.—
— _ 19—
— —0
_ 8
— _19
105
— 0
— 31
18
2
_174
_ —54
_ 0
— 121
— 1
_0
_0
_175_
— 349
..SB quad _ _ — — _
_ _142
_ 4
_ 0
_ 147
122
_26
145_
_101
_ —0
_ 541
_ 739
— 0
_ _ 9
— 0
0
_ 0
_ _748
1.289
.SB-1 sector
--- ----
45
_0
— --
_0
45
---
_25
—
0
--
46
---
_ _1
_ -0
_ 117
181
0
0
0
_0
_0
298
..SB-lnj dist.
45
0
0
45
25
0
46
1
0
117
_
181
_
0
_ _
0
_
0
0
_
0
_ _181
181
_
298
..SB-2 sector _
_ _ 36
— —4
_ 0
_ 40
—96
_13
_ 62
_ 49
— —0
— 259
492
0
0
0
0
0
492
751
.SB-2nj dist.
36
4
0
40
96
13
62
49
0
259
_
492
_
0
— —
0
—
0
0
_
0
_
492
—
751
..SB-3 sector _
_ _ 11
— —0
_ 0
— —11
_ 0
13
— 18
_ 27—
_ 0
_ 69
— 67
0
0
0
67
136
.SB-3nj dist.
11
C
0
11
0
13
18
27
0
_
69
67
_
0
_ _
0
_
0
_0
0
_ _0
0
_ _
67
_
1 7
..SB-4 sector _
—— 51
__0
— 0
— 51
_.I
_.a
_ 19
24
—95
0
0
9
0
0
9—
104
.SB-4nj dist.
51
0
0
51
1
0
19
_
24
—_0
0
.
95
__
0
_
0
—_
9
—
0
0
__0
0
_—
9
—
104

Exhibit B.8t: Land Use Measurements for the City of Jacksonville Area, in Acres
Single
Mob-
Resi-
Com-
.In-
Trans.,
Gov.,
Cul.
Urban
Un-
Agri-
Total
Total
Aerial Unit
Fam.
Apt.
ile
dential
mer-
dus-
Comm.,
Inst-
Ent.
Built
devel-
cul-
Forest
Wa-
Wet
Bar-
Undev-1
Land
Resid.
Res.
Home
Total
cial
try
Util.
itut.
Rec.
Total
o ed
tur.
Land
ter
Land
ren
elop.
I Use
C". /)
0-)
(3)
(4c;773)
W
M)
(7)
or)
(91
ell.)Cis)
03)
Cis)
C/40
(/s
Planning Area Total
1 560
227
7
1 795
263
34
699
242
23
3,056
194
8
333
228
153
35
950
4,006
..North half
-------------------
1,141
------
99
-----
4
-----
1,244
-------
143
-----
0
----
458
--------
160
------
12
2,016
116
8
229
202
153
35
743
2,759
..NA quad _ _ _ _ _
_961
68
4
1,033 _
127
_ 0
410 _
_146_
----
8
-------
1,s725
------
_116_
-----
_8 _
------
_172_
----
200
-----
153
-----
------
648
-------
2s373_
..NA-1 sector _
_ NJ
NJ_
NJ_
_ NJ _
0
NJ
_NJ _
NJ_
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_0_
NJ
_
NJ
NJ_
..NA-lnj diet.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
..NA-2 sector
0
_0
_0
_ _ 0 _
_2- 12
0
0
29
16
8
57
0
51
133
..NA-2j dist.
0
0
0
0
1
_
0
_17 _
17
_
0
_0
0
_
29
_
16
_
8
_
57
_
0
51
_0
0
_
133
_162_
162
..NA-2nj dist.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
..NA-3 sector _
663
_66
20
_1
_ 684 _
46
_ 0
240
8
k
51
28
174
101
355
1j477_
.NA-3j dist.
3
20_
1
684
46.
0
_
NO
_145_
145
8
,123
1,123
_
51
_0 _
0
_
20
174
101
_0
0
_
355
1,477
..NA-3nj dist.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
..NA-4—sector _
_298_
49_
_3_
350 _
0
153
2
0
574
48
0
86
26
0
0
161
.NA_4j diet_ _
—
_298 —
49 —
_3 —
_ 350 _
_69
— 69
_
_ 0
153 _
—
_ _2
_0
—
574
_
_ 48
_
0
— --
_
86
— 26
_ 0
—
_0 —
_
161
---
_734_
_734_
..NB quad _ _ _ _
31
_0
_ 211 _
_15
_ 0
49
13
3
291
0
57_
2
0
35
.NB=1_sector _
_180
_180
31
0
_ 211 _
_15
_ 0
_
49
_
13
5
_
0
_0 _
_
57
_
2
_
0
35
_95 _
_386_
.NB-1j dist.
180
31
0
211
15
0
_
49
_
13
3
_291
291
_
0
_0 _
0
_
57
_
2
_
0
35
_95 _
95
_386
386
..NB-lnj dist.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
..South half
--------
419
128
3
551
121
34
241
83
12
1,040
78
0
104
26
0
0
207
1,248
-------------------------------
..SA quad _ _ — — _
419
128
_3
-------
_ 551 _
-----
121
----
34
--------
241
------
83_
----
12
-------
1i040
------
78_
-----
-------
----
-----
0
-----
0_
-------
207
-------
1i248
..SA-1 sector
— — ---
NJ
— —
NJ —
NJ
NJ
------
NJ
NJ
—
_
NJ
_
NJ_
NJ_
NJ
_
NJ_
_0 _
NJ
_104_
NJ
_26
_
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
NJ_
..SA-lnj diet.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
---
NJ
—
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
—
NJ
-----
NJ
NJ
_NJ
NJ
--
NJ
NJ
---
NJ
_
NJ
..SA-2 sector _
_214
_5
_3
223 _
_49
111
56
8
461
0
0_
8
0
475_
.SA-2j diet_
214
5
3
_
223
49
_15
15
_
111
_
56
8
461
_ _7_
7
_
0
_
0
_
8
_
0
_0
0
_15 _
15
475
..SA-3 sector
62
53
_0
_ 114 _
_45
_ 0
46
19
2
226
15
0
11
0
262
A-
.S3j dst. i
62
53
0
114
45
0
_ _
46
_
19
2
_226
_ 15
C _
_ 11
_10
10
_
0
_0
0
_37 _
37
2627'
..SA-4 sector _ _
_ 78
41
0
_ 119
3
42
0
5
0
240
.SA-4j diet.
78
41
0
_
119
_
3
_19
19
_50 _
50
_ _2_
2
_0
0
_193
193
_
42
_0 _
0
_
N
_
5
_
0
_0
6
_47 _
47
Y40
..SA-4nj dist.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
..SA-5 sector _
_ 66
30
_0
_ _96 _
_23
_ 0
_34
6_
14
93
2
0
0_
109
.SA-5j dist.
66
30
0
96
23
0
_
34
_
6
_2
2
_161
161
_
14
_0 _
0
_
93
_
2
_
0
0
_
109
_270
5
..SA-5n diet.
_ NJ
NJ
NJ
_ NJ _
NJ
NJ
NJ
_ NJ
NJ
NJ
_ NJ
NJ _
_ NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ _
_ NJ
..SB quad _ _ _ _ —
_ NJ
NJ
NJ_
_ NJ _
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ_
NJ
NJ_
NJ
NJ
NJ_
NJ
NJ
..SB-1_sector _ _
_ NJ_
NJ_
NJ_
_ _NJ _
NJ
_
_
NJ_
NJ_
_
NJ
_
NJ_
_
NJ_
_
NJ_
_NJ
NJ
_NJ
NJ
_
_
NJ
..SB-lnj diet.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_NJ
NJ
NJ
_NJ _
NJ
_
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
NJ
_NJ
NJ
NJ
_NJ _
NJ
_
NJ
..SB_2_sector _ _
NJ_
NJ
NJ
_ NJ _
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ_
NJ_
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ_
.SB-2nj diet.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_NJ _
NJ
_
NJ
..SB-3 sector _
NJ_
NJ_
NJ_
_ NJ _
NJ
NJ
NJ_
NJ
NJ_
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
.SB-3nj diet.
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_NJ
NJ
_NJ _
NJ
—
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_NJ
NJ
_NJ
NJ _
-Ni-
_
NJ
..SB-4 sector
--------
NJ_
NJ
NJ
--------
NJ
NJ
NJ_
NJ_
NJ
NJ_
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ_
NJ_
..SB-4nj dist.
_
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
_NJ
NJ
_NJ _
NJ
_
NJ
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
_
NJ
is
NJ
NJ
NJ
_NJ _
NJ
_
NJ

Exhibit B.9t: Land Use Measurements for the Outside of Jacksonville Area, in Acres
Single
Mob-
Resi- 1
Com-
In-
Trans.,
Gov.,
Cul.
Urban
Un-
Agri-
Total
Total
Aerial Unit
Fam.
Apt
ile
dential
mer-
dus-
Comm.,
Inst-
Ent.
Built
devel-
cul-
Forest
Wa-
Wet
Bar-
Undev-
Land
Resid.
Res.
Home
Total
cial
tr
Util.
itut.
Rec.
Total
o ed
tur.
Land
ter
Land
ren
elo .
Use
O)
(L)
(J)
1
(*=77 3
[r>
(0)
h)
p)
O)
(70
ox)
(12)
(-)
057
Ot)
p7.BA/
Planning Area Total
347
34
61
442
338
40
361
173
2
1.349
1.269
33
4 929
162
228
0
6 622
7.971
..North half
------- ----------------------------
142
2
49
----
194
-------
62
-----
2
----
119
-------
3
------
0
380
203
33
4,799
91
228
0
5,355
5,735
..NA quad _ _ _
—2,031
----
-------
------
-----
-----
---
----
-----
------
-------
sector _
_ 3 _
_0
13
_ 16_
_ 47
_ 0
30 _
_ 0
0 _
_ 93
145
0
0
0
0
156
..NA-1nj diet.
3
0
13
16
47
0
30
0
0
93
_
145
_ _
0
_ _
0
_10
10
_
0
_
0
156
—248
248
..NA-2 sector
— ---
13
0
_J
7
_J_
19
_J
3
_J
0
16
0
0
38
18
10
444
45
91
0
607
645
..---2—
J_
J
J
_J
J
J
J
J—
_
..NA-2nj dist.
13
0
7
19
3
0
16
0
0
38
18
10
444
45
91
0
607
645
.._N.A.-3 sector
3_
0
_0
_3
_0
_0
10_
_J
_0
0
13
0
23
_J
1,588
_36
_138
0 _
1i 84J
1i 797
A-3de
J
J
J
J
J__
J—J
J
]
J
Jj
J
..NA-3nj dist.
3
0
0
3
0
0
10
0
0
13
0
23
1,588
36
138
0
1,784
1,797
..NA-4—sector _ _
_ J _
J
J
_ J
_ J
_ J
_ J _
_ J
J _
_ J
_ J
_ J _
_ _ J
J
_ J
J
_ J
_ J
..NB quad _ _ _ _ —
123 _
_2_
30
155
_ 12
_ 2
64 _
_ 3_
0 _
_237
_ 40
_ 0 _
2,767
_ 0
— 0
0 _
2t808
3i045_
..NB-1 sector _ _
123 _
_2
30
_155
12
_ 2
_64 _
_ _3J
0 _
—237
_ _40
_ 0 _
2,767
_ 0
_ 0
0
2j808
3i045
.NB-1j diet.
J
J
J
J
_
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
—
J
J
J
..NB-lnj diet.
123
2
30
155
12
2
64
3
0
237
40
0
2,767
0
0
0
r2p8O8
3,045
..South .half
--------------------
205
------
32
----
12
-----
249
-------
275
-----
32
----
242
-------
169
2
969
1,066
0
130
71
0
0
19267
2,236
..SA quad _ _ _ _ _
62 _
27
12
_102
_154
_ 6
_97
-------
68
----
2
-------
428
------
327
-----
0
-------
121
----
71
----
0
-----
0
------
-------
947
..SA-1 sector _ _
_38 _
27_
12_
_ 78
_ 39
_ 2
_
58 _
_
_ 51_
_
0 _
226
_
264
_ _
0
_
0
_
0
_
0
_519
560
..SA-1 diet.
38
27
12
78
39
2
58
51
0
226
_
264
_ _
0
_ _
0
_69
69
_
0
_
0
_333
333
560
..SA-2 sector
--------
_ J _
_J
_J
_
-
--
_ J _
_ _J
J
--
_ J
-
_ J
J
J
J
J
J
..SA-2j diet.
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
_
J
_ _
J
_ _
J
_
J
_
J
_
J
_
J
J
.. SA_3 sector _ _
_ J _
J_
J
_ J
_ _J
_ J
_ J _
_ J
J _
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
..SA-3j diet.
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
_
J
_ _
J
_ _
J
_ _
J
_
J
_
J
_
J
_
J
_
J
..SA-4 sector _
_
_ 6 _
0
_0
6
10
_ 4
8 _
0
0
28
0
0
1
0
0
11
39_
.SA-4j dist.
J
J
J_
J
_
J
J
_ J
_
J
_
J
_
J
_ _10
J
_ _
J
_ —
J
_
J
—
J
_
J
_
J
—
J
..SA-4nj dist.
6
0
0
6
10
4
8
0
0
28
10
0
0
1
0
0
11
39
..SA-5 sector
—i—s—
—..——
19
_J_
_0
_0
_19
105
2_
174
53
0
121
1
0
0
175
349
_0
_31_
_18
J
_J
J
_
_J—A-
_.SA-5nidist._
_19 _
_0
0
19_
105
_ 0
—31 _
18
2 _
174
_53
0
121
1
_ 0
0
175
349
142 _
4
0
_147
122
26
145 _
_101
0 _
_541
_ 739
_ 0 _
_ _ 9
_ 0
_ 0
0 _
1i289_
..SB-1 sector _
45 _
0
_0
_ 45_
_ 25
_ 0
46 _
_ _1
0
117
181
0
0
0
0
0
_748
181
..SB-lnj diet.
45
0
0
45
25
0
46
1
_
0
117
_
181
_ _
0
_ _
0
_
0
_
0
_
0
181
_298
298
..SB-2 sector
36 _
_4
0
_ 40
_ 96
_13
_62 _
49
0
259
492
0
0
0
0
0
492
751
o .SB-2nj esctor
36
4
0
40
96
13
62
_
49
_
0
25 9
_
492
_ _
0
_ _
0
_
0
_
0
—
0
492
751
..SB_-3n3 sector _
_11 _
0
0
_ 11
0
_13
18 _
27
0
69
67
0
0
0
0
0
67
_
..S1j disc.
11
0
0
11
_'
0
13
18
27
_
0
_
69
_
67
_ _
­6
_ _
­16-
_
0
_
0
_
0
_
67
_136
136
..SB-4_sector _ _
_51 _
_0
-A-1—
51
_ 1
_ 0
_19 _
_ 24
0 _
95
_ 0
0
9
0
0
0
104
.SB-4nj diet.
51
0
0
51
1
6
19
24
0
_
95
_
0
_ _
0
— _
9
_
0
_
0
_
0
_ _9_
9
104

C-1
Appendix "C"
CITIZEN OPINION SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
As part of Jacksonville's public participation
program for the CAMA Land Use Plan, it was decided
that a citizen opinion survey should be made. The
purposes of the survey were to determine (1) the
level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with cer-
tain community services, opportunities, and liv-
ability qualities; and (2) to determine the level of
agreement or disagreement with certain future growth
possibilities.
DESIGN
The design of the survey form is shown by Exhibit
C.2t. The questions dealing with "satisfaction -
dissatisfaction" are numbered 1 through 27, and those
dealing with "agreement -disagreement" are 28 through
30. Questions 32 through 35 were included to permit
later analysis of responses by sex, age, income,
geographic area, or by any combination of these
characteristics.
DISTRIBUTION
The forms were distributed to citizens in three
ways: 27,000 copies (only 6,000-8,000 in Jacksonville
City) in the local newspaper; approximately
400 copies were given to citizens who visited City
Hall for other reasons; and about 100 copies were
distributed by members of the Citizen's Advisory
Committee to persons living in their neighborhood
and to high school students.
RETURNS
Of the 8,000 Jacksonville forms, only 80 were
returned ---which represents less than one percent
(.4%) of the 20,000 people living in the City. Or,
if one assumes that each form represents the atti-
tudes of an entire family unit, the returns would
represent about one and one-half percent of the City's
5,600 dwelling units. Because of the small return
and the lack of a scientific sampling procedure, the
response cannot be said to be representative of the
attitudes of all the citizens of Jacksonville.
FINDINGS
When the 80 forms were summarized, as shown by
Exhibit C.lt, they revealed far more positive than
negative findings. For the four _"agree -disagree"
items on the form, the highest level of agreement
was for "a future land use plan is needed," next
was "more industry is needed", followed by "the City
should continue to grow in area .and population,"
and ending with "buildings should not be permitted
in our flood plains."
For the "satisfied -dissatisfied" questions, the
highest degree of satisfaction was expressed with
"postal service, fire protection, and your home".
C-1
Exhibit C.lt: Summary of the 80 Jacksonville Responses
Survey
Item and Rank
Satisfied Dissatisfied
or Agree I or Disagree
2— 1 -- 0
1. Future Land Use
Plan is needed*
2. More industry is
needed*
3. City should continue)
_ to grow *-rv-_--
3_ Postal seice_
3. Fire protection
Your home
_3. - - -
4 Water system
_4. Garbage collection
5. Police protection
5. Your neighborhood
5. Library
I
5. Air quality - - - -
_ -
__-
6
7. Street lights
7. Shopping areas
+
7. Telephone system
Tj
7. Radio
I
7. No buildings in
_ flood plains*_
8_ Sewage disposal
_ _1
_ _
9. Airport
T
_9. Electric suyply - --
10. Overall quality of
1—T
life in Jacksonville)
10_ Television
- - - _
11. Schools
11_ Streets
12_ Storm water disposal
_
Industrial areas
-13.
----------------------
---- ---
----
14. Sidewalks
14. Parks
r -I
15. Employment
opportunities l6_ Downtown
*These are the four "agree -disagree" questions
Items through #7 on the exhibit also ranked in the
high satisfaction area, while items #8 through 013
ranked in the "fairly" satisfied area. On the dis-
satisfied side were only four items. Sidewalks,
parks, and employment opportunities were ranked as
"slightly dissatisfied", while Downtown was the only
item to receive a "fully dissatisfied" ranking.
In terms of dominant characteristics, the eighty
respondents were:
...74% male
...90% between 19 to 64 yrs
...83% earned over $10,000 per year
...80% live north of Marine Boulevard
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Space was provided on the survey form for citizens
to add any other comments desired. The following

C-2
r,rhihit C.2t: Citizen Opinion Survey Form for Jacksonville, North Carolina CAMA Land Use Plan
CITY OF JACKSMILLE, NORM CAROLINA
CITIZEN OPINION SURVEY
Dear Citizen:
The North Carolina Coastal Areas Management Act
If 1974 requires the city of Jacksonville, along with
other coastal cities and counties, to prepare a Land
Use Plan to help guide our community'a future growth
and development, and to protect our natural resources.
This survey form is one method we are using to try
to insure that our plan. adequately reflect the
opinions and attitudes of our citizens.
Would you be so kind as to help us by completing
this survey form on the front and back. After com-
pletion, will you please fold the form so that my
office address shows on the outside and return it by
mail.
I thank you for your interest and help.
Sincerely,
Ro rt F. Wray, lty-f
The following items deal with certain services,
facilities, and opportunities in Jacksonville. For
each item, would you mark the one box that expresses
Your degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. If
you would like to explain the reason for your, .never,
please do so on the back of this page in the box
titled "For Your Comments."
A
B
C
D
E
Fully
Fairly
No -
Slightly
Fully
Survey
Satis-
Satis-
Opin-
Dias at-
Dist
Item
fled
fled
Son
isfied
isfied
Employment
loppor-
t ni ies
2. Your
home
3.Neighbor-
hood
4. Shopping
areas
5. Dow -
town
6Indu.tria
areas
7. Li-
brary
8. Schools
9.Parks and
retreat.
10.Poldce
ro e
11.Fire
protect.
12. Postal
service
1?Sidevalk
A
B
C
D
E
ully
Fairly
No
Slightly
Fully
Survey
Satis-
Satis-
Opin-
Die..t-
Dissat
Item
fied
fled
ion
isfied
isfied
14.Streets
15. Air-
port
16.Electric
Svstem
17.Street
light.
18.Water
stem
19.Telephone
Svstem
20. Radio
21. TV
22. News-
paper
23.Garbage
24.Storm wa
ter di= osa
25.Sewage
di ".1
26. Air
quality
170verall qual-
ity of living
in Jackson.
In the following, would you indicate your degree
of agreement or disagreement by marking only one of
the boxes.
A
B
C
D
E
Fully
Fairly
No
Slightly
Fully
Survey
Agree
Agree
Opin-
Dis-
Di. -
Item
ion
agree
agree
28. The city
should con-
tinue to
grow in area
and popula-
tion.
29. The futr.
land use
plan for
Jacksonville
is needed.
30. Bldgs.
should not b
permitted in
our flood
plains.
31. More in-
dustry is
needed.
Please turn to other side of this sheet and fill Sn
those items. Thanks
..If you don't mind, would you please mark the 35. 06 the asphalt.
appropriate box in the following: would you please circle
the latter for the area
32. Sex A. Male ❑ B. Female U in which you live. p
33. Age Group:
A. 18 yre/undar ❑ B. 19 to 64 ❑ C. over 650 AIMP_X"_
34. Income Group: _
Area W
A. $5,G00 or under ❑ _s Area"ftv
B. $5.001 to 10,000
C. $10,001 to 15,000❑ v4 M'ptM od,
D. over $15,000 ❑ Aree'D` ^
Area"E"
C-2

C-3
written comments were made:
..."Illumination of many residential streets
needs upgrading."
..."Need more parks and sidewalks, and more em-
ployment opportunities."
..."Close Court Street to traffic, and make into
plaza, with trees and seating. Clean up area
around bus station."
..."City is clean, healthy place to live, and
reflects conscientious professional manage-
ment practices. Services are excellent, the
tax rate fair, and there's no deficit spending.
I am proud to call Jacksonville my home."
..."J.C. Penny or Sears store needed. Should
vote to outlaw sale of alcoholic beverage. This
would clean up Downtown Jacksonville in a
hurry."
..."Airport too far from Jacksonville. Dissatis-
fied with Court Street. No radio station has
adequate news coverage. Limited TV channels
if not on cable. Newspaper carries practically
no sports, except for statistics.
..."Court Street is a disgrace. Developers should
be made to put in streets, sidewalks, and
parks. Rules for trash collection too strict.
No recreation facilities in Area B."
..."Preserve public beach area before it is too
late. Safe park and recreation space still a
great need."
..."Route #17 and #24 need streets cleaned. Need
bus service on main streets at least."
..."Too many commercials on local radio."
..."City should not continue to grow. Widening
Henderson helped business but hurt residential.
More industry is not needed. Airport was un-
necessary and location is not good. Hospital
would have been perfect at Montford point, but
present location will present excessive cost to
extend public services."
..."Overall quality of Jacksonville is not satis-
factory because the military downgrades over-
all appearance, crime rate is rising, lack of
facilities for selective shopping, and better
recreation facilities are needed."
..."Need more industry. Telephone installation
charge is too high."
..."Jacksonville is a good town, and this survey
is a good start towards giving people what
they want."
."Airport needs a restaurant, and better ser-
vice to the western part of North Carolina.
Downtown should be rebuilt. Postal service in
my neighborhood is good, but is too slow gen-
erally. City is large enough to support a
TV station. Storm water drainage needs im-
provement in some areas. No sewage should ever
be allowed to run in the river (example: stream
on Maple Street). Too much haze in summer.
Need a park in Area "C". Need more nice
restaurants." C-3
..."Most important matter that can be improved are
our recreation facilities."
..."Need shopping mall. Sidewalks should be re-
quired on every street. Airport too far from
City. Need local TV station. Need better
water and sewers outside the City."
..."City can't grow without job opportunities and
a workable plan to get the population off of
welfare."
..."Airport needs more direct flights. Every-
thing is hard sell on radio. Newspaper is
getting better."
ANALYSIS BY JACKSONVILLE SUB -AREA
In order to determine if people living in differ-
ent parts of Jacksonville would respond alike or dif-
ferently to the same question, the City was divided
into five sub -areas ((as shown by Item 35 on Exhibit
C.2t). Of the total Citywide return of 81 forms:
...30, or 37%, were from Area "A"
...13, or 16%, were from Area "B"
...11, or 14%, were from Area "C"
... 5, or 6%, were from Area "D"
6, or 6%, were from Area "E"
...16, or 21%, were not marked as to the area.
The summary of responses from each area is shown
by Exhibit C.3t. When each area was plotted*1 in a
fashion similar to Exhibit C.lt, the similarity be-
tween areas was remarkable. There were very few
cases where one area was "satisfied" with something,
but other areas were "dissatisfied." An item by
item breakdown will be provided by following the
rank order established in Exhibit C.lt.
1. The future land use plan for Jacksonville
is needed - all areas fully agree with this
statement.
2. More industry is needed- Three areas fully
aed, grewhile areas 7WT and "D" fairly agreed.
3 _The City should continue to grow in area and
population - All areas fully agreed except for
"A" and "B", which "fairly agreed."*2
3. Postal service - Areas A, D, and E were fully
satisfied with this service, while the remaining
areas were fairly satisfied.
3. Fire protection - All areas were fully satis-
fied with this service, except for "D" and the
"unmarked area," which were fairly satisfied.
3. Your home - Area "A" was fully satisfied with
their homes, while all other areas were fairly
satisfied.
*l-The score for each survey item was established
by (1) multiplying each "E" response by 1-, "D"
by 2, "C" by 3, "B" by 4, and "A" by 5; and
(2) by adding up the resulting figures and di-
viding that total by the total number of re-
sponses to the item. The resulting score is
plotted on Exhibit C.lt.
*2-This item, and the three which follow, all re-
ceive the same score and are all ranked as 113".

C-4
4._Water_sygem - All areas were fairly satisfied
with the public water system.
4._Carba2,e collection - Area "C" was fully satis-
fied with this service, and all other areas were
fairly satisfied!
5. _Police protection - Area "E" was fully satis-
fied, and all other areas were fairly satisfied.
5. Your neighborhood - Area "E" was fully satis-
fied with the neighborhood, and all other areas
were fairly satisfied.
5. Library - All areas were fairly satisfied with
The library.
5. Air quality - All areas were fairly satisfied.
6. Newyaper - Area "C" was fully satisfied, and
all other areas were fairly satisfied.
7 Street lights - All areas were fairly satisfied.
7. Shopping areas - All areas were fairly satisfied.
7._Telephone_system - Area "E" was fully satisfied,
and all other areas were fairly satisfied.
7. Radio - All areas were fairly satisfied.
7. Buildings should not beyermitted in our flood
plains - All areas fairly agreed on this statement.
8. Sewage diaposal - All areas were fairly
satisfied.
9. Airport - All areas were fairly satisfied.
9._Electric supply - All areas were fairly
satisfied.
10. Overall quality of life in Jacksonville - All
areas were fairly satisfied.
10_ Television - Area "D" was slightly dissatis-
fied, but all other areas were fairly satisfied.
11. Schools - Area "E" was fully satisfied, and all
other areas were fairly satisfied.
11_ Streets - Area "D" was slightly dissatisfied,
but all other areas were fairly satisfied.
12. Storm water disposal - Areas "C" and "D" were
slightly dissatisfied, but all others were fairly
satisfied.
13. Industrial_areas - Area "C" and the "unmarked
area" were fairly satisfied, but all other areas
were slightly dissatisfied.
14. Parks - Area "C" and the "unmarked" area were
fairly satisfied, but all other areas were slightly
dissatisfied.
15. Employment opportunities - All areas were
slightly dissatisfied with employment opportunities.
16_ Downtown - All areas expressed more dissatis-
faction with Downtown than any other survey item.
C-4

I
Exhibit C. 3t: Number of Responses by Category to Each Opinion Survey Question, by City Sub -Area and Citywide Total
Survey Item
Area "A" I Area "B" I Area "C" I Area "D" I Area "E" I Area Unknown I TOTAL CITY
A I n C 1 DI E AlB I C I D E A IB IC ID E JA IB IC ID E JA IB IC D JE JA IB IC D JE JAIB C IDI E
1. Employment opportunities........... 43 z I 7 51 y y 1 5 1 y L o 5 1 I O I Z o 3 1 1 1 3 3 z 3 3 9 1f 51`}
2. Your home .......................... ZI 7 p Z 0 8 y 0 1 0 S 5 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 0{ o 0 1 0 10 4 0 0 0 51 t.l O 5 1
3. Your neighborhood .................. 14 13 1 z �0 5 3 0 `� I �{ G 1- o o z O z 1 C) (a 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 3(v 31 `I 7 1
---------------------------------------------------
4. Shopping areas ..................... IS y
O y Z q 10 1 0 1 (, 3 0 1 1 z 1 o 2. O 3 z 0 1 0 7 S o 3 0 37 Z;. I 4-
5. Downtown ........................... ( z l 9 Is 0 1 1 Z y o 3 o z llp o l l 0 3 0 1 0 Z 3 z Z I G 5 3 10 q qq
6. Indistrial areas ................... 5 8 9 y Z 4 `i 1 0 Z 5 I z l( 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 3 o 1 z z 5 5 o 10 18 y� 17
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _7
---------------------------------------- -- -- - - -
7. Library ............................ S Iz 7 z 1 5 3 z Z G 5 O 41;
�o 0 3 I I O Z 3 f 0 D z e> 3 0 1 ilo 3r, 15 13 5
8. Schools ............................ 5 // 3 8'3 2 !o Z 3 0 3 1 1 I o S/ 1 o g z J O O 4 It z 3 I ,B ,o 9 1(0 5
9. Parks and recreation ............... S 0 -1 Z z i2 Lw
7 z 8 �- / `�- I- 5- Z 3 y O `� 0 3 0 Z 0 3 0 I S I �} y 1 71�
---------------------------------------- ---
10. Police protection .................. 1z 11 Z Z� 1 5 (o O l o z (o ► 0 3 o Z O y Z o 0 0 S 5 Z y o z� 3s 5 5
11. Fire protection .................... 22 y 0 0 0 g y 0 0 0 g z 1 0 o o 3 1 1 0 y Z 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 r8 z7 3 Z 0
12. Postal service ..................... Z� S O/! 7 y 0 1 o S 1 0 1 1 1 `/ 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 o I° 1 0 0 1 5d 1!. 0 3
_ 3 _
13. Sidewalks .......................... 5 12- 2 y - - - 4 - I- �t �0 - - -� 3 - 1 1 1 - 3 3 -r y-!-
3 0 0 � , o o z o � z 1 1 o z z, l �
14. Streets ............................ .5 17 0 7 1 / 4 0 2 O b 0 3 10 O z 0 2. 1 Z 3 0 1 O z q 1 2 i +o 40 1 17 y
15. Airport ............................ /o /(a L/ 3 1 3 (o I o 2 y 7 0 0 0 o z z O 1 `{ I i 0 0 1 10 0 0 S tiz- 7 l
---------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - --- - -- -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - --- - ---
16. Electric system .................... 13 0 3 y 2 5 1 z 0 y g 0 0 3 1 3 1 1 0 3 z 0 li 0 G 5f 2- 1 31 Z�, 7 10
c� 17. Street lights ...................... 13 1Z O$ 1 t (0 0 Z o 3 4' Z Z D 1 3 0 0 1 2 z O Z. O G 4, 1 z C., a5 33 3 13 Z.
vn 18. Water system ....................... i0 b 1 y O S 7 0 o o y G O 1 O z z / 0 0 0 o
19. Telephone system ................... 1(0 5 z 4 1 3 5 1 3 0 5/ i 3 0 1 3 0 1 0 5 1 J 0 0 7 7 0 1 0 37 Z y Iy
20. Radio .............................. 13 a l 7 1& g 0 L 1 7 3 0 1 o z l 0 0 z I I O I 1 0 5 7 o z 0 31 7A i 13
21. Television ......................... 8 11 / 9 0 0 z 5 1 o z 1 / 1 0 z 3 1 1 0 1 0 3 1 z l z. z.7 0 /l
---------------------------------------- -- -- -- - -- - - - - --- - -- - -- - -- - -- -- --- - --r- - -- -- - -- - - - -- - ---
22. Newspaper .......................... 17- II Z `/ 1 !0 5 1 1 0 5$ 0 1 0 z 1 0 1 1 z 3 1 jO 0 80 1 0 33 zt. 8 z
23. Garbage collection ................. p O L o Z 10 O 4, z 25 O
24. Storm water disposal ............... l7 /O I_3 7 N O y l 0 o y 0 1 D Y o 7 1 0 'h{
---------------------------------------- 6 I¢ 3 3 q3 _1 I z Z 3 3! o I I Z;! z 3-�D O 5'q z o 15 !z -�
25. Sewage disposal......... 13 .z Z 2! S' b l 1 0 z Z z 5 0 1 3 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 7 1 1 2 z9 8 l0 3
26. Air quality ........................ 15 II z Q 2 (a 5 0 1 0 3 7 0 l o l S 1 0 0 1 3? 10 O S 1 0 0 3y 3i 1c z z
rall quality of living
27. in Jacksonville.......... •.••.••.•. ,/ /7 i 3 l 3 (o O 3 I 0 1 Iv 0 5 0 0 3 0 1 I 1 13 0 l O 3 j 10 I 1 0
28. City should continue to grow
/8
5
3
3
0
9
Z
D
I
I
y
D
o
0
0
y
o
1
0
0
5
1
o
0
0
10
3
1
0
0
55
`
in area and population .............
29. Future land use plan for
z/
5
l
0
1
//
I
O
0
1
$
3
D
0
0
3!
1
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
/z-
I
1
0
0.0
11
2-
Jacksonville is needed .............
0
30. Buildings should not be permitted
15
5
5/
/c
z
y
l
O
L
3
o
0
3
o
z
0
0
�/
O©
O
8
0
3
I
o
38
to
!B
S
I
in our flood plains ................
31. More industry is needed............
/y
10
1
Z/
9
1
1
0
1
g
I
D
o
0
3
1
0
1
0
/o
O
0
0
0
11
3
0
0
0
S(o
17-
2-
3
z
32. Sex ................................
23
9
-
-
-
y S
-
-
9
y
-
-
--
5
I
-
-
-
y
Z
-
-
-
13 z - - -
011z1
-
-
33. Age ................................
3
2(o
O
-
-
O I1z
o
-
-
3
y
O
-
-
O
S"
O
-
-
O
5
1
-
-
1 13 0 - -
7
70
1
34. Income .............................
Z
3
/O
13
-
O z
(v
q-
z
1
S
3-
l
0
3
1
-/
1
3
1-
0 0 i1 4 -
b
7
39
�
35. City area ..........................
3c
-
-
-
-
- 13
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
-
S
-
-
-
-
b
A.U. - 15
City
-
6

D-1
Appendix "D"
SOIL SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
TECHNICAL DATA
A "Jacksonville Area Soil Survey*22" study was
prepared in 1975 by Mr. A. D. Whitley, District
Conservationist of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the Onslow County Soil
and Water Conservation District. This study, by use
of aerial photographs, delineated twenty-three "soil
mapping units" for the Jacksonville area. These
delineations are graphically illustrated by
Exhibit D.lm.
For each mapping unit, several interpretations
were made in terms of its limitations or suitability
for certain types of activities. This is shown by
Exhibit D.2t.
SOIL LIMITATIONS
The degree of limitation for specific uses include
septic tank absorption fields, sewage lagoons, shallow
excavations, dwellings without basements, sanitary
landfill, and local roads and streets. In these
columns, degree of limitation is expressed as
slight, moderate, or severe, and in some instances,
very severe, and give restrictive features if degree
of limitation is more than slight.
Slight soil limitation is the rating given soils
that have properties favorable for the rated use.
The degree of limitation is minor and can be over-
come easily. Good performance and low maintenance
can be expected.
Moderate soil limitation is the rating given soils
that have properties moderately favorable for the
rated use. This degree of limitation can be overcome
or modified by special planning, design, or mainten-
ance. During some part of the year, the performance
of the structure or other planned use is somewhat less
desirable than for soils rated slight. Some soils
rated moderate require treatment such as artificial
drainage, runoff control to reduce erosion, extended
sewage absorption fields, extra excavation, or some
modification of certain features through manipulation
of the soil. For these soils, modification is needed
for those construction plans generally used for soils
of slight limitation. Modification may include
special foundations, extra reinforcement of structures,
sump pumps, and the like.
Severe soil limitation is the rating given soils
that have one or more properties unfavorable for the
rated use, such as steep slopes, bedrock near the
surface, flooding hazard, high shrink -swell potential,
a seasonal high water table, or low bearing strength.
This degree of limitation generally requires major
soil reclamation, special design, or intensive
maintenance. Some of these soils, however, can be
improved by reducing or removing the soil feature
that limits use, but in most situations, it is diffi-
cult and costly to alter the soil or to design a
structure so as to compensate for a severe degree of
limitation. D-1
A rating of very severe must be a subdivision of
the severe rating and the criteria used to separate
moderate and severe must stand. A soil rated very
severe has one or more features so unfavorable for
the rated use that the limitation is very difficult
and expensive to overcome. Reclamation would be
extremely difficult, requiring the soil material
to be removed, replaced, or completely modified.
Very shallow soils over hard rock or deep, wet
organic soil material, for example, have very severe
limitations for houses with basements or for on -
site sewage disposal. A rating of very severe is
confined to soils that require extreme alteration
and that, for the most part, are not used for the
purposes being rated.
SPECIAL SOIL LIMITATIONS
In the "agricultural," "wildlife," and "woodland"
categories of Exhibit D.2t, the original data was
not categorized into the "slight" through 'very
severe" levels, and certain interpretations had
to be made.
In determining agricultural use limitations, the
Capability Class for each particular soil was used
as the "use" indicator. The Capability Classes are
designated by Roman Numerals I-VIII and indicate
progressively greater limitations and narrower
choices for practical agricultural use.
CAPABILITY, SOIL LOSS FACTORS, AND POTENTIAL YIELDS
(High Level Management)
Phase
Caps,
Soil Loss
Corn
Peanuts
Bahia
Coast.
Coast.
K
T
of
bil
bu.
lbs.
Past.
Bermu.
Bermu.
Ser.
itv
AUM
AUM
1-6%
H
.17
5
60
2100
7.0
8.0
4.5
Class I soils have few limitations that }Yslight
restrict their use. J
Class II soils have moderate limitations
that reduce the choice of plants or moderate
that require moderate conservation
practices.
Class III soils have severe limitations
that reduce the choice of plants,
require special conservation practices
or both.
Class IV soils have very severe limi-
tations that reduce the choice of
plants, require very careful
management, or both.
Class V soils are not likely to erode
but have other limitations, impract- severe
icle to remove, that limit their
use largely to pasture, range, wood-
land, or wildlife.

D-2
D-2

D-3
Exhibit D.2t: Soil Limitations for Various Types of Urban and Agricultural Uses
Soil Mapping
Hyd-
Light
Roads
Wildlife
Open
Wood
Wet-
Unit Name, and
ro.
Dwell-
indus-
Play-
&
Septic
Agricultural
Woodland
Map No.
9p.
in s
try
round
Streets
Tanks
Use*
land
land
land
Use*
739-Baymead
sand, 1-6%
A
slight
slight
severe
slight
slight
severe
severe
severe
severe
vey sev.
slope
B-J
Bib and Johnston
B/D
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
moder.
slight
moderate
soils
853
Blaven fine sand
D
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
vy.sv.
moder.
slight
moderate
loam
BP
Borrow Pits
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
558B Craven
fine sandy loam
C
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
slight
slight
slight
slight
1-4% slope
558C Craven
fine sandy loam
C
severe
mod. -
severe
severe
severe
severe
slight
slight
very
slight
4-8% slope
severe
severe
402
Johns sandy loam
C
severe
severe
moder.
severe
severe
moderate
moder.
slight
moder.
slight
564
Lenoir loam
D
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
slight
moder.
moder.
slight
891
Lynn Haven sand
ED_
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
moder.
severe
moder.
severe
415
Onslow loamy
B
severe
severe
moder.
moder.
severe
moderate
slight
slight
severe
slight
fine sand
460
Pactows loamy
C
severe
severe
moder.
moder.
severe
severe
slight
slight
very
slight
sand
Isevere
836
Pantego loam
D
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
slight
slight
slight
slight
830
Rains sandy
/D
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
moder.
moder.
slight
moder.
loam
452
Seabrook loamy
A
moder.
moder.
moder.
moder.
severe
severe
moder.
moder.
very
moder.
fine sand
severe
420
Stalling loamy
C
severe
severe
moder.
moder.
severe
moder.
slight
slight
severe
slight
sand
870
Torhunta fine
C
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
severe
moder.
moder.
moder.
sandy loam
UL
Urban land
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
UL-O-Urban land
Onslow soils
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
complex, 0-6% slo
722
Wando fine sand
A
slight
Eghtmoder.
slight
severe
severe
severe
severe
very
moder.
severe
*"Agricultural use" and "Woodland use" ranks are based on soil in "drained" condition.
D-3

D-4
Class VI soils have very severe limi-
tations that make them generally severe
unsuited to cultivation and limit
their use largely to pasture or
range, woodland, or wildlife.
Class VII soils have very severe
limitations that make them unsuited
to cultivation and that restrict
their use largely to pasture or very
range, woodland, or wildlife. severe
Class VIII soils and landforms have
limitations that preclude their
use for commercial plants and
restrict their use to recreation,
wildlife, or water supply, or to
esthetic purposes.
For Wildlife Habitat, suitability was charted two
different ways depending on the form used. The form
used four indicators; very poor, poor -poorly suited,
fairly -suited, and good, well -suited for three
separate wildlife classifications: openland, woodland,
and wetland,
WILDLIFE SUITABILITY
Potential as Habitat for-
Openland
Woodland
Wetland
Suitabilitv
Wildlife
Wildlife
Wldlif.
Penland -Poorly
Fair
Fair
Poor
suited
Woodland -Suited
Good
Good
Poor
Wetland -Well
Suited
Comparable ratings for the Soil Conservation Soil
Survey and Exhibit D.2t are:
SCS Exh. D.2t
very poor - unsuited very severe
poor -poorly suited �o severe
fair - suited Bm moderate
good - well suited � slight
For woodland use, the categories under Wildlife
Suitability, "Hardwood trees and shrubs" and "Low
coniferous plants" were used as indicators of
woodland use (blue forms SCS). On the white forms,
these headings were not included, so the woodland
wildlife category under"Potential as Habitat°was
used (in combination with the erosion hazard and
seedling mortality) to obtain a rank (assuming that
if the soil would support a woodland wildlife, it
would similarly support a woodland).
WILDLIFE SUITABILITY
Pot./Habit. Elem.
Poten./Habit
Woodlnd Mn
t. Problems
Hardwood
Low
Woodland
Erosion
Seedling
trees/
conf.
Wildlife
Hazard
Mortality
shrubs
pints.
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR VARIOUS USES
In the remainder of this appendix, the soil limi-
tations for the various types of urban and agricultural
activities of Exhibit D.2t will be described in greater
detail, beginning with the "hydrologic soil group."
D-4
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
Soils are grouped into four hydrologic soil
groups, A through D. These groups are used mostly
in watershed planning to estimate runoff from rain-
fall. Soil properties were considered that influ-
ence the minimum rate of infiltration obtained for a
bare soil after prolonged wetting. These properties
are: depth to seasonal high water table, intake
rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and
depth to a layer or layers that slow or impede water
movement.
Dual hydrologic groups are given for wet soils
rated D in their natural condition that can be
adequately drained. It is considered that drainage
is feasible and practical and that drainage improves
the hydrologic group by at least two classes (from
D to A or B). The first letter applies to the
drained conditions.
Hydrologic Group A: (Low runoff potintial.)
Soils that have infiltration rates even when
thoroughly wetted and a high rate of water
transmission.
Hydrologic group B: (Moderately low runoff
potential.) Soils that have moderate infiltra-
tion rates when thoroughly wetted and a moderate
rate of water transmission.
Hydrologic group C: (Moderately high runoff
potential.) Soils that have slow infiltration
rates when thoroughly wetted and a slow rate of
water transmission.
Hydrologic group D: (High runoff potential.) Soils
having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly
wetted and a very slow rate of water transmission.
DWELLINGS
As rated in the interpretation sheet, dwellings
are not more than three stories high and are supported
by foundation footings placed in undisturbed soil:
The features that affect the rating of a soil for
dwellings are those that relate to capacity to sup-
port load and resist settlement under load, and those
that relate to ease of excavation. Soil properties
that affect capacity to support load are wetness,
susceptibility to flooding, density, plasticity,
texture, and shrink -swell potential. Those that .
affect excavation are wetness, slope, depth to bed-
rock, and content of stones and rocks. Unless
otherwise stated, the soils are rated for dwellings;
without basements.
LIGHT INDUSTRIES
Ratings are for the undisturbed soils that are used
to support building foundations. Emphasis is on
foundations, ease of excavation for underground
utilities, and corrosion potential of uncoated steel
pipe. The undisturbed soil is rated for spread
footing foundations for buildings less than three
stories high or foundation loads not in excess of
that weight. Properties affecting load -supporting
capacity and settlement under load are wetness,
flooding, texture, plasticity, density, and shrink -
swell behavior. Properties affecting excavation are
wetness, flooding, slope, and depth to bedrock.

D-5
Properties affecting corrosion of buried uncoated
steel pipe are wetness, texture, total acidity, and
electrical resistivity.
PLAYGROUNDS
Ratings apply to areas to be used for playgrounds,
athletic fields, and organized games such as bad-
minton and volleyball. All areas are subject to
heavy foot traffic. The assumption is made that good
vegetative cover can be established and maintained.
The best soils for playgrounds have a nearly level
surface free of coarse fragments and rock outcrops,
good drainage, freedom from flooding, and a surface
texture that is firm even after rains and is not dusty
when dry.
LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS
Local roads and streets, as rated in the interpre-
tation sheet, have an all-weather surface expected to
carry automobile traffic all ear. They have a
subgrade of underlying soil material; a base con-
sisting of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material
stabilized with lime or cement; and a flexible or
rigid surface, commonly asphalt or concrete. These
roads are graded to shed water and have ordinary
provisions for drainage. They are built mainly
from soil at hand, and most cuts and fills are less
than six feet deep.
Soil properties that most affect design and con-
struction of roads and streets are load supporting
capacity and stability of the subgrade, and the work-
ability and quantity of cut and fill material avail-
able. The AASHO and Unified classifications of the
soil material, and also the shrink -swell potential,
indicate load supporting capacity. Wetness and flood-
ing affect ease of excavation and amount of cut and
fill needed to reach an even grade.
SEPTIC TANK FILTER FIELDS
Septic tank filter fields are subsurface systems of
tile or perforated pipe that distribute effluent from
a septic tank into natural soil. The soil material
from a depth of 18 inches to 6 feet is evaluated.
The soil properties considered are those that affect
both absorption of effluent and construction and oper-
ation of the system. Properties that affect absorp-
tion are permeability, depth to water table or rock,
and susceptibility to flooding. Slope is a soil
property that affects difficulty of layout and
construction and also the risk of soil erosion,
lateral seepage, and downslope flow of effluent.
Large rocks or boulders increase construction costs.
D-5

E-1
Appendix "E" : Summary of
DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This appendix is intended to indicate the manner
in which the data was assembled and analyzed, along
with a statement of the major conclusions.
PRESENT CONDITIONS
The analysis of present conditions included the
population, economy, existing land use, and cur-
rent plans, policies and regulations.
Population
Population data was assembled from the U.S. Census
reports, Camp Lejeune personnel, North Carolina state
agencies, and reports by Onslow County and Jackson-
ville agencies. These are noted in Appendix "A" as
items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 19.
The method of analysis is shown by Pages 4-2
through 4-10. The major conclusions also are in-
cluded within those pages.
Economy
Economic data was assembled from the U.S. Census,
the County's Manpower Planning Office, and North
Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources.
These are noted in Appendix "A" as items 3, 5, and 23.
The method of analysis and major conclusions are
given on Page 4-11 of this report.
Existing Land Use
Existing land use data was assembled by a field
survey, which was then measured and tabulated as
described by Appendix "B".
The method of analysis is shown by Appendix "B"
and Pages 4-12 through 4-20. The major conclusions
also are shown on Pages 4-12 through 4-20.
Current Plans, Policies, Regulations
The data on plans, policies, and regulations was
assembled by interviewing and collecting reports
from various City, County, and State agencies. The
resulting reports are listed in Appendix "A". The
analysis and major conclusions are described on
Pages 4-21 through 4-25.
E-1
CONSTRAINTS
The analysis of constraints dealt with land po-
tential and capacity of community facilities.
Land Potential
Land potential characteristics which were studied
included those with physical limitations, such as
hazard areas, soil limitations, water supply sources,
and steep slopes.
Natural and man-made hazards were determined by
viewing area maps and by discussion with local com-
mittee members. These are described on Page 5-2,
and pertinent reports are listed as items 4 and 22
in Appendix "A".
Areas with soil —limitations were derived from
basic work by the Soil Conservation Service. The
data and method of analysis are described in Appen-
dix "D", and major conclusions are discussed on
Pages 5-4 through 5-8. Also see item 22 in Appendix
"A".
Water suppy source data was derived from the
Water System Improvement Plan prepared by G. Reynolds
Watkins Consulting Engineers, shown as item 17 in
Appendix "A". Major conclusions are described on
Pages 5-9 through 5-13.
SteeE slime data was derived from U.S.G.S. maps
and Onslow County reports (see item 5 in Appendix "A'%
Fragile Areas
Data on fragile areas was solicited from the North
Carolina Division of State Parks, as noted on Page
5-15.
Resource Potential Areas
Data on historic and archeological sites was re-
quested from the North Carolina Department of Archives
and History and the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, as shown by Pages 5-15 and 5-16.
Capacity of Community Facilities
Data on water and sewers was assembled from the
201 Study and the Water System Improvement Study
(items 13 and 17 in Appendix "A"); school data was

E-2
secured from the Onslow County Board of Education;
and primary road data was obtained from the North
Carolina Highway Commission (see items 11 and 12
in Appendix "A").
Major conclusions in regard to these com-
munity facilities are described on Pages 5-16
through 5-21.
ESTIMATED DEMAND
Estimated future demands were made for
population, economy, land needs, and com-
munity facilities.
Population Projections
Data on population projections were assem-
bled from federal reports (EPA), North Carolina
state agencies, the 201 Study, local reports,
and recommendations from the local committees.
These are listed in Appendix "A" as items 6, 7,
11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 23.
Major conclusions are described on Pages
6-2 through 6-5.
Economic Projections
Economic projections were derived from
a technical report prepared by the North
Carolina Department of Natural and Economic
Resources (see item 23 in Appendix "A").
The major conclusions are described on
Pages 6-6 and 6-7.
Future Land Needs
Data on future land needs were developed
by reference to projections for other U.S.
cities, and by discussion with the Jack-
sonville committees. The analysis and major
conclusions are described on Pages 6-8
through 6-10.
Community Facilities Demand
Data on demand for schools, parks, and
fire stations were secured from the Onslow
County School Board, the City Parks Depart-
ment, and the City Fire Department. Park
needs also were projected by the consultant.
The major conclusions are reported on Pages
6-10 and 6-11.
Water supply and sewage disposal needs
were taken from the 201 Study and Water
System Study, as reported on Page 6-11.
Major thoroughfare needs came from
the N.C. Highway Commission Plan (items
11 and 12 in Appendix "A"). The major
conclusions are reported on Pages 6-11
through 6-13.
E-2

F-1
Appendix "F"
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION LOG
Too often, community plans are prepared by only a
few people, with little participation by the general
public or its representatives, or even by elected
officials. One frequent result of such an approach
is that plan proposals are not implemented because
officials feel the plan is not "theirs," or they
may be unaware of the plan's existence.
Thus, the purpose of this public participation
program was to try to secure more involvement from
public officials and the general citizenry by (1)
providing opportunities for them to become properly
informed about the CAMA Land Use Plan, and
(2) by providing opportunities for them to contribute
to the content and proposals of the plan. The fol-
lowing log describes such opportunities.
...Providing Opportunities for
Persons to Become Properly
Informed...
...Providing Opportunities for Persons
to Contribute and Become
Involved...
A. FORMAL GROUPS APPOINTED
1. In addition to City Council and Planning
Board, the City intends to appoint a Citizens
Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory
Committee. (2-75)
2. Planning criteria and an information packet
prepared for members of committees, to be
mailed on their appointment. (3-75)
3. Citizens Advisory Committee appointed. (8-75)
4. Technical Advisory Committee appointed. (8-75)
B.—INFORMATION MATERIAL AND DISTRIBUTION
—------------------
1. Information for committees on CANA purpose,
content of Jacksonville Land Use Plan, com-
mittee purpose, and membership lists sent
to all committee members. (8-75)
2. CRC DiEp ay. Sigps posted throughout
Jacksonville. (from 5-75 on)
3._CRC_"Handbook on Public Participation" and
"Guidelines" distributed both committees,
Planning Commission, and City Council. (9-75)
4. Jacksonville "Detailed Work Program" distrib-
uted to both committees, Planning Commission,
and City Council. (1 to 8-75)
*Note: The approved "Detailed Work Program" for the Jax CAMA Land Use Plan proposed contact and review with
City Council, Planning Board, Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees, and others. Proposals for informing
public included face to face presentations, public school program, media, and material preparation. Proposals
for public involvement included meetings and review sessions, attitude survey, and neighborhood meetings.
*Also, Jacksonville planners have been sending copies of all correspondence and other data to Onslow Co. plan-
ners for full coordination purposes.
F-1

F-2
5. Citizen Opinion Survey prepared (2 to 9-75),
and
-27,000 copies distributed by newspaper
-100 copies distributed around individual
neighborhoods by Citizens Advisory Committee
-400 copies distributed by City at service
counter in City Hall
-Other copies distributed by Technical Ad-
visory Committee and Planning Commission
6. "SYNOPSIS" sections on Jax economy, land
use, and population (past, present, future)
typed and given to both committees. Plan-
ning Commission, City Council, and news-
papers. (5 to 9-75)
7. Resort chyters, or parts thereof reviewed
with committees, and Onslow County Planner
(1 to 9-75), including:
Chapt. I - INTRODUCTION
Chapt. IV - POPULATION, ECONOMY
Chapt. V - CONSTRAINTS, Hazard Areas
Chapt. VI - ESTIMATED DEMAND - Population
Projections
App. B - Land Use Inventory Procedure
8. Visual display of wall maps, tables, photos
prepared and reviewed with both committees,
Planning Commission, two high school classes,
newspaper, radio, and several individuals
(3 to 9-75); including:
-Large Jacksonville aerial photo
-Jacksonville Planning Area map
-Population table for past and present
-Existing land use map
-Existing land use table
Existing population/land use ratios
-Future population projections (table)
-Future land use projections (table)
-Future population/land use ratios
-also newspaper, radio reporting
-also newspaper, radio reporting
-also newspaper, radio reporting
-also newspaper, radio reporting
r-c
after return, these were tabu-
lated, analyzed, and reviewed
by committees. Majority of com-
mittee members agreed with results
of each survey item.
C. MEETINGS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. City Manager and/or City Engineer discussions
with City Council and Planning Commission
and others (1 through 9-75).
2._City Manager and City Engineer conversations
with citizens and others in regard to serving
on Advisory Committees (2 to 8-75).
3. Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting& (9-4-75)
-Visual display maps, tables, etc. described
in B,8 were described in detail, along with
B,7 items. Material described in B,3 and B,6
passed out to members. Citizen members
offered suggestions in several areas, and
changes were made on spot. Citizens offered
to distribute opinion surveys to neighbors
and encourage their return. Citizens also
offered to try to arrange sub -meetings, but
all were pessimistic about getting anyone to
neighborhood meetings.
4. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting (9-5-75)
-Same procedure followed as described above
for Citizens Advisory Committee. Marine
Corps representative, Col. George Caridakis,
offered many valuable comments and sugges-
tions regarding existing and future popu-
lation and land use in regard to Marine
Corps influences. School Board repre-
sentative, Charles Hoyt, provided infor-
mation regarding school locations and popu-
lation. Weyerhauser representative, Joe
Thomas, offered suggestions related to their

F-3
-also newspaper, radio reporting
-radio station personnel invited to
these presentations, and accepted,
but didn't appear at meetings.
-newspaper printed and distributed
"citizen opinion survey" as part
of daily issue. Copies also handed
out to City Hall visitors. Committee
members also took copies to distribute
in their neighborhoods.
-conversations with newspaper
assisted in preparation of
published articles.
-copies of all material distributed.
also mailed to anyone not in
attendance.
F-3
Brynn Marr development, their other land
holdings. All present agreed on growth
direction, future growth location, and
growth ranges.
5. Planning Board Meeting (9_5_75) - Same
procedure followed as described previously
for Citizens Advisory Committee. Several
suggestions and comments contributed, based
on knowledge of past development and plan-
ning work.
6. Jacksonville Senior High School Class(9-8-75;
One of Citizen's Committee members, Mrs.
Gaskins, arranged for presentations to her
classes. First presentation made at 10:00
a.m., with students from other classes also
joining Mrs. Gaskins group. Some generally
descriptive material added to what was pre-
sented previously to Citizen's Committee.
Students then responded with their comments
about present community needs and attitudes,
as well as future opinions.
7. Jacksonville Senior Hi School Class (9-8-75
-------------------
-Same as above for second class that met
at 11:00 a.m.
B. Small group or individual meetings (2 thru
— —9-75) — — — — — —
-Informal meetings have occurred with one
to three people in terms of discussing
Jacksonville CAMA plan and community
needs. These have included citizens in
restaurants, motels, at City Hall, as well
as public agencies or developers such as
Weyerhauser Corp., Marine Corps, School
Board, Soil Conservation Service, County
Planner, County Manpower Planner, Jack-
sonville Fire Chief, Jacksonville City
Clerk, Chamber of Commerce, newspaper
reporters, Jacksonville Parks and Recre-
ation Director, City Engineer, N.C. High-
way Department (Jacksonville, district,
and State offices), and Neuse River C.O.G.
staff.
10. Meeting Held on 10=13-75 for Citizens Ad-
visory Committee Technical Advisory Com-
mittee, Planning Board, and City Council
to review:
..Chapt. I - Introduction (3pp.)
..Chapt. III - Issues & Objectives (8pp)
..Chapt. IV - Present Conditions (24pp)
..Chapt. V - Constraints (part, 5pp)
..Chapt. VI - Est. Demand (part, 5pp)
c.App. C - Citizen Survey (5pp)
..App. D - Soil Data (5pp)
Each passout item was described and dis-
cussed with notes made for any suggested
changes. For the opinion survey, the re-
sults of each item was discussed and mem-
bers polled as to their agreement or dis-
agreement. In all cases, majority agreed
with the results.
Exhibit boards were on display during
meeting. Copies of all materials were
distributed to newspaper and radio
representatives.

F-4
-copies of all material distributed,
also mailed to any member not in
attendance.
-copies of all material distributed,
also mailed to any member not in
attendance.
.. by March 3, 1976, legal ad
will announce date, time, and place
of joint public hearing with 0nslow
County.
.. by March 31, 1976, revised synopsis
delivered to CRC for review.
F-4
11. Meeting Held on 11_20-75 for citizens
Advisory Committee, Planning Board, and
City Council to review:
..Table of Contents
..List of Exhibits
..Chapt. II- Synopsis
..Chapt. III - Goals (corrections)
..Chapt. IV - Present Conditions
(corrections)
..Chapt. V - Constraints (remainder)
..Chapt. VI - Est. Demand (remainder)
..Chapt. VII - Land Classification
..Chapt. VII - Areas of Enviorn. Concern
..App. A - Bibliography
..App. B - Land Use Inventory
Goals and opinion survey items again
discussed in detail. Each report section
reviewed page by page. Exhibit boards
were on display and used for discussion.
Copies of all material were given to news-
paper and radio representatives.
12. Draft of_ Jacksonville CAMA Land Use Plan
sent to CRC as approved by local committees
on 11-21-75.
13. Meeting held on 2-9-76 for citizens'
Advisory Committee, Planning Board, and
City Council in order to review comments
made by Coastal Resource Commission on
11-23-75 preliminary draft._
Listing of all CRC comments were dis-
tributed and each item discussed proposed
changes or additions to plan to recognize
CRC comments also were discussed and agreed
upon.
Remaining work and public hearing sched-
ule dates were reviewed, and all members
encouraged to attend the public hearings.
.. _ _ _On Apri114,_1976 joint public hearing
hearing held.
.. _ _ _On May 4, 1976, plan adopted by
Jacksonville City Council.
.. _ _ _by May 22, 1976, certified copy of
plan to CRC.
by May 29, 1976, additional
•copies to CRC.

G-1
Appendix "G": CROSS REFERENCE OF JAR TABLE OF CONTENTS TO
C. R. C. STANDARD FORMAT
C.R.C. Standard
Comparable Section From
Format for
Table of Contents
Jax Table of Contents
I. Introduction
Chapt. I
Purpose
of the plan, histor of CA61A planning effort, etc.
pp. 1-1, 1-2
II. Description
o Present on i ions
Cha t. IV
A.
Population and Economy brief analysis)
pp. 4-2/4-11
B.
Ixis ng an se
4-12/4-20,App. B
1. Legible map of existing land uses
p. 4-13
2. Analysis
_
a. significant compatibility problems
p.4-18
b. problems from unplanned development with implica-
tions for future land use
c. areas experiencing or likely to experience major
4-19
land use change
p.
C.
Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations
pp. 4-21/4-24
1. Plans and Policies
a. transportation plans
b_ community.facilities plans
c. utilities extension policies
d. open space policies
e. recreation policies
f. prior land use plans
g. prior land use policies
2. Local Regulations
a. zoning ordinances
b. subdivision regulations
c. floodway ordinances
d. building codes
e. septic tank regulations
f. historic districts regulations
g. nuisance regulations
h. dune protection ordinances
i. sedimentation codes
j.• environmental impact statement ordinances
3. Federal. and State Regulations
III. Public
Participation Activities
Chapt. III
A.
Identification and analysis of major land use issues
1. The impact of population and economic trends
p. 3-2
2. The provision of adequate housin- and other services
3. The conservation of productive natural.resources
4. The protection of important natural environments
-
5. The_prrotection,of cultural and historic resources
B.
Alternatives considered in the development of the o ec-
tives, policies and standards.
p. 3-3
C.
Land use objectives, policies and standards for Teal ng
with each identified major issue.
p. 3-4
D.
A brief description of the process use to.determine
objectives, policies and standards, emphasizing public
participation
p. 3-1
E.
A detailed statement out -lining the met o s emp oye n
securing public participation, and the degree of
participation achieved and the results obtained
P• 3-1, App. C F
IV. Constraints
Chapt. V
A.
Land Potential
1. Physical Limitations
a. hazard areas
p. 5-2
b. soil limitations
P. 5-4, App. D
c. water supply areas-
d. steep slopes
p. 5-13
G-1

G-2
C.R.C. Standard
Comparable Section From
Format for Table of Contents
Jax Table of Contents
2. Fragile Areas
p. 5-15
a. coastal wetlands
b. outer banks sand dunes
c. ocean beaches and shorelines
d. estuarine waters
e. public trust waters
f. complex natural areas
g. areas sustaining remnant species
h. areas containing unique geologic formations
i. registered natural landmarks
j. archeologic and historic sites
3. Areas with Resource Potential
a. productive agricultural lands
p. 5-15
b. potentially valuable mineral sites
c.. publicly -owned lauds and other non -intensive
outdoor recreation lands
d. privately -owned wildlife sanctuaries
B. Capacity of Community Facilities
1. Identification of existing water and sewer service
p. 5-16
areas
_city
`
2. Design capaof existing Crater treatment plant,
sewer treatment plant, school man--pri.mar�roads —
pp. 5-16/5-20
— — —
3. The ercent utilization of rrat.er and sewer plants,
p
5-16/5-20
schools and pritmary roads
pp.
V. Estimated Demand
Chapt. VI
A. Population and Economy —
—
1.—�opu.f`tion -- --
— —
a. ten-year population projection
pp. 6-2/6-5
b. considerations taken into account in preparing
ten-year projection (seasonal populations,
local objectives, social and economic change)
C. 5, 10, 25, and 50 year projections
d. relationship of long-term projections to desires
p. 3-2
of the people
e. relationship of the capabilities of the land
and water to sustain them
f. examination of seasonal population and economic
impacts
2. Economy
pp. 6-6, 6-7
Identification of major trends and factors in economy
_
B. Future Land Needs
PP• 6-8, 6-9
Use of the ten-year population projection to determine
land demand for land classification
PP• 6-10/6-13
C. Community Facilities Demand
1. Ten-year population projection used to determine
facilities demand
2. Consideration of the type and cost of services needed
to accommodate projected population
3. Consideration of the ability of the local economy to
finance service expansion
VI. Plan Description
Chapt. VII
A. Description of the Land Classification System
p. 7-1
_
pp. 7-1, 7-2
_
B. Projected population growth allocation to Transition,
Community and Rural Land classes, based upon local
objectives _ _ _ _
C._ pul Gross poation densities used to allocate Transition
pp. 7-1, 7-2
and Community classifications
p. 7-3
_
D. A legible band Classification Map which is consistent
with local objectivespolicies and standards
VII. Summary
App. E
A. Discussion of the manner of data assembly, analysis, and
E-1
a statement of major conclusions
p.
B. Discussion of the application of the data to the plants
p. E-1
formulation
VII1. City -County Plan Relationship Defined
p. 2-6
Areas of Environmental Concern
Chapt. VIII

A WORD ABOUT
REPORT THICKNESS,
READER COMPREHENSION,
AND PAPER CONSERVATION
...The. "Jacksonville CAMA Land Use
Pian" report that you have in yi
band is about 0.3" thick. It fc
lows.a format' intended to help
reader more quickly comprehend i
contents, and to conform to the
possible printing practices fol:
by current periodicals and newsl
..On the other hand, if the Jacksonville report
.had followed the more commonly
format for University theses,
it wodld be ei_&ht times thicke
use si&ht times more_pjRer--a
be such more difficult to com-
prehend even though the num-
ber of words is the same in
both reports. This "uni-
versity" format uses double-
space typing, wide margins,
one column, and prints on
only one side of a sheet.
thick
2.5 to
3.0"
thick

..The Jacksonville, North Carolina
Coastal Area Management Land Use
Plan was prepared through the
cooperative efforts of many per-
sons, most of whom are listed on
this page......
4
Jacksonville, North Carolina
CITY COUNCIL
W. Bruce Teachey, Mayor
Joe T. Morgan, Mayor Pro-Tem
M.C. "Joe" Choate
Morris V. Daughtry
George L. Jones
Jacksonville
PLANNING BOARD
Bill A. Rallis, Chairman
James R. Carroll, Jr., Vice -Chairman
Mrs. Clyde Hurst, Secretary
Dr. Wayne C. Anderson
Turner G. Blount
Clifton A. Gaskins
Romer F. Hobgood
Lenwood Padgett
W. Carlyle Sanders
Morris V. Daughtry, City Council Advisor
C.W. (Bill) Hargett, Jr., P.E., City Eng.
Jacksonville
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Robert F. Wray, City Manager
C. W. (Bill) Hargett, Jr., P.E., City Engineer
Bill A. Rallis, Planning Board Chairman
Wm. H. Qualls, GRW Consulting Engineers
William Drake, Onslow Planning Director
Charles T. Hoyt, Onslow School Supt. Office
A.B. Whitley, Onslow Soil & Water Cons. Office
Richard Koonce, Onslow Health Department
Lee Winters, Neuse River Council of Government
John Hooton, N.C.D.N.E.R.
Colonel George Caridakis, Camp Lejeune
Joe Thomas, Weyerhaeuser Corporation
Danny D. Sharpe, Onslow Water & Soil Conservation
Jacksonville, North Carolina
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mrs. Carl Beacham, Sr.
Zander Guy
Warren Bailey
Bardin Lanier
Columbus Hancock
Mrs. Bill Loy
Mrs. F.K. Williams
Mrs. Frances Johnson
C.E. Maultsby, Jr.
Mrs. Jim Stewart
Mrs. Beulah Baxter
Leander Green
George Williams
Doretha Blount
Bryan Tallman
Bill Wilson
Mrs. Christine Gaskins
North Carolina
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
T.D. Burs, Chairman
David Stick, Vice -Chairman
Frank Furlough, Jr.
L.D. Smith
J. Parker Chesson
H. Glenn Lancaster
Dewitt Darden
T. Erie Haste
G.R. Huntsman
Charles Wells
William Kopp
Roberts Jernigan, Jr.
Doug Powell
Walter Davis
Arson Smith
Kenneth D. Stewart, Exec. Secretary
W. Randolph Thomas, Jacksonville
member of Advisory Council
The City of Jacksonville retained the firm of
G. Reynolds Watkins Consulting Engineers, Inc. for
professional assistance in the preparation of this
plan. The firms work was performed by Dr. William
H. Qualls, Vice President for Community Planning an
Management.
Local guidance and coordination were provided b
Robert F. Wray, City Manager, and Bill Hargett,P.E.
City Engineer GRW #446-5- 1976
G. REYNOLDS WATKINS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC.
Lexington Bowling Green- Louirvilk, Kentucky