CAMA Land Use Plan-1976

0
Lm
Lm
Soi_6IO
City of
PLYMOUTH
Land Use Plan
CAMA
1976
PROPERTY OF
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
•
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, NORTH CAROLINA
LAND USE PLAN
COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT
ACT OF 1974
1976

LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Plymouth, North Carolina
1976
•
PLYMOUTH TOWN COUNCIL
William R. Flowers, Mayor - Melvin M. Cordon
George Ayers J. Wallace Walker
Lyman Mayo II J. W. Foster
Fenner G. Jordan
•
PLYMOUTH PLANNING BOARD
John Fields Andy J. Johnson
Elizabeth Bennett Dallas Waters
Edison Towe
•
PROJECT STAFF
George L. Nichols, Project Planner
Mary Noe, Secretary
Debra In4alls, Secretary
Mike Yount, Draftsman
C
•

3 c
r
• Town Of. Plymouth PLYMOUTH. NORTH CAROLINA 27962
P. O. BO% E06 TELEPHONE [phone]
•
WILLIAM R. FLOWERS. May 20, 1976
MAYOR
TO; Coastal Resources Commission
• FROM: CAMA Plan S hnission
In ccupliance with the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974, we are forwarding
for your review officially certified copies of our Larry Use Plan.
Under provisions set forth in Part One of the State Guidelines, we wish that
you would approve additional historic sites in our Town Plan as proposed Areas
• of Envi.romrantal Concern.. A list and brief description of these places may be
found under cover in our Plans Synopsis. These sites do not meet the criteria
now in use for designating historic places. Ibwever, we feel these sites have
• 1ora1 significance which merits their inclusion in our Plan.
You will also note that the Roanoke River, Welch's Creek, and Conaby Creek have
been deleted from our Plan as proposed Areas of Environmental Concern. Our
•
Town Council has not recognized these waters as public trust waters, and con-
sequently approved the Plymouth Plan with their deletion.
William Flowers; Mayor
Town tf Plymouth
• P.S. For your information:
We plan to distribute our synopsis by mail to each
household.
[]

•
3 G
Town Of Plymouth PLYMOUTH. NORTH CAROLINA 27962
P. O. BOX COG TELEPHONE (.11) 763•41.1
•
WILLIAM R. FLOWERS(, May 20, 1976
MAYOR
•
Coastal Resources Ccamission'
P. 0. Box 27687
• Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Sirs:
The Town of Plymouth hereby transmits one certified copy of the Plymouth
Land Development Plan to the Coastal Resources Commission.
The plan was formally reviewed at a public hearing held at the Washington
County Courthouse on May 7, 1976. The plan was adopted by the Town Council
at their regular meeting held on May 10, 1976.
William Flowers, Mayor
Town of Plymouth
•
(:I j /�.k�Z'xj
Anita Sawyer
Town Clerk
•
•
•
0

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
(I)
INTRODUCTION .....................................
1
Organization .....................................
1
Management Tools Created .........................
2
(II)
DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS ................
3
General Requirements .............................
3
Present Population and Economy.-.'-. ..................
4
Population Findings
4
Seasonal Population
4
Economic Findings
7
Existing Land Use Findings ........................
12
Significant Land Use Compatibility Problems
13
Problems From Unplanned Development
14
Major Growth Areas
16
Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations..........
16
(III)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES ..................
19
General Requirements ..............................
19
Identification and Analysis of Major Land
Use Issues ........................................
19
Impact of Population and Economic Trends
19
Adequate Housing and Other Services
20
Conservation of Productive Natural Resources
22
Important Natural Environments
22
Protecting Cultural and Historic Resources
23
Alternatives Considered in the Development of
Objectives, Policies, and Standards...............
24
(IV)
CONSTRAINTS .......................................
31
General Requirements ..............,..............
31
Land Potential ...................................
33
Physical Limitations
33
Fragile Areas
37
Areas With Resource Potential
38
•

Page
Capacity of Community Facilities ...............
38
Existing Water and Sewer Service Area
Design Capacity and Utilization of
Existing Facilities
39
(V)
ESTIMATED DEMAND ...............................
43
General Requirements ............................
43
Future Population and Economy ...................
44
Future Land Needs ...............................
49
Community Facilities Demand ....................
51
Projected Utilization: Water System
51
Projected Utilization: Sewer System
52
Projected Utilization: Schools
54
Projected Utilization: Streets
56
Cost of New Facilities
56
(VI)
PLAN DESCRIPTION ................................
60
Description of the Land Classification System...
60
Population Allocations to the Transition,
Community, and Rural Land Classifications ......
62
Discussion of Allocated Population Densities....
63
(VII)
PROPOSED INTERIM AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.
66
General Requirements ............................
66
Proposed AECs in the Town of Plymouth ..........
67
Historic Places
(VIII)
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................
69
(IX)
PLYMOUTH-WASHINGTON COUNTY PLAN RELATIONSHIP....
71
(X)
APPENDIX .......................................
72

Ci
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
PAGE
1.
Comparison of Population Trends
5
2.
Age -Race Characteristics of Plymouth
5
3.
Major Area 9mployers
6
4.
Retail Sales Per 1000 Population
7
5.
Business Patterns
8
6.
Occupational Breakdown of Employed Persons in
Plymouth and'Washington County
10
7.
Rates of Unemployment for Washington County and
-Other Areas
11
8.
Median Family Income: Plymouth and Surrounding
Towns
12
9.
Plymouth Zoning Map
15
10.
Drainage Patterns
34
11.
Generalized Soils Map
36
12.
Waste Loads Allocations
39
13.
Average Daily Traffic Count
41
14.
Future Population Estimate
44
15.-
50-Year Population Estimate
46
16.
Labor Force Characteristics, 1970
47
17.
Present and Proposed Water Service
48
18. a & b
Future Land Needs
49-50
19.
Design Waste Loads and Flows
54
20.
Thoroughfare Plan
57
21.
Summary of Phase I Project Costs: Proposed Water
System
58
22.
Estimated Costs, Proposed Sewer Improvements
59
23.
Land Demand Estimates
63
0

I. INTRODUCTION
• from: Coastal Area Management: "A New Look on the Horizon"
NCSU Agricultural Extension Office
The coastal area of North Carolina is one of the most important regions
• in the United States for food production, future expansion of commerce, in-
dustry and recreation. To enable orderly growth and protection of important
natural resources of that area, the 1974 General Assembly passed the Coastal
• Area Management Act.
The Coastal Area Management Act is a state law that asks local government
in 20 counties in Coastal North Carolina to prepare a blueprint for their future
• growth and development. The county officials are asked to work closely with
local citizens in deciding what their goals are in planning for their best
use.
•
Organization
State level administration and coordination will be handled by the Depart-
ment of.Adminis-tTation and Department of Natural and Economic Resources. The
•
Act creates two citizen agencies:
Coastal- Resources Commission - The commission is a 15-member body appoint-
ed by the Governor. All members are residents of the coast. Twelve were
chosen from among nominees made by counties and towns in the coastal area.
Three are appointed at the discretion of the Governor. The Commission is re-
sponsible for establishing planning guidelines, approving land use plans and
•
issuing permits for construction when required.
Coastal Resources Advisory Council - The Council is a 45-member body made
up of locally appointed representatives from each coastal county, plus repre-
•
sentatives from six state government departments. It includes a broad cross
1
C

J
section of coastal interests. The Council advises the Commission on those
matters before the Commission and assists local governments.
Management Tools Created
There are three major land.use,management tools created by the bills:
Land use plans, areas of environmental concern and a permit system.
Land Use Plans - Each county will prepare a land use plan. The plans will
be based on the goals of the people in the county, the resources available in
the county, and the most reasonable path for reaching toward those goals with
the resources available. After the plans are adopted, use of the land must,
agree with the plans.
Areas of Environmental Concern - These areas and their boundaries will be •
designated by the Coastal Resources Commission. We know from experience to be
cautious when using these areas. They include marshlands, beaches, sand dunes,
navigable waters, national and state parks,and areas -of historical importance.
Designation of an area as one of environmental concern does not prohibit use
of that area. It is a warning sign to be careful.
Permit System - Any development within an area of environmental concern
must have a permit. The Act does not require permit for development outside
areas of environmental concern. The Act requires the following projects in
areas of environmental concern to obtain a permit from the Coastal Resources •
Commission.. Those projects currently needing state permits: those of greater
than 20 acres in size; those that involve drilling or excavating natural re-
sources on land or underwater; those which involve construction of one or more •
structures having anarea in excess of 60,000 square feet'wxll require a permit
from the Coastal Resources Commission. All other types of developments in
areas of environmental concern will require permits from local government. •
2
0

•
•
•
II. DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS
General Requirements
"A brief analysis of the local population and economy shall be made utilizing
existing information. Particular attention should be given to the impact of
seasonal populations and to economic activities which utilize, are dependent
upon, or which may impair coastal land and water resources.
Existing Land Use
Existing land use shall be mapped and analyzed, with particular attention
given to:
w 1) Significant land use compatibility problems;
2) Major problems which have resulted from unplanned development, and which
have implications for future land use;
3) An identification of areas experiencing or likely to experience major
changes in predominant land uses;
4) Areas of Environmental Concern.*
Current Plans, Policies and Regulations
This element shall contain:
1) A listing and summary of existing plans and policies having significant
implications for land use, including at least transportation plans,
community facilities plans, utilities extension policies, open space
and recreation policies, and prior land use plans and policies;
•
2) A listing and brief description of the means for enforcement of all
existing local land use regulations. The following regulations shall
be discussed, where applicable: zoning ordinance (including amendments),
subdivision regulations, floodway ordinance, building codes, septic tank
regulations, historic districts, nuisance regulations, dune protection,
sedimentation codes, and environmental impact statement ordinances.
3) A listing and summary of relevant State and Federal regulations affecting
coastal land and water resources (to be provided by the Department of
Natural and Economic Resources)."
- from CAMA Guidelines pp. 26-31
*Not to be mapped on Existing Land Use Map.
•
3
0

u
Present Population and Economy
Population Findings
•
The Town of Plymouth has grown two percent from 1960 to 1970, declining
from.a rate of four percent for the previous decade. This is attributable to
out -migration to the fringe areas and the nearly complete development of exist-
ing land available within the town limits. (See Figure 1)
Large population jumps of 20 percent and more in Williamston, Windsor
and Plymouth are attributable to annexations carried out by the towns. Ply-
. •
mouth's 82 percent population growth shown in Figure 1 is due to one annexa-
tion carried out in 1946. More representative growth rates are the figures
of less than ten percent.
•
Age distribution in both the Town of Plymouth and the county shows a trend
towards a stable, young adult population in the age group from 15 to 24 that
significantly changes to a pattern of out -migrating families. This out -migra-
tion pattern reverses itself after age 45, indicating a trend towards an older
resident population. All the -se patterns are more pronounced among blacks.
(See Figure 2.)
Seasonal Population
The Town of Plymouth has no seasonal population to speak of. Three local
motels cater to "pass -through" business traffic during the work week. Weekend •
tourists to the area are primarily fishermen in recreational vehicles who leave
their campers in the parking lot of a local shopping center while they put in
their boats at a nearby ramp at the mouth of Welch's Creek.
4
LI
0

•
FIGURE I
COMPARISON OF POPULATION 'TRENDS
1940
%
1950
%
1960
%
1970
Washington County
123,323
+10%
13,180
+ 2%
13,488
+ 4%
14,038
Plymouth Township
5,237
+20%
6,294
+10%
6,948
+ 8%
7,512
Plymouth
2,461
+82%
4,486
+ 4%
4,666
+ 2%
4,774
Williamston`
3,966
+25%
4,975
+39%
6,924
- 5%
6,570
Washington
8,569
+13%
9,698
+ 3%
9,939
-10%
8,961
Edenton
3,835
+17%
4,468
- 1%
4,498
+ 7%
4,766
Windsor
1,747
+ 2%._
1,781
+ 2%
1,813
+20%
2,199
Columbia
1,090
+ 7%
1,161
- 5%
1,099
-18%
902
FIGURE 2
AGE -RACE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLYMOUTH
Black Pop.
Black Pop.
White Pop.
White Pop.
Age Group
1960
1970
% Change
1960
1970
% Change
Under 9
325
255
-22%
277
228
-18%
5-14
525
523
+ 2%
550
528
- 4%
15-24
275
367
+33%
342
393
+15%
25-44
417
327
-22%
763
750
- 2%
45-64
293
339
+16%
612
677
+11%
Over 65
108
131
+40%
187
236
+26%
5

WASHINGTON COUNTY \�\ • w _- ='�
NORTH CAROLINA��
IL
� 1
Figure 3
MAJOR AREA EMPLOYERS
Name
No. Fla o ees
1 Weyerhaeuser Corp..
2747
2 True Temper Corp.
37
3 Georgia-Pacific Corp.
108
4 Plymouth Garment Co.
144
5 Plymouth Pallet Co.
12
6 Plymouth Fertilizer
31
7 Willaims Lumber Co.
8S
8 First Colony Farms
3S0
Community Audits, NER
May, 1976

1
r
4,j c n
0\�2r avti
Economic Findings Tk5j r-c
Manufacturing production in apparel -_and ---wood products comprises the rua3or
components of the economy in Plymouth. Figures on the value of manufacturin`
f{, are unavailable because disclosure rules were applied to census data to with-
hold data on individual firms. (See Figure 5.) -- 1
A list and map of local manufacturers and the approximate number of per-
sons they employ are shown in Figure 3. A percentage breakdown of the local
labor.force by type of occupation is shown in Figure 6.
•
Retail trade in the county is primarily concentrated in the Town of
Plymouth. Retail sales in the county suffer due to the county's small popula-
tion and the proximity of Washington, Williamston and Edenton. An estimate of
gross retail sales per person indicates that Washington County's sales per person
are below the average of the surrtouriding six counties. In addition, significant
losses in sales personnel occurred between 1960 and 1970 in Plymouth and the
•
county, by a decline of 50 percent of total sales personnel employed.
•
11TH ,
RETAIL SALES PER1O00 POP. (ESTIMATE ONLY)
1975
Gross Retail Sales*
1970 Pop.*
Washington Co.
$25,017,000
14,038
$1782.09/per
person
• Martin Co.
$50,499,000
24,730
$2042.01/per
persoji
Beaufort Co.
$921,615,000
35,980
$2574.06/per
person
Bertie Co.
$29,620,000
20,528
$1442.90/per
person
Chowan Co.
$25,244,000
10,764
$2345.22/per
person
Hyde Co.
$ 5,931,000
5,571
$1064.62/per
person
Tyrrell Co.
$ 5,890,000
3,806
$1547.55/per
person
•
average .
. . . . . . .
$2049.43/per
person
*from Sales Management
*from U. S. Census
rj
7
�7

•
FIGURE 5
BUSINESS PATTERNS
•
Number of Taxable
Employees Payroll Total
Mid -March Jan. -Mar. Reporting
Industry Pay Period ($1,000) Units
Washington County
Total 2,386 4,147 183
Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries (D) (D) 1
Contract Construction 54 66 14
Manufacturing 1,463 3,049 22
Apparel and other textile products (D) (D) 1
Children's outerwear (D) (D) 1
Children's outerwear, N.E.C. (D) (D) 1
Lumber and Wood Products 323 482 15
Logging Camps and Logging Contractors 85 76 11
Sawmills and Planing Mills (D) (D) 2
Sawmills and Planing Mills, General (D) (D) 2
Paper and Allied'Products 987 2,400• 3
Paper Mills, except Building Paper (D) (D) 2
Paperboard Containers and Boxes (D) (D). 1
Sanitary Food Containers (D) (D) 1
Transportation and Other Public Utilities 28 52 4
•
Wholesale Trade 146 242 13
Retail Trade 426 477 75
Food Stores 92 100 16
Grocery Stores (D) (D) is
Automotive Dealers & Service Stations 90 124 13 f
Miscellaneous Retail Stores 56 88 11
Finance; Insurance, and Real Estate 60 98 11
Services 169 136 37
Personal Services 37 23 -12
Unclassified Establishments (D) (D) 6
SOURCE: USDC - County Business Patterns, 1973
0

•
The county and the Town of Plymouth have similar job patterns. The
largest number of employed persons in the town and the county are blue collar
• workers employed as operators. The second largest group are skilled blue col-
lar craftsmen and foremen. From 1960 to 1970 the number of persons with skilled
white collar jobs has increased significantly (by 150 percent in the Town of
• Plymouth and 230 percent in the county for professionals and technicians). Sig-
nificant losses in occupations occurred in sales personnel in both the town and
county, by a decline of 50 percent. In Plymouth, increases have occurred par-
ticularly among women operators; decreases have occurred particularly among
male craftsmen.
Labor force estimates for Washington County indicate a total ofJ460 per-
sons in manufacturing, primarily in Plymouth. This amounts to sixteen percent
of the entire labor force in the county. A much larger segment of the manu-
facturing labor force lives in the Plymouth area but works at the,Weyerhaeuser
Corporation's papermill directly across the county line in Martin County. (See
Figure 6.)
Unemployment characteristics are only available for the county. Unemploy-
ment in the county is slightly higher than the average rate for the surrounding
six counties, both for the most recent year of record--4.9 percent in 1973--and
for the period of nine years from 1965 to 1973, an average of 6.2 percent.
County unemployment has consistently averaged higher than the rate for the state
at any time, but has been about average for this region. (See Figure 7.)
•
0
•
0
40

•
FIGURE 6
OCCUPATIONAL BREAKDOWN OF EMPLOYED PERSONS
IN PLYMOUTH AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1960-1970
PERCENT OF
TOTAL
PERCENT OF
TOTAL
PERCENT CHANGE
EMPLOYED,1960
EMPLOYED,
1970
1960-1970
PLYMOUTH/COUNTY
PLYMOUTH/COUNTY
PLYMOUTH/COUNTY
•
Professionals
8%
/
3%
12%
/
7%
+150% /
+230%
Farmers
1 %
/
13 %
1 %
/
6%
no change/
- 50%
Managers
8%
/
5%
10%
/
8%
+125% /
+160%
Clerical
10%
/
.4%
12%
/
8%
+120% /
+200%
Sales
8%
/
6%
4%
/
3%
- 50% /
- 50%
Craftsmen
16%
/
12%
13%
/
18%
- 20% /
+150%
Operators
21%
/
20%
24%
/
25%
+115% /
+125%
Housekeepers
7%
/
6%
4%
/
3%
- 40% /
- 50%
Service Workers
7%
/
4%
9%
/
8%
+130% /
+200%
Farm Labor
1%
/
11 %
1 %
/
47 %
nochange /
- 60 %
Common Labor
8%
/
5%
7%
/
8%
- 10% /
+160%
•
Total Employed, Town of Plymuth, 1960: 1673; 1970: 1727.
Total Employed, Washington Co. Outside Plymouth, 1960: 2415; 1970: 4679.
SOURCE: U. S. Census, 1960 and 1970.
Note: Percentages shown have been rounded off. To get a close approximation
of the actual count of persons -in a particular category, multiply
the "total employed" figure by the percentage for the given year. f
10
•

•FIGURE 7
RATES OF UNEMPWYMENT_FOR
WASHINGTON
COUNTY AND OTHER AREAS
Average Rate for 9
Average Rate for Most
Year Period 1965-1973
Recent Year of Record 1973
a
Washington Co.
6.2%
4.9%
Wake Co.
2.3%
1.6%
Mecklenburg Co.
2.1%
1.8%
Pitt Co.
5.9%
4.1%
Beaufort Co.
3.8%
3.2%
Bertie Co.
6.3%
4.6%
Chowan Co.
4.3%
3.2%
Hyde Co.
6.7%
7.1%
Martin Co.
5.4%
2.1%
Tyrrell Co.
7.8%
6.6%
North Carolina
3.7%
3.5%
SOURCE: North
Carolina Work Force Estimates,
Employment Security Commission
A
of North Carolina.
Median family income from 1960-70 has continued to be higher in Plymouth
compared to the
county, but the difference now is very small --about two percent.
Family median income in the county in 1970 was
$7,182, slightly behind Ply-
mouth's median
family income of $7,313. Both
averages are still below the
average median
family income for the state. (See Figure 8.)
11
!

FIGURE 8
MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME :
PLYMOUTH AND
•
SURROUNDING TOWNS
1960 Median Income
1970 Median Income
% Change
- All Families
- All Families
Over 1960
Plymouth
$4665
$7313
+157%
Edenton
3918
7250
+185%
Washington
4410
6563
+149%
Williamston
3448
6510
+189%
SOURCES: 1960, 1970 U. S. CENSUS.
Existing Land Use Findings
Plymouth is;the largest urban area (3 square miles) and its lard use
breaks down as follows: 53 percent developed for buildings and roads (up 4 per -
.cent from 1964); 10 percent vacant in single ownership (Weyerhaeuser); 13 per-
cent is in the floodplain; 11 percent, forest; 8'percent,.agriculture; and
5 percent land cleared and vacant but not in agriculture. The seven -square
mile extraterritorial area surrounding Plymouth has the following pattern: 52
percent, forest (including the floodplain); 41 percent, agriculture; 5 per-
cent buildings and roads (up 12 percent from 1964).
I\
The layout of commercial, industrial, and residential areas closely follows
Lthe town's history.of development and changing modes of transportation. The
town's compact central business district and oldest homes and churches can be
found in the twelve -block area beginning at Water Street on the Roanoke River
and extending to Fourth Street. The short blocks and narrow streets found here
adhere to the town's original survey, circa 1780, when the residents were pedes-
trians,and the traffic moved in boats and wagons. The next major -development
12

0
a
began around 1900,with the construction of a railroad that eventually had spur
lines looped around the town to sawmills on the outskirts. Businesses were
r
s411 mainly clustered downtown, but residential growth and new schools began
to fill the void within the rail loop. The most recent major development is
automobile -oriented since 1940. Businesses, homes and industries in Plymouth
r
have scattered along its major thoroughfares except for concentrated residential
•
subdivisions in the fringe areas. Today this pattern is very much in evidence
in the one -mile extraterritorial area surrounding Plymouth where tracts of woods
C ----and fields are giving way to strips of roadside homes. Drive-in businesses and
light industry continue to crowd each other along U.S. 64 since it has the prin-
cipal drawing power for through -traffic trade in the county.
Significant Land Use Compatibility Problems
Principal compatibility problems in Plymouth are the spot zoning of re -
is tail businesses in residential areas and the use in some locations"of streets
as zoning boundaries between residential areas and commercial or industrial
areas (see Plymouth Zoning Map). The problems from businesses facing homes
• or being adjacent to them are common in most towns. These problems are typi-
cally the nuisance variety: glare from outdoor lighting or outdoor advertising
and increased noise and traffic through the neighborhood. The difficulties
from these uses not relating to each other is especially apparent where a his -
tonic place is involved. Thus, the continuity of Grace Episcopal Church (built
1850) and homes along Madison Street are broken -up by businesses, off-street
0 parking, and a bulk cement plant at the intersection with Water Street. Prob-
lems such as these are likely to continue each time a place is sought for new
business. The solution lies in having new business made attractive to,its
neighbors or in finding another location where it would be entirely acceptable.
(See Figure 9.)
13

C]
Problems From Unplanned Development
Growth problems in Plymouth include shortages of off-street parking spaces
•
downtown, increased commuting traffic along Main Street, strip development along I
primary arterials going to town, and increased sedimentation of Conaby Creek.
Parking problems downtown stem from increased business for the merchants
•
along Water Street. This is particularly evident around the lunch hour and
late in the afternoon when local residents try to shop before returning home r
from work. The problem is at its worst on paydays.
Traffic along Main Street doubled between 1964 and 1974 (see ADT map in
Part 5). Hourly peaks occur in the mornings and late in the afternoon as
employees at the Weyerhaeuser Corporation's papermill in Martin County commute
to and from work. Although traffic is bad at these times, vehicle counts.have
not reached the proportions where one-way designations would be necessary for
Main Street and Third Street.
Strip land use development is most evident along U.S. 64 and N.C. 32,
beginning at points three miles west, south, and east of the town's limits.
A distinctive characteristic of the sprawl in the fringe area is the large
0
number of mobile homes set up individually on single lots and together in mobile
home parks. The greatest problems arise from local traffic congesting through
traffic in the commercial areas nearest Plymouth along the U.S. 64 Bypass.
•
Turning movements to and from the multiple driveways of adjoining businesses
frequently bring traffic to a halt on this two-lane arterial. This problem
Lexists at its worst during the summer months when U.S. 64 is heavily traveled.
•
by tourists enroute to the Outer Banks.
Conaby Creek, flowing towards the center of town from the south to the
northeast, was once a stream that could be navigated from its mouth to a point
•
south of Plymouth near the Old Roper Road (S.R. 1106). Now the stream is almost
14
•

CA-1 CONSERVATION -AGRICULTURAL
A-Z CONSERVATION -AGRICULTURAL /N/ Figure 9
jZ-ZD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Q� 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL'
R - 7 MIXED RESIDENTIAL (WITHOUT TRAILERS)
9- 7A MIXED RESIDENTIAL (WITH TRAILERS)
OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL
G - 1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ,Lo
GENERAL BUSINESS
••\� }' [-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS
INDUSTRIAL -LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL -HEAVY
\ � N
Fir
471
t o @c>
PLYMOUTN N. C.
—- ZONING
• �.�T?� y —_- _ � � / �� � MAP
—�; SEPT. 1975
Zi
J.Jur SOURCE: L . E. Wooten Study

•
•
•
undefined below the U.S. 64 bridge crossing. Sedimentation from construction
and clearing activities over the years has silted the bottom of the stream,
making the floodplain to either side of it wider and wider. Past efforts to
get the stream cleared through the formation of a drainage district failed
because the required approval was not met of 60 percent of the property owners
in the area. A local objective of the town and the county has been adopted to
get the stream cleared. If accomplished, this would enable farmers south of
town to secure drainage while assisting the town in its storm drainage.
Major Growth Areas
Major growth areas in Plymouth lie in the one -mile surrounding extraterri-
torial area. Growth has occurred faster here due to an ample supply of vacant
land, close access to town, and lower property taxes. The fact that major
growth is likely to occur, outside of town rather than within it establishes a
critical need for annexation in order for growth to occur in the future.
Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations
40 Plans and Studies Adopted. 'The following plans or studies have been
adopted by the Plymouth 'Town Council:
1. Development Plan; Plymouth, N. C., NER - 1966
2. Capital Improvements Budget; Plymouth, N. C., NER - 1971
3. Community Facilities Plan; Plymouth, N. C., NER - 1971
4. Major Thoroughfare Plan; Plymouth, N. C. (sketch plan) , DOT - 1972
S. Plymouth Water and Sewer Systems Improvements; 1966, L. E. Wooten & Co.
Plans Under Consideration. The Plymouth -Roper 201 Facilities Plan (Facili-
ties Plan: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Improvements - Plymouth -Roper
Facility Planning Area - L. E. Wooten - 1976) is the current published plan
under consideration.
16
0

r 1
u
Other Studies Under Consideration. The 'down of Plymouth is considering
the preparation of an annexation study.
Regulations Adopted. The Town of Plymouth has adopted the following regu-
lations: Zoning Nuisance Laws (governing septic tanks, dog control, building
safety and general appearance), Junk Car Ordinance, Street Ordinance (includes
minimum right-of-way 50 feet), Fire Prevention Code, Building and Plumbing Code
(an Electrical Code is enforced jointly with the county), Housing Code, Water,
r,
•
Sewer and Sewage Ordinances (requires utility installations to town specifica-
•
tions), and a Miscellaneous Offense Statute which includes requirements for a
permit to locate a mobile home within the town limits. The town has applied.
for and received approval for Federal Flood Insurance. When the actuarial maps
•
are completed, a floodway ordinance will be administered through the Plymouth
building inspector.
Regulations Under Consideration. The Town of Plymouth is considering the
adoption of Subdivision Regulations and an Airport Zoning Ordinance.
Policies Affecting Land Use. The town's policies concerning planning are
incorporated into the statement of purpose contained in its zoning ordinance
which is drawn from the General Statutes. The town has no stated policy con-
cerning recreation and open space; however, it has representatives on the
county's Recreation Commission. Policies concerning utility extensions con-
cern the approval of plans and specifications and installation of improvements
by the town under the supervision of the town manager.. These policies are
contained in the town's statutes concerning water, sewers, and sewage. The
•
town's policies concerning safe and adequate housing are contained in its
Housing, Building, Plumbing and Fire Prevention Codes whose language is based.
upon the North Carolina General Statutes.
C
17

Regulations Not Under Consideration. The town is not considering sedi-
ment control or environmental impact statement ordinances at this time.
•
Federal and State Regulations. List is to be supplied by the N. C.
Department of Natural and Economic Resources.
r�
•
�7�
•
•
•
•
•
18
7

III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
• General Requirements
"`The local planning unit shall, in cooperation with its citizens and all
relevant public agencies, identify the major land use issues facing the plan-
ning area and formulate.a:.series of objectives to help guide future development.
The major land use issues which will be faced during the following ten year
• period should be identified and analyzed. Such issues should include:
1) Theimpact of population and economic trends;
2) The provision of .adequate housing and other services;
3) The conservation of productive natural resources;
4) The protection .of important natural environments;
• 5) The protection'of cultural and historic resources.
Alternative approaches for dealing with these issues and their respective
implications should then be considered.in the development of land use objectives,
policies and standards. These clearly stated objectives, policies and standards
should serve as a guide to classifying land areas as well as clearly establish
• ing priorities for action during the planning period. WhIfe the emphasis is to
be on setting.priorities for the ten year period, eventual population projections
for 5, 10, 25 and .50 years in the future shall be defined consistent with the
desires of�the people and the capabilityof the land and adjacent waters ,to.sus
tain them. Consideration shall be given to the type and cost of services needed -
to accommodate those population projections and to the ability of the local
• economy to finance sueh_services.-
A brief description shall also be given of the process used to determine
objectives, policies and standards, with particular attention given to the
participation of the public and relevant public agencies."
Identification and Analysis of Major Land Use Issues
Impact of Population and..Economic Trends
• The major land use .issues affecting Plymouth and Washington County in the
coming ten years cover a broad range of problems. Both the town and the
county face population losses in the 18 to 25 year old age group despite modest
• increases in total population during the period from 1960 to 1970. Consequent-
ly, the best trained and highest earning persons leave to go elsewhere, reducing.
the labor pool and the opportunities for new industry.
11

L
Plymouth faces severe shortages of vacant, developable land at a time
when its extraterritorial area is the fastest growing part of the whole county.
This situation greatly increases the -need for annexations in the years ahead
or else demands that the county provide urban services in the areas surround-
ing Plymouth.
-The cost of providing services ties in directly with the need for develop-
able land in growing areas. At present, both the town and the county lose
many tax dollars.to other counties as local residents take employment and
carry on their shopping and recreation elsewhere. At a time when inflation
increases government costs, this situation creates an unhealthy reliance on
the existing property tax base.
A number of problems related directly to difficulties with existing
facilities. In Plymouth the need for subdivision regulations is apparent
from the lack of adequate street and sidewalks in various parts of town.
C
n
•
•
A common problem between the town and the county is the lack of an adequate
major highway. Especially during the summer, driving Highway 64 between the
Martin -Washington County line and Roper is an aggravating experience as is all
•
the route between Jamesville and the coast. This problem further detracts from
the area's drawing power for industry. These land use issues are addressed by
the land use objectives contained in the following section, and by the Land
Classification Map outlining which fringe areas of Plymouth can be economically
served by extensions of services and utilities from the town.
Adequate Housing and Other Services
The housing supply in Plymouth has greatly improved since 1970 when the
census reported a decline in occupied housing to 1,208 units from 1,263 units
•
reported in 1960. The principal changes were a 19 percent increase in the num- •
ber of owner -occupied dwellings (from 56 to 75 percent of all occupied housing)
20
0

and a two percent decline in the number of rental units (from 44 percent to
42 percent of all occupied housing). Since 1970, the rental housing stock
•
has increased 19 percent with 40 new units of public housing (108 units in
the Housing Authority's "White City" development and the other 32 units in
the Authority's "Chigger Hill" development) and 56 FHA units (in duplexes in
•
the Brinkley Forest Section of town south of U.S. 64). These additions,besides
other Housing Authority plans to redevelop deteriorated housing between East
Water Street and the Fourth Street School,should adequately supply the com-
munity's needs for low and moderate income rental housing in the near future.
Lots for sale in town in.upper income neighborhoods can be found in the -eastern
part of town on the Riverside Plantation and Creekside Subdivisions. Outside
•
of Plymouth a limited number of lots in upper income neighborhoods can be found
in the Liverman Heights subdivision south of town, the Rolling Pines subdivision
approximately two miles west of town, and in Carl Brown's Subdivision east of
•
town adjacent to N.C. 45,
Plymouth suffers the same as the county from a lack of variety in types of
purchase housing, especially for low and moderate income families. This is
apparent from the burgeoning of mobile homes in trailer parks and on single lots
of record in the fringe areas surrounding Plymouth (mobile homes on individual
lots are now prohibited within the town limits).
Services in -Plymouth appear to..be satisfactory to a majority of residents.
In an:attitude.survey conducted in May, 1975, (see Appendix) the only significant
complaints concerned streets, sidewalks and garbage collection. Subsequent dis-
•
cussions and review of written comments revealed that the complaints about streets
concerned train blocades and frequent patching of potholes at the same locations.
..Complaints about sidewalks came from elderly residents who felt that raised sec-
tions; of pavement were.a hazard to their.,walking and from black residents in
�.y
21
•

•
areas without sidewalks who said they did not want to walk in the street.
Complaints about garbage collection seem to come from the newly -assessed col-
lection fee and not the service itself. This was determined through conversa-
tion with the town manager on this topic. Otherwise, Plymouth residents express-
ed satisfaction with the services and facilities in their town, especially the
fire department, hospital and library.
Conservation of Productive Natural Resources
•
•
The Town of Plymouth has only about 150 acres of cropland within its town •
limits. Most of this acreage is either in transition areas of non -farm land
use or else exists on parcels of land with no significant agricultural produc-
tion. Consequently, the conservation of farmland within the town limits is;not
a local objective.
The snagging of Conaby Creek, which runs northeastward through the center
of town, would reduce street flooding in town and narrow the wide area now a •
swamp where only the stream itself used to run. The same action could also
enable farmers south of the town to improve drainage off their cropl;'Rnds by
way of a new channel cleared of the debris which now impedes flow_and widens
the floodplain. The -clearing of Conaby Creek has been included as a local
objective in both the land use plan for.Plymouth and the Washington County land
use plan.
Important Natural Environments
•
The most important and certainly the most impressive natural environment
•
in Plymouth is its waterfront along the Roanoke River, facing unblemished
stands of timber in neighboring Bertie County. Since the mid-1960's, the
town has undertaken renovations of the property to the rear of businesses along
Water Street having bulkheaded and filled a small park and picnic area behind
22,
•
0

•
the municipal building and another small park in the center, of the business
district. Future plans are to extend these improvements along the rearside of
•
all business property facing the river in order to unify and enhance the park
developments already started.
Protecting Cultural and Historic Resources
Plymouth has a number of historic buildings of local significance: the
Nichols House (c. 1804), Plymouth Methodist Church (c. 1832), the Washington
• County Courthouse (1913), the Ausbon House (c. 1830), the Stubbs House (c. 1830),
the Armistead House (c. 1830), the Latham House (c. 1850), Hamilton Academy
(c. 1900), and Grace Episcopal Church (1837). The greatest significance of
• the majority of these structures is that they are the only remaining examples
of pre -Civil War architecture which survived the two Battles of Plymouth in
December,1862, and April, 1864. The County Courthouse is noteworthy for its
neo-Georgian design and Hamilton Academy, now occupied by the Plymouth Women's
Club, is the earliest school still standing which many local residents attended.
The greatest problem in protecting these cultural resources is finding the
• money to maintain them. This is likely to be a continuing problem since most
of these structures are in private hands. A second problem lies in spot zoning
adjacent property for non-residential use. Fortunately, all of the sites de-
0 scribed adjoin other residential land uses. However, the possible occurrence
of incompatible development can only be prevented by considerable attention to
the Town's Zoning Ordinance. A local objective has been adopted to amend -the
• Town's Zoning Ordinance to include a historic preservation district to help
preserve these sites.
•
23
•

Alternatives Considered in the Development
of Objectives, Policies, and Standards
Alternatives considered in the preparation of this plan's objectives,
policies and standards were sharply restrained by geographic constraints,.the
slow growth of.a small population, and a limited amount of community money to
•
invest in more ambitious proposals. Future population growth is low, not ex-
ceeding five percent for the period 1975-1985: ,-But-long-term plant expansions
at the Weyerhaeuser mill near Plymouth are certain to assure additional popula-
tion growth that will require some new services or facilities. Consequently,
the objectives in this plan are scaled -down to the limited scope of programs
needed.to support slow growth. -
It was determined that a small amount of new industry was needed.in the town*
to diversify the local economic base from wood products and textile industries.
Limited industrial growth was seen as a way to increase the tax base and vary
employment opportunities without turning Plymouth into a "mill town." 'In addi-
tion, a limited amount of increased manufacturing employment would help..attract
and support new retail business which the area badly needs. Thus, local objec-
;rives supporting economic growth call for "attracting a fazr share of new in-
dustry in the county to the.town that will not overtax the town's water and
sewer systems nor degrade its appearance." _.
•
None of these limited growth objectives have known environmental side
effects that would adversely affect the town's land use. In addition to these
stated objectives, there are the_Land Classifications (see Chapter VI) which
reflect the limited growth alternative in limited development both in town and
in the one -mile extraterritorial area.
�L 4

•
•
Land Use Objectives For Plymouth
Goal: To Protect Natural and Cultural Resources
1. Recommend the development of a community appearance program and the amend-
ment of the town's zoning ordinance to include a historic preservation district.
• 2. Complete plans proposed to develop the nearside of business lots between
Water Street and the Roanoke River for use as a park.
3. Improve storm drainage in the town and surrounding area by suction -dredging
• and snagging Conaby Creek from N. C. Highway 45 to the Old Roper Road.
Goal: To Trovide for the Economic Needs of Town and County Residents by
Attractin,q New Business and7Industry to Plymouth
1. Objective:. Attract a fair share of new industry in the county to the
town that will not overtax the town's water and sewer systems nor degrade
its appearance.
2. Objective: Create space for a farmer's market in Plymouth.
3. Objective: Work with the Washington County government for the hiring of
a joint.city-county industrial developer.
• 4. Objective: .Plan the development of an airport industrial park adjoining
the new Plymouth Municipal Airport.
Goal: To Improve Traffic Circulation and Safety in and around Plymouth
•
1. Objective_:.. Recommend a new bypass around Plymouth in place of four-lanng
the existing U. S. Highway 64 bypass.
2. Objective: Recommend the separation of the railroad grade crossing where
•
it crosses U. S. Highway 64 west of town.
3. Make plans to install sidewalks in areas without sidewalks and repair or
repave existing sidewalks that would be a hazard to elderly pedestrians.
•
. 25

•
Goal: To Provide for the Growth:of..,Plymouth.in an Orderly Manner.
1. Objective: Complete an annexation study of the fringe areas surrounding
•
Plymouth.
2. Objective: Adopt subdivision regulations for orderly residential develop -
went in the town and surrounding extraterritorial area.
Goal: To Improve City -County Cooperation
Objective: Make city plans an integral part'of county plans for all future
•
extensions of public services and facilities from the town to the outlying •
areas of the county.
Public Participation Summary
•
Town of Plymouth
1. Evaluation of your Public Participation Program
A. Does your land use planning depend on the local planner for direction
or does citizen involvement offer direction?
The land use planning effort in Washington County has been a 50 - 50 effort,
with the .planner doing .the legwork for the Steering Committee and .the
Steering:Comroittee making contacts with the public and guiding the planner
towards what they,want to see put in the county's plan. •
B.. Unique features of your public participation program that might be
useful to other communities.
Ever since the Steering Committee began their public meetings., they.have
always rotated the place of the meeting to each of.the_towns in the county-- •
Creswell, Roper, and Plymouth --in order to make public attendance as conven
ient as possible. The planner. has also spoken to nearly every civic group
and organization about the purpose of CAM. Posters have been a big help
in advertising meetings.
C. How did you develop your Public Participation Program? •
The Steering Committee was created by a resolution from the County.Com-
missioners in December,.1974. At their first organizational meeting in
January, this group decided that regular open meetings and speaking.engage
ments were the best way to get public participation. Regular press and
radio features have been added to this besides the use of an attitude •
survey that the committee distributed A May to approximately 3200 house-
holds.
26

D. Do you consider your public involvement a success? Please explain.
Judging by the.attendance at Steering Committee meetings, you cannot.say
•
that public.pa-Tticipation is a success in Washington County. Committee
members have suggested to people that they come --but time and again they
forget. It seems that there is only so much you can do to get people to
attend,- but attendance is picking•up since posters have been used to
advertise the meetings. Also word-of-mouth knowledge about CAMA is getting
around.as residents from different neighborhoods are showing up for the
first time to learn more about it. Consequently, we feel that public par-
ticipation -is going to show more and more improvement as time.goes on.
Residents have.also_commented after a meeting that they feltas if their
contribution had been -listened to, and that they simply had not gone to
a meeting where .a decision had already been made and was just being
announced.
E. List some..key citizens in.your public participation program: names, .
phone numbers.
Douglas, Davenport, (7.97-4395); Cleveland Paylor, (793-3622-);-Lewis-Combs,
(797-4486); Barry Harris, (793-5823); Phil Gurkin, (793-2123); Gerald
Allen, (793-3826); Ted Masters, (793-2771); Ken Sallenger, (797-4314);
Billy Sexton, (794-2218); Dewitt -Darden, (633-3141); T. R. Spruill,
(793-2053); Bill Flowers,:(�793-4181); Guy Whitford, (793-2223); Ernestine
Hannon, (793-5015). '
2, Steps taken to inform local citizens about the CAMA program .
- A.
Newspaper
The
following.is a list of feature articles to date which have appeared in
the
local newspaper, The Roanoke Beacon. This list does not include simple
announcements of regularly scFe7ulea Steering Committee meetings. The
readership of the Beacon is approximately 8500.
1.
November 20, 1974,"Planner Appointed: Board Approves Land Use Planning"
2.
January 22, 1975,"First Meeting Held by Land Use Group"
3.
March 5, 1975,"Citizen Input Urged: Sexton Elected Chairman of Land Use
Committee"
4.
March 12, 1975,11and Use Group Sets Roper Meet"
5.
April 16, 19.75,11and Use Body Will Meet With Planning Boards,"
6.
May 7, 1975,"Preliminary Maps, Land Use Plan Eyed by Group"
7.
May 14, 1975,"CAMA Meeting Slated for Creswell"
8.
June 11, 1975,"Development Favored: Citizen Survey Results Announced
By Planner"
9.
June 18, 197.5,"Area Management: What It is and Why?"
10.
June 18, 1975,"Roanotes, by Phil Gurkin" (editorial)
11.
June 25, 1975,"Area Management: Land Use Planning"
12.
July 2, 1975,"Area Management: Guarding Resources"
13.
July 9, 1975,"Area Management: By We the People"
14.
July 9, 1975,"Roanotes by Phil Gurkin" (editorial)
•
15.
August 27, 1975,(in progress) "Plan of Goals and Objectives Endorsed
by Committee"
0 27

•
B. Radio
Several p'ublic service announcements have been aired over WPNC in Plymouth,
which broadcasts over a ten county area, to both announce meetings and •
encourage attendance. The Washington County Extension Agent has been very
cooperative in drafting his own CAMA presentations for airing during the
noon -time "Home and Farm Hour" and in conducting a talk show with the
planner, July 7, 1975.
C. Television
Television has not.been utilized as a medium because there is no local sta-
tion within the county.
D. Bulletins, Leaflets, Newsletters
•
•
Since July, 60 posters have been distributed for every regular meeting of
the Steering Committee throughout the areas where the meetings were to be
held. This has resulted in a big boost in attendance at meetings by local
residents.
E. Other Methods
•
The items above.describe the techniques we have used to inform people about
CAMA. What other method people use to get informed chiefly appears to be
word-of-mouth.
3. Opportunities for citizens to provide input into land use planning.
A. Personal interviews
This technique has not been used to the extent of some other methods. One
of the Steering.Committee members, Cleveland Paylor, took the planner
around to interview and explain the purpose of CAMA to six of the principal
businessmen in the.Town of Plymouth during March and April. Another set
of interviews were carried out among local business figures by the.WPNC
station manager, Billy Benners, in March to "brainstorm" CAMA's impact on
the business community. 1,b ,
B . Surveys
•
An attitudinal survey concerning land use goals and objectives was dis-
tributed in May through the schools to approximately 2900 households.
There were also about 300 surveys distributed among the two senior classes
at the high schools in Creswell and Plymouth. An additional 150 surveys
were distributed to predominantly black, low-income heads of households
by Mrs. Lilly. James from the Washington County Economic Development Council.
Finally, the planner used the survey at his club meetings to poll his
audience on land use problems with which they were familiar.
C. Workshops and public meetings
The Steering Committee has had ten regular meetings since January,.with,an
attendance total of 100. The Plymouth Planning Board has considered CAMA
►;

issues at eight of their gatherings and the,County Planning Board has
.done the same at six meetings of theirs. By far the greatest number
of meetings have been -with clubs and organizations --a total of 569 people
from 30 different groups. Of the 569, 184,or approximately 32%,were
women. About 150,or about 26%,were over age 65. Other meetings planned
in the future will be primarily among blacks, who only comprised about
60,or 11%,of the.569 addressed so far. Briefings to elected officials
have also been done regularly: the county commissioners have received a
total of ten reports to date, and the Plymouth Town Council has received
a total of five. This difference is due to the Commissioners meeting
twice a month while the Council meets only once.
D. Other Opportunities
•
Public service a¢mQuncements concerning CANA have been aired over Radio
Station WPNC in Plymouth on at least eight occasions. Four of these
PSA's were prepared and sponsored on the county agricultural extension's
"Home and Farm Hour" by their local staff. The planner aired the re-
mainder.
•
4. Quality and quantity of feedback from the public
A. Approximate percentage of community providing input
Of the 2900 surveys distributed through the schools, to heads of,house-
holds, 830,or approximately 29o,were returned. Among the 300 surveys
distributed to high school seniors, 177,or about 59%,were returned. Not
included in these returns are the extra polls taken of 150 low-income
blacks and the club surveys that the planner conducted. Thus in terms
of the total population, only a small.percentage,or about 12%,is estimated
to have personally responded to a questionnaire on land use. The figure
would be higher if,.you considered it on a "per household" basis.
B. Are all ethnic groups and social strata involved?
Yes, we would.say that there has been a cross-section of both races and
sexes responding to meetings and the survey --not just one group. While
there have, not been great numbers of people involved on a percentage
basis, the'proportion of whites involved has been no greater than the
proportion of blacks throughout the county.
C. Are non-residents and non -voters involved?
Non -voters were polled through the attitude survey of graduating high
• school seniors from the county's two high schools. Their attitudes
concerning land use were much the same as their elderst, with somewhat
more. emphasis on recreational needs. Non-resident property owners
represent almost negligible percentage of the total population because
most owners of second homes were identified as residents of Plymouth.
Consequently, a separate survey was not made.
0

•
D. Future participation activities planned
Future activities are being planned in about the same number as they
have in the past. There are now more suggestions from people.attending
our meetings on how to get better involvement. One of these has been
to utilize polling places throughout the county for the location of
neighborhood meetings on CAMA.
E. How are.you reflecting the responses you are receiving into the land
use plans? •
The Steering_-Committee.and residents have made their feelings known to
the planner.on.proposals-he_had made that they did not agree with.
Examples of this dealt with map changes on areas of environmental con-
cern and policies concerning trailer regulations. These changes have
all been incorporated into the county's plan to reflect what the people
want.
This report was prepared by the Washington County Steering .Committee and
Planner John McGarrity,.and approved by Mayor William Flowers of Plymouth
and County Manager Barry Harris, for the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners, August 29, 1975. •
1'3 0
•
•
•
•
•
0

•
•
IV. CONSTRAINTS
General Requirements
a. Land Suitability
•
"An analysis shall be made of the general suitability of the undeveloped
lands within the planning area for development, with consideration given to
the following factors:
•
1) Physical Limitations for Development;
2) Fragile Areas;
3) Areas with Resource Potential.
•
`'These factors shall be analyzed, and where possible mapped, based upon
the best information available.
"The major purpose of this analysis is to assist in preparing the land
classification map. It is recognized, however, that some of the areas identi-
fied as a result of the land suitability analysis may be designated Areas of
Environmental Concern. Any areas so designated as AECs shall be subject to the
•
detailed requirements of Section III of these Guidelines in addition to the
analysis carried out under this subsection.
1) Physical Limitations for Development
An identification shall be made of areas likely to have conditions
making development costly or causing undesirable consequences if developed.
The following areas shall be identified:
•
(a) Hazard Areas, including the following:
(1) Man-made (for example, airports, tank farms for the storage of
flammable liquids, nuclear power plants);
• (2) Natural, including:
(a) Ocean erodible are
3 L-
•

•
(b) Estuarine erodible areas
(c) Flood hazard areas
-Riverine (floodplains and -floodways)
•
-Coastal floodplains
(b)
Areas with Soil -Limitations, including the following:
(1) Areas presenting hazards for foundations;
•
(2) Shallow soils;
(3) Poorly drained soils;
(4) Areas with limitations for septic tanks including both:
•
(a) areas.that are generally characterized by soil
limitations, but within which small pockets of
favorable soils do exist; and
(b) areas where soil limitations are common to most of
the soils present.
•
(c)
Sources of Water Supply, including:
(1) Groundwater. recharge areas (bedrock and surficial) ;
(2) Public water supply watersheds;
•
(3) Wellfields.
(d)
Areas where the predominant slope exceeds twelve percent.
2)
Fragile Areas
•
"An
identification shall be made of those areas which could easily be
damaged or destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned development.
"The following shall be considered:
(a) Coastal Wetlands
(b) Sand Dunes along the Outer Banks
(c) Ocean Beaches and Shorelines
(d) Estuarine Waters
(e) Public Trust Waters.
(f) Complex Natural Areas
32
17,

•
(g) Areas that Sustain Remnant Species,
(h) Areas Containing Unique Geologic Formations
•
(i) Registered Natural Landmarks
(j) Others not defined in Part III such as wooded swamps,
prime wildlife habitats, scenic and prominent high
points, etc.
(k) Archeologic and Historic Sites.
(3) Areas with Resource Potential, including.:
(a) Productive and unique agricultural lands,
M including:
-Prime agricultural soils
-Potentially valuable agricultural lands with
moderate conservation efforts
Other productive or unique agricultural lands.
•
(b) Potentially valuable mineral sites;
(c) Publicly owned forests, parks, fish and gamelands,
and_other non -intensive outdoor recreation lands;
• (d) Privately.owned wildlife sanctuaries.
b . Capacity .of Community Facilities
An identification shall be made of:
• 1) Existing water and sewer service areas;
2) The design*'capacity of the existing water treatment plant, sewage
treatment plan, schools, and primary roads;
3) The percent at which the existing water treatment plant, sewage
• treatment plant, schools; and primary roads.are currently .
utilized."
_ From. CY`
Physical Limitations
Hazard Areas. There are three principal hazard areas in Plymouth. The
first is the wide floodplain of Conaby Creek which runs from the south.to the
•
northeast of town through its center (see existing land use map and drainage
0

•
•
0
•
•
•
•
0
•
patterns map). This floodplain has continued to spread slowly over the years
due to the gradual siltation of the main stream course. It constitutes a
physical barrier to the outward expansion of the town and impedes storm
drainage due to its sluggish flow. (See Figure 10.)
The second hazard area is the two railroad lines which converge and
branch off to industrial areas east and west of the downtown -business district
(see existing land use map). Slow train movements have impeded vehicular
traffic,and the rights -of -way form a costly barrier for water and sewer ex-
tensions (see soils map).
The third hazard area is the U.S. 64.Bypass which skirts the southern
fringe of town. This two-lane thoroughfare is at times very heavily congested
with local traffic attempting to enter the thru movement of vehicles from
numerous driveways to small businesses. The lack of limited access along
the town's principal arterial hinders ingress and egress.to the adjoining
residential and commercial areas and greatly increases the incidence of
traffic accidents.
Soil Limitations. Soil associations in town pose moderate to severe
limitations for operating individual septic tanks; however, many problems
are averted by the requirement for residents to use the town's sewer system.
Consequently, soils limitations are not a significant limitation to develop-
ment in this area. (See Figure 11.)
Water Supply Areas. The following description is taken from Plymouth's
11201" Facilities Plan prepared by L. E. Wooten and Company.
-
"Abundant groundwater supplies are available in the planning area. All
public and private water supplies are obtained from wells. The chloride con-
tent of the water varies from 10 mg/L to 750 mg/'L. The chloride content of
water from wells less than 250 feet in depth, in general, is within the accept-
able limits of domestic uses. Those beyond this depth become increasingly
3S
0

IT

brackish. There are no known records of groundwater contamination." No water
quality problems with Plymouth's water system were noted in a water systems
0 feasibility study for the county prepared by Moore Gardner Associates
Steep Slopes. There are no land areas in Plymouth having slopes exceed-
ing 12 percent. The town is virtually flat with little topographic relief
except near Bateman's Swamp where it, adjoins .the Country Club Estates sub-
division.
Fragile Areas
of
In general, few fragile areas exist in Plymouth that would be subject to
damage or -destruction._ The only areas having such sensitivity are certain
surface waters and a'few historic sites of local significance.
•
In Plymouth, surface waters are the Roanoke River, Welch's Creek, and
Conaby Creek. All of these waters are classified as "C Swamp" by the water
quality classification system of the North Carolina Department of Natural
•
and Economic Resources, Environmental Management Division. One exception is
a short stretch of Welch's Creek from the main line of the Seaboard Coastline
Railroad Bridge north to the Roanoke River. The classification at this loca-
f
tion is "D Swamp." "C" waters are suitable for fishing and fish propagation,
but not outdoor bathing or drinking. I'D" waters are suitable for irrigation
or industrial cooling but none of the higher uses.. The "swamp" designation
•
describes the areas drained by these waters. The principal detriments to the
water quality of these waters are point sources of waste discharge from munici-
pal and industrial users. Prevailing government standards for wastewater dis-
w
charge are the principal controls to improve future emissions.
Historic Sites of Local Significance. The Town of Plymouth has no his -
toric sites that are listed by the North Carolina Historical Commission. How-
a
ever, there are several sites of local significance that were elaborated upon
in the previous chapter under "Protecting Cultural and Historic Resources."
37
0

These buildings are the Nichols House, Plymouth Methodist Church, the Washing-
ton County Courthouse, the Ausbon House, the Stubbs House, the Armstead House,
the Latham House, Hamilton Academy, and Grace Episcopal Church. The principal
detriments to their continued existence are lack of money for maintenance and
spot zoning of adjacent properties for non-residential land use. A partial 40
solution to these problems is an active historic/preservation/community appear-
ance program and the amendment of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance to designate
a historic district.
Areas with Resource Potential
r
Plymouth has only a limited amount of farming activity at several scatter-
ed locations and does not allow the extraction of mineral rights within the •
town limits. Consequently, neither agriculture nor mining have any bearing
on resource potential within the town itself. There are no wildlife sanctu-
aries as such within the town except the natural vegetation in between the
built-up areas. The public and private recreation lands in town are intensive
recreation areas except for a small corner park at Main and Washington Streets,
a nature trail behind Plymouth High,School, and ,the town's waterfront picnic •
area behind the municipal building. This waterfront park is the principal
area with resource potential in Plymouth and local objectives are to extend
its improvement through the downtown shopping area as funds become available.
Capacity of Corr=ity Facilities
0
Existing Water and Sewer Service Area
The Town of Plymouth has water and sewer service throughout all of its
incorporated limits (see existing land use maps for location of limits) with
S
short extensions across U.S. Highway 64 to the Plymouth Garment Company and
the Washington County Hospital.
38

•
•
r
#
Design Capacity and Utilization of Existing Facilities
The following water and sewer system data is based upon engineering reports
prepared by L. E. Wooten and Company and Moore -Gardner Associates. School
facility information is based upon the 1972-73 School Survey for Washington
County, prepared by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Divi-
sion of School Planning. Traffic count data is supplied by the N. C. Depart-
ment of Transportation, Thoroughfare Planning. Section.
Water Facilities. "The present population of Plymouth with per capita
demands of 80 GPD requires approximately 400,000 gallons of water daily.
This usage is half of the town's 800,000 gallon storage capacity. (Source:
Moore -Gardner Water Feasibility Study, 1975.)
Sewer Facilities. "The Town of Plymouth lies in a sub -basin of the
Roanoke River Basin. The Division of Environmental Management has established
the waste loads allocation for the discharge of treated effluents into the
•
Roanoke River from Plymouth.'s wastewater treatment facilities, and these are
summarized in Figure 12.
S
FIGURE 12
WASTE LOADS ALLOCATIONS
'Design
BOD TSS
TKN
Fecal
# Capacity
5
Colform
Receiving Stream MGD pH
mg/L mg/L
mg/L
1#/l00ml
Roanoke River 0.8 6-9
30 30
25
200
1.0 6-9
30 30
25
200
(1)"Water Quality Management Plans -,Roanoke and Chowan
River Basins," Divi-
sion of Environmental Management,
State of North Carolina.
a
39
•

"The operating date of the existing sewer plant indicates that at present
the plant is receiving 9.4 M® flow (half the waste load allocation for the
Roanoke River) and the influent wastewater characteristics are of typical
domestic type. There are no known sourcesof significant industrial waste
discharges that may upset the treatment processes. The plant is well main-
tained and is producing an effluent BODs of 10 mg/L and suspended solids of
14 mg/L:1 ,(SOURCE: L. E. Wooten Study, 1976.)
School Facilities. The facility problems of Washington County Schools
in Plymouth are easily identified. The major problems are listed below.
(SOURCE: 1973-74 School Survey)
Plymouth High School
R
o capacity for 790, but membership of 877
® eleven mobile units
® located in a highly congested area
a site inadequate in size and lacks development
a surrounding terrain and developments make expansion of the
site.difficult
e stadium further crowds the site
® located within three miles of the county line (but located
centrally for 520 of the cOtmty population)
® facilities generally adequate, but the site not suitable
for expansion
Fourth Street Elementary
a a nonfire-resistive building constructed in 1930 with a six -
classroom, fire -resistive addition in 1955
® site of 3.6 acres inadequate in size
A maximum capacity for 400 students with 318 assigned
® should be phased out of service as soon as possible:
inadequate administrative and library space
Washington Street
® nonfire-resistive building.constructed in 1930 with minimum
quality additions in 1948 and 1952
® maximum capacity for 725 students with 690 assigned
® site of 9.1 acres; however, part of site located across a
street; site inadequate
® three-story building constructed to serve as a high school
a should be phased out of service as soon as feasible: inade-
quate administrative, library and cafeteria
40

It t
ob
30
2650
2500-­
00,
it I
860
AVERAM
DAILY
TRAFFIC
1--buu COUNT
Transportation, Office
of Thoroughfare

•
Traffic Facilities. Figure 13 compares the average Daily Traffic ADT
for 1964 and 1974 along major thoroughfares in Plymouth. The most dramatic
•
(nearly 200%) traffic increases in town have occurred along Main Street to
Mackey's Road (S.R. 1300) due to commuting traffic to and from the Weyer-
haeuser mill in Martin County. Near Plymouth on U.S. Highway 64, other in-
creases have been recorded. Traffic along the section of U.S. 64 between
Trowbridge Road (S.R. 1341) and the Wilson Street Extension (S.R. 1335)
quadrupled between 1964 and 1974. The ADP counts at this location jumped
•
from 1800 vehicles per day to 8000 vehicles per day. The higher figure of
8000 is only 800 vehicles short of the theoretical design capacity of 8800
vehicles per day for a two lane roadway having a 24 foot -wide pavement.
•
(SOURCE: N. C. D.O.T., Thoroughfare Planning Office)
.0
•
[]
•
C
42
0

•
•
V. ESTIMATED DEMAND
General Requirements
a. Population and Economic Estimates
• "Population: A population estimate for the following ten years shall be
made and utilized as the basis for determining land and facilities demand and
for classifying land areas.; Ten year population projections will be pro-
vided by the Department of Administration for use in making population esti-
mates. Projections will be provided for. counties and cities and towns having
a population greater than 2500. Accurate projections for those areas with a
• population of less than 2500 are not available and must be developed by the
local planning unit.
"The projections provided by the Department of Administration are based
on prior trends with annual updates. The local government may wish to use
these trend projections as their population estimates or to modify them to
• include additional factors such as:
. 1 1) Seasonal population;
2) Local objectives concerning growth;
• 3) Foreseeable social and economic change.
"The Department of Administration population model is capable of taking
into account some of these considerations and should be used where possible
when such further refinement is desired. If such refinement causes a signifi-
cant difference between the Department of Administration population projections
• and the local population estimate, -the Coastal Resources Commission or its
designee should review the estimate prior to the local government using it in
their land use plan.
•
"Economy --Major identifiable trends or factors in the economy which might
have impact on future land use shall be set forth.
b. Future Land Needs
The steps to be followed in determining future land needs are:
1) To make an allocation of the estimated,population growth to the
• Transition, Community, and Rural land classes of the.Land Classifica-
tion System, based on local objectives. The Transition class is to be
used to accommodate all the estimated moderate to high density growth.
That is not to say, however, that growth cannot occur in the Developed
class.. The great majority of the low density growth which is estimated
should be clustered in the Community class, though a small amount can
• be accommodated at very low densities in the Rural class.
43
0

•
2) To determine, for the Transition and Community classes, the land
area required to accommodate the estimated growth based upon the
following gross population densities.
•
Transition: a minimum of 2000 people per square mile
Community: as a rule of thumb, 640 people per square mile
(one person per acre)
c. Community Facilities Demand
C
Consideration should be given to new facilities which will be required
by the estimated population growth.ty - From: CAMA "Guidelines"
Future Population and Economy
•
Ten Year Population Projections. Ten year (1985) population estimates
for the Town of Plymouth were interpolated from information provided by the
North Carolina Department of Administration's Office of State Planning for
u
Plymouth Township and Washington County. Preliminary estimates were review-
ed and modified by the Plymouth Planning Board and are described below.
FIGURE 14 •
FUTURE POPULATION ESTIMATE
19702 % 1975 % 1980 % 1985
Washington County 14,038 0% 14,060 0% 14,100 +3% 14,500
Plymouth Townshipl 7,512 +4% 7,800 +4% 8,100 +6% 8,550
Plymouth 4,774 +3% 4,900 +4% 5,120 +3% 5,250
•
Notes (1)
Township population includes town's population.
(2)Source: U.S. Census
•
Considerations Made in 1985 Population Estimate. Future population pro-
jections reflect nationwide trends towards smaller families, lower fertility
rates, and out -migration from rural areas. County population for 1980 has been •
estimated at 14,100 - only slightly more than the population in 1970. The
44
0

.•
C
•
•
C,
Town of Plymouth's population has consistently been about 35 percent of the
county's total population.for over twenty years, This pattern is likely to
continue in the future, and consequently the town will share in the county's
leveling of population growth.
Future growth in Plymouth is sharply limited by its past history of
annexation. Only four percent of the present incorporated area, or about
77 acres, has been annexed since 1947. Of the estimated developable land.
within the town limits (about 413 acres) only 30 percent (124 acres) is with-
in a few hundred feet of existing streets and utilities. Consequently, the
inventory of available,,vacant land that can be developed economically is in
considerably short -supplyNto meet future economic needs. Annexation and the
start of a redevelopment program are both local objectives designed to
ameliorate this situation.
25 and 50 Year Population Estimates. The following figures are based
•
upon N. C. Department of Administration's OBERs Series-E population estimates
and were extrapolated by DNER. They are shown here only to indicate how
present conditions might appear in the distant future, not taking into account
•
future events. Cautionary foresight is essential when evaluating these
statistics. Residents living in the county 50 years ago could hardly have
foreseen the amount and kind of change which took place from 1926 to 1976. The
only valid conclusion from this information is that the county is certainly to
remain an agricultural community having only a small population - no greater
than the present population of three counties surrounding it. Population growth
•
can be expected to occur fastest along the paved roads in the fringe areas of
Plymouth especially along the U.S. 64-N.C. 32 corridor and in the beach areas.
45
0

L.
. i acre 15 50-"'ear .77sti*72_te
1985 6 2000 % 2025
Washington County 14,500 + 70 15,500 + 80 16,800
•
Plymouth Township 8,550 +150 9,810 +100 10,800
Plymouth 5,250 + 50 5,310 + 80 5,960
Si`OT RCF, ^ 1 J;zT.c
Long Term Population Estimates and Local Desires. Figures used to esti-
•
mate population growth for the years 2000 and 2025 were based upon informa-
tion furnished by the Department of Administration. However, these popula-
tion estimates advocate local attitudes about growth expressed by residents
•
and officials at numerous meetings held during the Plan's preparation. simply
stated, these attitudes advocate slow growth for the town so as to not demean
its appearance nor overtAi&its water and sewer plant facilities and schools.
•
These desires were thus carried out with restraint in the preparation of
objectives, future population esthtates, and land classification.
Land and Water Carrying Capacity.. Land and water constraints are -con-
•
siderably 14mited inPlymouth due to the town's water and sewer systems which
are currently operating at half -.of their design capacity. However, wastewater
discharges into the Roanoke.River from the town's sewer system do not meet
•
existing water quality standards of the N.C. Department of Natural & Economic
Resources, Division of Environmental Management. Improvements to the sewer
plant facility have been proposed by.the town's consulting engineering firm
•
to correct this condition and are a part of the Plymouth -Roper 201 Facilities
Plan (see following."Community Facilities" section).
Seasonal Population Impacts. Seasonal population is the "pass -through"
•
variety and does not represent.a significant factor in the local economy.
Historic structures which might draw people to the area are of local signifi-
cance and do not .constitute tourist attractions.as such.. The town's small
•
46

•
population and income level further limit the feasibility fo-r tourist -oriented
activities. For all these reasons, seasonal population was not considered in
•
the town's overall growth.
Future Economy
• Employment characteristics for the Plymouth labor force are similar to
those for the county.. County labor force patterns show a higher level of
employment for men compared to women in 1970,compared to five of the sur-
• rounding six counties... Opportunities for male employment, both among blacks
and whites, continue to be ahead of opportunities for women. Further study
of industries that are best suited for women and the attraction of such in-
0 dustries to the county can change this pattern.
Labor 'Force Characteristics, 1970
Mal.e
and Female Percentages of Total
Employed
•
Black and -White Total
Black Only
Washington County
73.3%, Male 35.4%, Female
63.2%,
Male
36.3%,
Female
Martin County
70.7%,:Male 40.0%, Female
64.8%,
Male
42.6%,
Female
•
Beaufort County
72.9%, Male 40.3%, Female'.
60.9%,
Male
42.0%,
Female
Berne County
64.9%, Male 33.0%, Female
94.9%,
Male
30.3%,
Female
Chowan County
75.1%, Male 39.4%, Female
69.6%,
Male
37.6%,
Female
•
Tyrrell County
65.3%, Male 35.1%, Female
63.7%,
Male
39.3%,
Female
Hyde County
68.3%, Male 34.8%, Female
61.0%,
Male
44.5%,
Female
Source: 70 Census,
Tables 121 and 126.
•
Plymouth has
been,. and is likely to continue,
a local
center
for.agricul-
tural trade-in Washington
County. The possible expansion of
operations at
the
•
Weyerhaeuser papermill would create the most impact
on local
housing demand and
': 47.,�«

0 0 0
RESENT & PROPOSED WATER SERVIC
Existing systems
Proposed System by 1980
Proposed System by 1985
Proposed system by 1990
Proposed System After 1990
Irk-'-,
tt
J,
YMOUTH, N. C.
V,
, 'X.
4
SOURCE: Moore -Gardner Study,
1975
Figure 17

•
C
•
•
•
retail trade in the foreseeable future. Secondary impacts from theexpansion
of First Colony Farms..in.Creswell are possible, but too little is known at this
time about subsidiary agri-industry that might be attracted to the area. Agri-
cultural production at the.ifarm;will first have to expand in order to justify
costly plant investments.for food processing. Water system extensions to the
east, south, and west'of Plymouth are the first increments of a county water
system. These facilities are only in the preliminary planning stage at this
time; however, their construction will greatly extend and improve the number
of industrial sites available for development in the Plymouth area.. Also, the
new municipal airport south of the town limits (on S.R. 1106 next to the
Southern Railway) has potential for air and rail -oriented industry within ten
minutes driving time of the town's principal through -access road, U.S. Highway
64. (See Figure 17)
• Future Land Needs
Land demands for the town's estimated population in 1985 are based..upon
its ten-year population projections. These acreage demands are only for resi
• dential housing. '
Figure 18a, Future Lamy penanl
Number Number
1975 1985 of People of Householdsl
• Washington Co. 14,060 14,500 +440 +138
Plymouth Twp. 70800 3,5�0 +750 +234
Plymouth 43%900 5,250 +350 +109
0
1
Note: one household is estimated to equal 3.2 people.
•
49,
0

Figure 18b.
Density Maximum
New.Households Per Acrel Land Demand
Plymouth Twp. +234 1 household/3 acres 702 acres
Plymouth +109 1 household/1 acre 109 acres
1Note: Standards for density are based upon the North Carolina Land Classifica-
tion System's standards of 2000 people per square mile for "developed"
and "transition" land classifications and 640 people per square mile
for the "community" land classification.
Actual development could occur on much less land than the amounts shown,
but the maximum acreage indicates the land that ought to be available throughout
the jurisdiction for development. Thus, for example, 109 new households in
Plymouth could be housed together by 1985 on a'25 acre subdivision hawing
10,000 square foot lots with public water and sewer. However, these 109 fami-
lies represent mixed income levels and housing needs, creating needs for dif-
ferent priced housing.located in different areas. Also, vacant land.available
in town is not uniformly suited for development: some of it has poorsoils or
would require economically unfeasible utility extensions. Thus, the amount of
land demanded in any area . is computed for vacant land demands over the entire
area and not'altogether in one location.
Maximum land demands shown for the three towns and Plymouth Township can
be adequately satisfied from the supply of vacant land in each jurisdiction;
however, in the case of Plymouth and.C.reswell, very.little land would be left .
for other purposes beyond 1985 unless these two towns take steps between now
and then to extend their town limits.
Future growth in Plymouth is sharply limited by its past history of
annexation. Only four percent of the present incorporated area, or about 77
acres, has been annexed since 1947. Of -the estimated developable land within
•
C7
9
0
•
•
•
•
0

•
the town limits (about 413 acres) only 30 percent (124 acres) is within a few
hundred feet of existing streets and utilities. Consequently, the inventory
•
of available, vacant land that can be developed economically is in considerably
short supply to meet future economic needs. However, the 124 acres would be
an adequate inventory for the maximum land demand of 109 acres by 1985.
In Plymouth Township, the seven -square mile extraterritorial area sur-
rounding Plymouth has the following pattern: 52 percent, forest (including
the floodplain); 41 percent, agriculture; 7 percent, buildings and roads
•
(up 12 percent from 1964). It is presumed that agricultural lands have the
highest potential for conversion to urban land use because they are already
cleared and drained.* Even if no other housing were to locate outside the
•
extraterritorial limits of'Plymouth, the 41 percent -of land devoted to agricul-
tune in this zone (about 1837 acres) would more than adequately satisfy the
maximum land demand for 702.acres.
•
Community Facilities Demand
Projected Utilization: Water System
• `-^The present population of Plymouth with per capita water demands of 80
GPD requires approximately 400,000.gallons of water daily. It is expected that
per capita usage will..increase to 100 GPD by year 2000., The projected popula-
tion of Plymouth by the year 2000 will be 6,000, which should result in an
average day demand of 600,000 gallons. The maximum day demand at 1.75 tunes
average day demand should be 1,050,000 gallons.
• 'Plymouth's existing system of wells and elevated storage is sufficient to
meet the projected water demands of the municipality beyond the year 2000, at
which time Plymouth should be -111e to furnish_an average of 150,000 gallons per
• day to county users without exceeding 12 hours pumping time. When this rate is
reached, Plymouth should expand its -water -production capacity so that normal daily
5_I .
0

•
operations do not exceed 12 hours. It is anticipated that Plymouth will have
the capacity to fulfill area water needs: Those areas served by Plymouth out-
- •
side the corporate limits would be eligible for county participation in finan-
cing where feasibility is demonstrated as outlined in this report. (Source:
Moore -Gardner Assocs., Water Feasibility Study, 1975.)
Projected Utilization: Sewer System
"The Town of Plymouth operates an 0.8 MGD extended aeration type waste-
0
water treatment facility that discharges the final effluent to the Roanoke •
River, a class "C Swamp" stream. The facility is well maintained and is
producing an effluent BOD5 and suspended solids of secondary quality. How-
ever, because the treatmentfacility does not have disinfection facilities, •
the assigned water quality standards of the Roanoke River are not protected.
Also, the treatment facility does not have adequate sludge treatment and dis-
posal facilities and other fail-safe measures such as provision of multiple •
units for major components of the treatment processes as required by the
State, standby power facilities at the treatment plant and at the main pump
stations, etc. Accordingly, the Town of Plymouth will be required to upgrade •
its wastewater treatment facilities to achieve the current and future water
quality goals of the Planning Area.
"In order to comply with the effluent limitations established for the •
discharge to the Roanoke River, only upgrading of the existing facility is
considered for Plymouth. This would provide an optimum solution to achieve
water quality goals by making maximum use of the existing facilities. The •
upgrading of the treatment facility would incorporate preliminary treatment
facilities, an additional clarifier, chlorination facilities,.a sludge diges-
tion tank, sludge drying beds and standby power. An additional clarifier is •
52
0

♦
•
U
♦
!
considered for two reasons: (1) to ensure solids separation in the event that the
existing clarifier`is temporarily taken out of service for repairs, and (2) to
ensure at least primary treatment of wastewater if the aeration basin is tem-
porarily taken out of service for repairs. The chlorination facilities would
be designed to provide adequate disinfection of wastewater prior to discharge
into the Roanoke River.. Provision of an additional sludge digestion tank and
sludge drying beds would ensure adequate sludge handling facilities. The
dried sludge from the drying beds will be transported to the existing sanitary
landfill for ultimate disposal. The residual wastes from the water supply
facilities are not a problem at Plymouth since water is supplied from wells
and no treatment other than "softening' and disinfection is required.
"The domestic wastewater loadings for the Town of Plymouth is based on
20-year population projections, the operating date of the existing wastewater
treatment facility and the data assembled from the existing reports. The
selected design period of 20 years (1978 to 1998) was chosen as a reflection
of reasonable life expectancy of the equipment associated with the treatment
facilities and of a reasonable time period for payment of bonds required to
build the facilities. The design waste loads and flows are summarized in
Figure 19.
"A volume of 80,000 gpd is being.incorporated into treatment plant design
to provide for industrial growth. Such a volume is considered minimal in view
of industrial development activities in the Planning Area in recent years."
(Source: 201 Facilities Plan, L. E. Wooten $ Co., 1976)
53
0

Fi7ure 19/ Design Waste Loads and Flows
Present (1975)
Future (1998)
Plymouth
Plymouth
Population
4,950
6,500
Flowl
Average.Daily Flow, MGD
0.410
0.710
Maximum Daily Flow, MGD
1.157
0.800
Peak Daily Flow, MGD
1.400
1.775
BOD5, lbs/day
1000
1510
•
TSS, lbs/day
850
1250
'Basis of Average.Design Flow:
Existing Average Daily High.Groundwater Tlow., 0.566 MGD
Future Domestic (1500 P.E. @ 100 gpcd) 0.150 MGD
Sub -Total 0.716 MGD
10% Industrial'Allowance 0.072 MGD
Inflow Volume 0.100 MGD
Total 0.888 MGD
Source: 201 Facilities Plan, L. E. Wooten & Co., 1976. !
Projected Utilization: Schools
School Facilities
o Washington County needs new facilities for approximately 2,000 of
the 3,765 students.
o The Washington Street, Fourth Street, Roper Elementary, and
Creswell Elementary buildings and sites,are not judged suitable
for long-range use.
o The Plymouth High School site is inadequate in size and the school
should not be expanded beyond its,, resent capacity for 790 students.
'The following summarizes the facility data. •
54
•

•
Facility Data for Washington County
School and Grades
Fourth Street Elem. (1-2)
Acres, 3.6 '
Year Built, 1930
Additions, 1955 .
Membership, 318.
Professional Personnel, 14
Classrooms or Teaching Stations, 16
Mobile Units,-1
Capacity, 400
Adequacy of Special Facilities
•
Fourth Street Elem. (1-2)
Administrative space, inadequate
Media or'Library, inadequate
Gymnasium, Adequate
Cafeteria, Adequate
School and Grades
Plymouth High (9-12)
..Acres, 21.5'
Year Built, 1958.
Additions, 1960, 68, 70
Membership, 877
Professional Personnel, 48
Classrooms or Teaching Stations, 35
Mobile Units, 11
Capacity, 790
Adequacy of Special Facilities
Plymouth High (9-12)
Admirdnistrative space, Adequate
Media or Library, Adequate
Music, Adequate
Gymtorium, Adequate
Cafeteria, Inadequate
School and Grades
Washington Street Elem. (3-6)
Acres, 9.1
Year Built, 1930
Additions, 1943, 48,-52
Membership, 690
Professional Personnel, 32
•
Classrooms or Teaching Stations, 29
Mobile Units, 1.
Capacity, 725
0

C
Adequacy of Special Facilities
Washington Street Elem. (3-6)
Administrative.space, Inadequate
Media or Library, Inadequate
Auditorium, Adequate
Cafeteria, Inadequate
The capacity -for elementary pupils was computed on the basis of 25 pupils per
classroom and the capacity for secondary pupils was computed on the basis of
25 pupils and 90 percent utilization. .
Source: 1973-74,Washington County School Survey
In terms of long-range planning, it appears that only Plymouth High
School, Washington Union, and Creswell High School sites should be'considered.
Phasing out the Fourth Street, Washington Street, Roper, and Creswell.Elemen-
tary buildings and sites will be conducive to a major change,.in the grade
organization.
Projected Utilization: Streets
•
Plymouth has only a Sketch Thoroughfare Plan prepared in 1972 by the
Thoroughfare Planning Section of the N. C. Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways (see Fig. ?" The development of any of'the proposed
improvements would have to be preceded by detailed origin -destination (OD)
studies which are not under consideration at the present time. Primary features
of the sketch plan include a new bypass south of the town limits and desig-
nating Main Street and Third Street for one-way traffic.
Cost of New Facilities
Water system extensions described earlier are a part of a five -phase
county -wide water plan which was prepared for 'the Washington County Board of
•
Commissioners by Moore -Gardner Associates in 1975. The following construction
costs represent the costs to the county for Phase I of the.system from Plymouth •

Figure 20
Legend
Major Route; existing aligmient.
Major Route; new aligment
Minor Route; existing alignment �04.w* • swam$ -* 400
Minor Route; new alignment
\PLYMOUTH, N. C.
tp
bo
THOROUGHFARE
PLAN
SOURCE: N. C. DOT, Office
of Thoroughfare Planning, 1972
A

•
•
•
•
•
to Roper. Construction costs to the Town of Plymouth for water service to
Transition areas shown on the Land Classification Map have not been determined.
Such costs would be estimated in a separate annexation study. The following
costs are presented for information only for the existing proposed improve-
ments closest to town. (Source: Moore -Gardner Study)
FIGURE 21
SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 PROJECT COSTS, PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM
Construction Costs
Engineering @ 5.1%
Inspection @ 2.0%
Legal & Administration
Interest During Construction
Contingencies
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$1,406,010.00
71,706.50
28,120.20
25,000.00
40,000.00
94,163.30
$1,665,000.00
Funds for construction of the proposed water improvements may be derived
from the sale of revenue bonds, federal and state grants, and tap -on fees.
.Revenue for operation and debt service may be derived from monthly water sales,
front foot assessments and tap -on fees.
The Moore -Gardner feasibility study should be referred to for.a detailed
explanation of the estimated construction costs, operating costs, and sources
of funding.
Costs of sewer system improvements for the Town's existing plant are
derived from the L. E. Wooten and Company study prepared in 1976. Proposed
improvements are eligible for funding from PL 92-500 and State Matching
Grunts. This facility plan should be consulted for detailed cost estimates:
58
0

•
FIGURE 22
ESTIMATED COSTS, PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation
Evaluation Survey $40,000
94.000
$134,000 0
Treatment Plant Improvements
Construction Costs $527,000
Engineering 559000
Legal $ Administrative 2,000 •
0 & M Manual 10,000
Contingencies 52,000
646,000
Total Estimated Const. Costs $780,000
SOURCE: L. E. Wooten Study
59
•
C
•
•

•
VI. PLAN DESCRIPTION
• Description of the Land Classification System
`A land classification map shall be -prepared according -to the specifica-
tions set forth in this section. The following codes shall be used:
•
Class Color Code Letter Code
Developed Solid rust D
Transition Hatched rust T
Community Cross -hatched rust, C
Rural White R
•
Conservation Dot Green P
"Land Classification shall be represented at least with boundary
lines around each category mapped, and with a single letter code to in-
dicate which category is intended. However, the map(s) may optionally
be submitted using color patterns to differentiate between categories.
,The North Carolina Land Classification System contains five classes of
land:
a. Developed --Lands where existing population density is moderate to
•
high
�edd--Lands
here there are a variety of land uses which have the necessary
public services.
b. Transition --Lands where local government plans to accommodate moderat
to high ensity development during the following ten year period and where
necessary public services will be provided to accommodate that growth.
•
C. Community --Lands where low density development is grouped in existing
settlements or will occur in such settlements during the following ten.
_ year period and which will not require. extensive public services now or
in .the future.
•
d. Rural --Lands whose highest use is for agriculture, forestry, mining,
water supply, etc., based on their natural res'ources potential. Also,
lands for future'>needs --no ' currently recognized.
e. Conservation --Fragile, hazard and other lands necessary to maintain
a healthy natural environment and necessary to provide for the public
•
health, safety, or welfare.

•
These five classes provide a framework to be used'by"local governments to
identify the general use of all lands in each county. Such a system presents
an opportunity for the -local government to provide for its needs as well as
to consider those of _the whole state. Also, they can make a statement of •
policy on where and .to what density they want growth to occur, and where they
want to.conserve the county's natural resources by guiding growth.
'As a statement of local policy consistent with statewide needs and goals,
the county land classification map will serve as a basic tool for coordinating
numerous policies, standards,. -regulations, and other governmental activities •
at the local, state:and federal level...Such coordination may be described by
five applications:
a. The Land Classification System encourages coordination and'consistency
between local land use policies and those of -state government. Lands are
classified by the loca.1"governments. The Coastal Resources Commission then
reviews those classifications to ensure conformance with minimum guidelines
for the system. The coastal county maps taken together will be the princi-
pal policy guide for governmental decisions and activities which affect land
uses in the coastal area.
b. The System provides a guide for public investment in land. For ex-
ample, state and localagenciescan anticipate the need for early acqui-
sition of lands and easements in the Transition class for schools, recre-
ation, transportation,,and other public facilities.
c. The.System can also provide a useful framework for budgeting and plan-
ning for the construction.of community facil ties such as .water and sewer •
systems, schools, and roads.; The resources of many state and federal
agencies, as well as those.of the local government which are used for such
facilities, can then be.more efficiently allocated.
d. In addition,.such a System will aid in better coordination of regulatory
policies and decisions. Conservation and Rural Production lands will help •
to focus the attention of state and local agencies and interests concerned
with the valuable natural resources of the state. On the other hand, lands
in the Transition and Community classes will be of special concern to those
agencies and.interests who _work for high quality development through local
land use controls such as zoning and subdivision regulations.
c. Finally, the System can help to provide�guidance.for a more equitable
distribution of the land tax burden.
Private lands which are in the Rural and Conservation classes should have
low taxes to reflect the policy that few, if any, public services will be
provided to these lands- In contrast; lands in the Transition class should •
be taxed to pay for the :large cost of new public services which will be
required to support the density of growth anticipated.
`The local land classifications maps must be updated every five years.
Egch class is designed to be broad enough so that frequent changes in maps are
not necessary. In extreme cases, such as when a large key facility, causing •
major repercussions, is unexpectedly placed in a county, the Coastal Resources
61
J
•

L
Commission can allow a county to revise its classification map before the five
year period is over.
• 'In addition, the Land Classification System allows a variety of detailed
land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, etc. to
occur within these classes. There is flexibility under existing,zoning
enabling statutes to change these -detailed land uses whenever necessary.
"Policies, rules, and actions concerning Areas of Environmental Concern.
• shall take precedence over policies, rules, and actions concerning the Land
Classifications, in the event of any/conflicts."
Fro-.,
Population Allocations to Transition, Community and Rural. Land Classifications
• Population allocations to the transition, community and rural.land classi-
fication in North Carolina are based upon the 1975-85 population estimates
and gross land demands established in Part III. The following table summarizes
• these allocations.
62

•
Figure 23
LAND DEMAND ESTIMATES
Estimate
Pop. Growthf
of
1975-85
Assigned
Assigned
Known
Vacant
Pop.
Pop. Density
Vacant
Acreage
'Acreage
Growth,.
Per Sq. Mi.
Land
Plymouth Twp.
+750
•
Transition Areas
250
120
2000..
:. 375
Community Areas
V
340
640
340
Rural Areas
'-M
-
-
35
Plymouth
+350
Developed Areas
1920
20
2000
62.5
Transition Areas
60
60
2000
187.5
Community Areas
50
50
640
50.
Discussion of Allocated'Population Densities
In Plymouth Township, the Transition areas consist of the Liverman-Heights•
subdivision (approximately 90 acres) and a 160 acre tract fronting U.S. 64 where
it is intersected by Rankin Lane in Plymouth, extending the length -of a;branch
of Conaby Creek. Both areas are built upon at present. Approximately 50 acres •
of Liverman Heights are now occupied by single-family dwellings,.housing.approxi
mately 160 people The Rankin Lane - U.S. 64 area is.a commercial and light in-
dustrial strip adjoining the existing town limits of Plymouth and is now.approxi •
mately 50 percent developed with the Washington County Hospital, the Plymouth
Garment Company, the East Carolina Supply Company, and other smaller businesses.
The Liverman Heights area: is seen as an expanding residential area. The area •
adjoining U.S. 64'is seen as an expanding commercial and industrial area. Both
of these areas are within the capability of the Town of Plymouth .to.extend water
and sewer service by 1985 according to the town manager. Consequently, these •
63

•
0
•
•
•
•
•
areas were assigned population densities of 2000 people per square mile as
Transition areas.
The Community Land Classification Areas in Plymouth Township consist
of the extension of Riverside Plantation subdivision (approximately 120 acres);
the residential strip development beginning at Trowbridge Road and extending
west along U.S. 64 to the Rolling Pines Subdivision two miles from Plymouth
(approximately 320 acres); the residential area fronting the Wilson Street
Extension north of U.S. 64 (approximately 30 acres); the residential area
fronting N.C. 32 South one mile from Plymouth (approximately 50 acres along a
500 foot wide strip divided by N.C. 32); and a portion of the U.S. 64 East
N.C. 32 North Corridor also in a 500 foot wide strip divided by the roadway
centerline beginning at the East Main Street - U.S. 64 intersection and
extending east approximately 3.3 miles to the township boundary just west
of Basnight Crossroad (approximately 130 acres). The existing land use of
all these areas, except the Riverside Plantation area, consists of mixed
residential and commercial development, interspersed with small tracts of
fields and woods. The extension of Riverside Plantation now covers open
fields, but this area is anticipated for platting for residential lot sales
in the foreseeable future. The existing population of.these "Community" desig-
nated areas is approximately 640 people per square mile. Vacant land conver-
sion to urban land uses are expected to occur in each of these areas since all
the areas except Riverside Plantation front primary arterials (U.S. 64 - N.C. 32)
in the fastest growing part of the county - the urban fringe surrounding Plymouth.
•
Furthermore, each of these areas can be feasibly served by the Plymouth water
system. Thus, because these areas are expected to continue their low -density
growth, they have been designated as "Community" areas.
•
Me ,
0

•
The Town of Plymouth has approximately 1,020 acres (1.6 square miles)
"developed" by definition of the Developed Land Classification. All of this
•
land is built -upon except for approximately 20 acres of vacant lots scattered
throughout the town. In Plymouth there are approximately 60 acres of Transi-
tion land which are adjacent to the Riverside Plantation subdivision, north
•
of East Main Street. This area has been platted for a number of years and.
has slowly been developed for single family homes on half acre 'lots. This
development is expected to be completely filled by 1985 with all utilities
•
from the town. The only Community areas in Plymouth are in the western.part
of town, known locally as the "Sandhills" community. About 45 acres of this
neighborhood is barren at present occupied only by a few scattered homes.totaling
approximately five additional acres (total: 50 acres). This area is expected
to develop as a lower middle income community having water service from the
town by 1985. It should be noted that Plymouth's projected population is 50
•
persons more than the amount of "Developed," "Transition" and "Community"
lands available, using the,population densities incorporated in these defini-
tions. However, because all those figures are estimates only, the general
•
pattern is"more significant than the theoretical values. In Plymouth's case,
this population could be allotted to "Rural" Land Classification areas in
Plymouth. Farm lands.presently comprise about eight percent or approximately
•
154 acres,of the total_area..inside the town limits. These lands have not been
projected for conversion to non -farm use in the next .ten years, however, they
could be developed if market conditions warranted a greater return from lot
•
sales instead of harvested cropland. The more significant fact from these
patterns is that the Town of Plymouth has a very.limited supply of land.avail-
able for development beyond 1985. Consequently, a local objective has been.
•
adopted to conduct an annexation study of the fringe areas surrounding the town.
..65.
0

•
VII. PROPOSED INTERIM AREAS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
General Requirements
"The 1974 Legislature found that 'the coastal area, and in particular the
estuaries, are among the most biologically productive regions of this State
and of the nation' but in recent years the area "has been subjected to in-
creasing pressures which are the result of the often conflicting needs of a
society expanding in industrial development, in population, and in the recre-
ational aspirations of its citizens.
"Unless these pressures are controlled by coordinated management," the
Act states, "the very features of the coast which make it economically,
aesthetically, and ecologically rich will be destroyed.:' -
"To prevent this destruction the Act charges the Coastal Resources Com-
mission with the responsibility for identifying types of areas, and designating
specific areas -- water as well as land -- in which uncontrolled or incompatible
development might result in irreparable damage. It further instructs the Com-
�. missiori'to determine what types of use or development are appropriate within
such areas, and it calls on local governments to give special attention to these
environmentally fragile and important areas in developing their land use plans.
"The identification and delineation by local.governments will not serve as
a designation of AECs for the purposes of permit letting. The designation of
AECs for purposes of the permit program shall be by a written description
adopted.by the Commission, and such designations will be equally applicable to
all local governments in the coastal area. At the present time the Cominission
will not attempt to map AECs with .sufficient detail to enable a permit letting
agency in.all cases to determine solely on the basis of'.such a map whether a
particular area ,falls within an Area of Environmental Concern. The determina-
tion as to whether a parrticular area is within an AEC will, be based on the
written description.of the Area of Environmental Concern which will be adopted
by the Commission. The.Commission will continue to study the. possibility of
mapping AECs with sufficient detail .to serve in this permit program and may
base the permit program on maps if the capability exists to do so.
These amended Guidelines specifically require that the preliminary local
plans should include identification of each proposed AEC. The plan must also
include written statements of specific land uses which may be allowed in each
of the proposed classes of AECs. These allowable land uses must be consistent
with the policy objectives and appropriate land uses found in this.chapter.
In addition, local governments may submit maps delineating proposed AECs with
the preliminary Land Use Plan. Such maps are not a part of the land use plan
but should be submitted concurrently with it.
"Local plannors should note that there are a few instances where.one.cate-
gory of Areas of Environmental -Concern may overlap with -another. Where this
is found to occur, the .policy of .the Commission is to require the local plan
• to adopt allowable land uses within the area of overlap consistent with the
more restrictive land use standard.
0

•
"No development should be allowed in any AEC which would result in a con-
travention or violation of any rules, regulations, or laws of the State of
North Carolina or of local government in which the development takes place.
•
"No development should be allowed in any AEC which would have a substantial
likelihood of causing pollution of the waters of the State to the extent that
such waters would be closed to the taking of shellfish under standards set by
the Commission for Health Services pursuant to G.S. 130-169.01."
- From: CAMA "Guidelines"
Proposed AECs in the Town of Plymouth
The following category of environmentally sensitive areas has been pro-
posed by the Plymouth Town Council as interim areas of environmental concern:
historic places.
Fragile, Historic or Natural Resource Areas - Historic Places
a. Description. Defined as historic places that are listed, or have been
approved for listing by the North Carolina Historical Commission, in the Nation-
al Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966; historical., archaeological, and other places and properties owned,
managed, or assisted by the State of North Carolina pursuant to G.S. 121; and
properties or areas that are designated by the Secretary of the Interior as
National Historic Landmarks.
In the Town of Plymouth the following historic places have been proposed
for this designation: Nichols House, Plymouth Methodist Church, the Washington
County Courthouse, Ausbon House, Stubbs House, Armstead House, Latham House, •
Hamilton Academy -.and Grace Episcopal Church.
b. Significance. Historic resources are both non-renewable and fragile. They
owe their significance to their association with American history, architecture,
archaeology, and culture. Properties in or approved for the National Register
of Historic Places may be of national, state, or local significance.
•
67
C

•
c. Policy Objective. To protect and/or preserve the integrity of districts,
sites, buildings, and objects in the above categories.
•
d. Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those consistent
with the above stated policy objective. Land use which will result in sub-
stantial irreversible damage to the historic value of the area is inappropriate.
•
•
•
•
•
•
0

•
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Part I - Introduction
(Pamphlet) "Coastal Area Management: A New Look on the Horizon,"
North Carolina State University Agricultural Extension Office,
1974.
•
Part II - Description of Present Conditions
U.S. Census, Department of Commerce, 1960.
U.S. Census, Department of Commerce, 1970.
Plymouth Zoning Ordinance'(Map), 1968.
Development Plan: Plymouth, N. C., DNER, October, 1966.
•
Nol°th Carolina Labor Force Estimates, Bureau of Employment
Security, Research, N.C. Employment Security Commission, Nov. 175.
• Community Audits, Division of Community Assistance; Northeastern Field
Office, N. C. Dept. of Nat. & Economic Resources, 1975.
County Business Patterns, Dept. of Commerce, 1973.
Gross Retail Sales, Sales Management 1974.
Land Use Analysis, Washington County, N. C., DNER,
Division of Community Assistance, 1974.
Part III -,Public Participation Activities
Historic Washington County, Washington County Historical Society
Plymouth, N. C., 2nd Ed.
Norfolk Southern Railroad, Old Dominion Line and Connections
(Chapter 6: John L. Roper Lumber Company) by Richard Prince,
Wheelwright Litographing Company, Salt Lake City, Ut. 1972.
Ed Craft, Soil Conservation District, Plymouth.
Guy Whitford, Agricultural Extension Office, Plymouth.
•
Housing Survey and Work Program: Washington County, N.C. DNER, 1973.
Watershed Map: Washington County, N. C., SCS, Raleigh (1973).
Topographic Maps, U.S. Geological Survey, 1951.
Orthophotographic Aerial Maps, USGS, 1974.
Part IV - Constraints
•
General Soil Map, Plymouth, 20.1 Facilities Plan, L. E. Wooten Co., 1976.
Carrell Windslow, District Sanitarian, Washington Co. Health Dept.
Plymouth.
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Roanoke River Basin, DNER - Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section, Feb. 176.
Geology and Ground Water Resources of the Swanquarter Area, N. C. Dept..
of Writer Resources (DNER), Division of Ground Water, 1964.
Washington County Overall Economic Development Plan, Econ. Dev. Committee,
T. R. Spruill, Chairman, 1971.
Outdoor Recreation Potential for Washington County, N. C.., USDA-SCS, 1973.
•
9

Water Feasibility Study for Washington County, Moore -Gardner Associates,
Greensboro, August 1975.
201 Facilities Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Improvements,
Plymouth -Roper Facility Planning Area, Washington Co., N.C. -
L. E. Wooten and Co., Raleigh, Feb. 1976.
Community Audits, DNER - Division of Community Assistance, Development
Section, 1976.
Washington County School Survey, 1972-73, Dept. of Public Instruction
Division of School Planning, 1973.
Office of Business -Economic Research Service (OBERS)•
Series "E" population projections, 1980-2000, Dept..of Admin. SOP, 1975.
North Carolina Leisure Industries Manual-DNER-Division of Commerce and
Industry (now Div. of Economic Development) 172.
CAMA Guidelines, Jan. ' 73 .
S. D. O'Niell, Washington Co. School Superintendent, 197S.
1974 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts, Washington County, N. C.,
DOT -Division of Highways, Planning and Research Branch, 1975.
Moody's Bond Rating Service.
•
•
•
•
•
70
C

IX. PLYMOUTH-WASHINGTON COUNTY PLAN RELATIONSHIP
Both land use plans for the Town of Plymouth and Washington County (which
includes the towns of Roper and Creswell) were prepared by the same staff and
citizens' Steering Committee to insure the greatest amount of agreement between
local objectives for the town and the county. This Committee consisted of
seven local residents from the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the
county and met throughout 1975. Both the Planning Board for the Town of Ply-
f mouth and the Planning Board for the county met jointly to review the draft
plan and land classification maps prior to the first submission of the draft
plans in November, 1975. The final plans for Plymouth and the county were
reviewed in a joint public hearing on May 7, 1976,by members of the Board of
County Con- issioners and Plymouth Town Council.
•
C
•
•
71
0

X. APPENDIX
RESULTS OF ATTITUDE SURVEY IN PLYMOUTH
•
TAKEN MAY, 1975
1.
Where do you live? (check one)
♦
237 Town'of Plymouth Skinnersville Township
Plymouth Township Town of Creswell
Town of Roper Scuppernong Township
•
Lee Mills Township
2.
What is your occupation? (check one that best describes yourself)
Farmer (24%)58_White collar job (19%)45 Housewife
•
(22%)51 Student (27%)63 Blue collar job (1%) 3 Retired
(5%)12 Unemployed Other, (write in)
3.
Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(approximately 2 acre)
.
(28%) 67 Yes (66%) 156 No
4.
Do you have your own well?
30 Yes 167 No 50 1 am on city water
•
5.
Do you have your own individual septic tank?
Yes 170 No 45 I am on city sewer
6.
Are you satisfied with the quality of water?
•
(80%) 189 Yes (19%) 44 No
7.
Have you had any problems with your septic tank?
16 Yes 61 No 164 Not applicable - I am on city sewer
8.
Do you feel that different types of land uses such as residential,
commerical, and industrial should be . . .(check one)
(63%) 150 A. Separated as much as possible, or
a
(24%) 56 B. Allowed to develop unrestricted.
72
[7

C
9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational facilities?
(24%) 56 Yes (76%) 179 No
If not, what type would you like to see developed? (fill in)
144 comments (61%)
10. Do -you want additional residential growth in your community?
(56%)133 Yes (15%) 36". No (28%) 66 Not sure
11. Do you want additional industrial growth in your community?
(70%) 167 Yes (10%) 24 No (18%) 43 Not sure
12. Dq"you want additional commercial growth in your community?
(70%) 167 Yes (7%) 16 No (21%) 50 Not sure
13. Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood?
(4 C) 109 Yes 114 4 No
If not, what are the major problems? (fill in)
98 comments (41%)
r
14. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase the health programs
and services?
(64%) 151 Yes (25%) 59 No
♦ If yes, what types of programs and services? (fill in)
S
63. comments (27%)
15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase educational programs
and services?.
(85%) 202 " Yes (10%) 23 No
16. .Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?
♦ (55%) 130 Yes (39%) 92 No
What do you want chaged? (fill in)
100 comments
What should be protected or maintained? (42%)
17.. Do you feel that akr pollution is a problem in the area?
(50%) 119 Yes (39%) 92 Noe -
s .
♦ 73

18. Do you feel that water pollution or poor fishing is a problem in the area?
(41%) 96 Yes (50%) 118 No
19. Would you rather (19%)46 A. limit.growth, or 58% 138 B. promote the
development of additional services such as public water and sewer systems
in areas where development could not take place without such services?
20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer improvements?
(21%) 50 Yes. (27%) 63 No (42%) 99 Not sure
21. Below is a list of some.services-and functions provided by local government.
Please check or fill in those services orfunctions which need inprovement:
(44%) 104 police (21%)49 hospital (50%) 118 garbage pick-up
(23%) 54 fire (6%) 14 library (23%) 54 historic preservation
(S8%),13& dog control (25%)60 public housing. (27%) 6S building inspection
other (specify)
22. Additional comments. (attach separate sheet if necessary)
44 comments (19%)

•
•
w
0
This report was financed in part by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the State of
North Carolina, and meets the requirements
of the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act of 1974..

SV jl 4r•} •�.+ •
�L � i„�it�:�"tf� f ii! L� fir(;t�=',�,
o.
r
7
11
•
•
f
A
e
0

J
•
C
•
•
f