Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMA Core Land Use Plan-2007 (2)CITY OF WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA CAMA CORE LAND USE PLAN i � ffin1i�1Ui 194 i71B Adopted by the City of Washington City Council: August 27, 2007 Certified by the Coastal Resources Commission: November 30, 2007 Prepared By: Holland Consulting Planners, inc. Wilmington, North Carolina The preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CITY OF WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA CAMACORE LAND USE PLAN Xutt cunt t.,,,� , 1770 —..00 Adopted by the City of Washington City Council: August 27, 2007 Certified by the Coastal Resources Commission: November 30, 2007 Prepared By: Holland Consulting Planners, inc. Wilmington, North Carolina The preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CITY OF WASHINGTON CAMA CORE LAND USE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ..... .................. ........... 1 A. Why Plan? .................... ......... 1 B. Regulatory Authority and Planning Model. .. ... .. 3 C. Planning Process and Citizens Participation . .... ..... 4 SECTION II. HISTORY ...... .... ...... ........ ......... 6 SECTION III. REGIONAL SETTING .................................. 9 A. Location of the City of Washington ................ ......... 9 B. Importance of Regional Setting ................................ 9 1. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway .......................... 9 2. Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Communities ........... 11 3. Tar -Pamlico Watershed ............................. 12 4. 100-Mile Market .. .......... .................... 15 5. Historic Albemarle Area ......... .......... ....... 17 6. State Planning Region Q ...... . ............... • .... 17 7. Beaufort County ................... .............. 19 SECTION IV. CITY OF WASHINGTON CONCERNS AND ASPIRATIONS ........... 20 A. Identification of Primary Planning Issues ........................ 20 B. City of Washington Vision Statement .......................... 21 SECTION V. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................... 22 A. Population and Demographics ................................ 22 1: City of Washington Permanent Population ................. 22 2.. City of Washington Population Profile ..................... 23 a. Racial Composition.... .. ....... 23 b. Age and Gender Composition ..................... 24 C. Female -Headed Households .......... .......... 26 d. Educational Attainment ......................... 27 e. Disability Status ... ....:...... ......:..... 27 3. Summary of Population Profile .. . ............ ... 28 B. Housing ............................... ...... ...... 29 1. Housing Characteristics .............. ... ... 29 a. Housing Units and Density ....................... 29 b. Housing Occupancy and Tenure ............... 30 C. Units per Structure (as Related to Tenure) ............ 31 d. Age, Condition and Characteristics of Housing Units ... 32 e. Households Characteristics by Tenure ............... 35 f. Concentrations of Substandard Housing ............... 36 City of Washington i Core Land Use Plan PAGE 2. Summary of Housing Characteristics ...................... 39 C. Income, Employment and Economy... ............ ...... .... 40 1. Income and Poverty Status ............................ 40 Z. Employment and Economy .................. ........ 41 a. Total Employment and Employment by Sector .......... 41 b. Commuting Patterns ........ ... ............. 45 C. Income, Employment, and Economy Summary .......... 46 D. Population Projections .. ... .......................... 47 E. Natural Systems Analysis .................................. 49 1. Mapping and Analysis of Natural Features .................. 49 a. Topography/Geology ........................... 49 b. Climate 53 C. Flood Zones ................................. 53 d. Man-made Hazards/Restrictions ................... 59 (1) Tier it Facilities ......................... 59 (2) Underground Storage Tanks (UST) ............. 60 e. Soils.. .................................. 62 f. Water Supply ................................ 65 g. Fragile Areas and Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) ... 67 (1) Coastal Wetlands ......................... 67 (2) Estuarine Waters ........................ 74 (3) Estuarine Shorelines ...................... 74 ... ......... (4) Public Trust Areas ......................... 75 (5) Wetlands Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ......................... 75 (6) Protected Lands and Significant Natural Heritage Areas 76 (7) Outstanding Resource Waters ................ 78 h. Areas of Resource Potential ...... ...... ....... 78 (1) Regionally Significant Parks .................. 78 (2) Commercial Forest Lands ................... 79 (3) Marinas and Mooring Fields .. .... .......... 79 (4) Floating Homes ........ ................ 83 (5) Channel Maintenance ...... ......... .... 83 (6) Marine Resources (Water Quality) ............. 84 (7) Primary Nursery Areas, Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ........... 87 2. Environmental Composite Map ........................ 89 3. Water Quality ........... ....... ........... ... 93 a. Tar -Pamlico River Basin Watershed ................. 94 b. Lower Tar River Watershed - Subbasin 03-03-05 ......... 94 C. Tranter's Creek Watershed - Subbasin 03-03-06 ......... 95 d. Pamlico River Watershed - Subbasin 03-03-07 ........... 96 e. Registered Animal Operations in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin 98 f. Tar -Pamlico Buffer Rules and Nutrient Sensitive Waters .... 99 City of Washington Ifl Core Land Use Plan PAGE g. Population and Growth Trends ........... . ...... 100 F. Analysis of Land Use and Development ........................ 100 1. Introduction ................ .. 100. 2. Existing Land Use in the City of Washington ................ 102 3. ` Land Use as Related to Water Quality by Subbasin ........... 103 a. Subbasin 03-03-05 ........ ..... ........... 103 b. Subbasin 03-03-06 ............................. 105 C. Subbasin 03-03-07 ............................ 106 G. Analysis of Existing Community Facilities/Services ...:............ 107 1. Water Supply ................... ...... ....... 107 2. Sewer ........................................ 110 3. Solid Waste Disposal ............................... 110 4. Schools ..................... .... ..... ....... 111 5. Transportation ................. ................. 113 a.- Major Thoroughfares ........ ........ ...... 113 b. Minor Thoroughfares .......................... 113 6. Recreation ...................................... 119 7. Electric System ................................... 121 8. Police ............... .............. ....... 124 9. Fire/Rescue/Emergency Services ............... ... ... 125 10. Administration/Personnel . ............... ....... 126 11. Streets .............. ........................ 127 12. Telephone Service .................................. 127 13. Internet Service .. ................... ...... • • • . 127 14. Cell Phone Service .............. ................. 128 15. Stormwater Management ....................... ... . 128 a. Introduction ................................ 128 b. Erosion and Sedimentation ...................... 128 C. EPA Regulations ............................. 129 d. Construction Activities ......................... 130 e. North Carolina Shoreline Buffering ................. 131 f. Stormwater Management/Drainage as Related to the City of Washington ........................... 132 H. Land Suitability Analysis ................................. 134 I. Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations ... , ................... 138 1. Zoning Ordinance ................................. 138 2. Subdivision Regulations ............................. 139 3. North Carolina State Building Code ..................... 139 4. Floodplain Development Ordinance ..................... 139 5. Minimum Housing Code ... ........... . .... ..... 140 6. Warren Field Airport Layout Plan Report .................. 140 7. Parks and Recreation Master Plan ....................... 140 8. Water Master Plan ................... .......... 141 9. US 17 Improvements, Washington and Chocowinity Vicinity ..... 141 City of Washington iii Core Land Use Plan PAGE 10. Solid Waste Management Plan ......................... 141 11. Stormwater Policy .......... .............. ..... 142 12. Downtown Washington Riverside Renaissance Plan ........... 142 13. Master Plan/Economic Repositioning Program for Downtown ...... 142 14. Historic Preservation Ordinance ....................... 143 15. Beaufort County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan ..... 143 16. Miracle Mile Concept Plan ............................ 143 17. Comprehensive Plan ................ .... ...... 143 18. Tar River Nature Park, Concept Plan .................... 145 19. City of Washington 1998 Shoreline Access Plan ............... 145 20. City of Washington Land Use Plan Update, 1996 ............. 145 SECTION VI. PLAN FOR THE FUTURE ............................. 148 A. Future Land Demands/Emerging Conditions. ..................... 148 1. Introduction 148 .................................... 2. Residential Land Use ............................... 148 3. Commercial Land Use ................... .... .... 150 a. Regional Commercial Nodes ...................... 151 b. Neighborhood Commercial Nodes .................. 152 C. Office and Institutional Nodes ................... 152 4. Industrial Land Use ................................. 153 5. Land Demand Forecast ............................. 153 B. Future Infrastructure/Community Facilities Needs ................ 156 1. Transportation ............. 156 .. ............ .. 2. Education 162 ...... .............. ......... ... 3. Recreation 163 . ........... ...... ................ a. Development of Neighborhood Parks ............... 163 b. Improvement/Expansion of Waterfront and Dock Facilities . 164 C. Improvement/Expansion of the City's Greenway along Jack's Creek ....... ........... ...... 164 d. City of Washington Shoreline Access Plan ............ 165 4. Water System ................................... 165 5. Sewer System ................................... 167 6. Stormwater Management/Drainage ..................... 168 7. Solid Waste ................................... 169 8. Law Enforcement ............ 169 ........... ..... 9. Fire/Rescue Services ................ ............. 170 C. Land Use/Development Goals and Implementing Actions ............ 170 D. Policies/Implementing Actions ............................. 171 1. Introduction .................................... 171 2. Smart Growth ................................... 174 3. Policies Regarding Land Use and Development in AECs ......... 180 City of Washington iv Core Land Use Plan PAGE E. Land Use Plan Management Topics ............ .... 181 1. Introduction .......... ................... .... 181 2. Impact of CAMA Land Use Plan Policies on Management Topics ... 183 3. Public Access . ............ .... .... ... ... 183 4. Land Use Compatibility .... .... ... ........... 187 5. Infrastructure Carrying Capacity ... ..... ........ 196 6. Transportation ........... ... ........ .. . 199 7. Natural Hazard Areas .... . ......... ............ 202 8. Water Quality .................... ..... ... 204 9. Local Areas of Concern .............. ..... ...... 208 F. Future Land Use ...................................... 215 1. Introduction ..................................... 215 2. Land Use Acreages ................ .... ......... 219 a. Airport Development Category ................... 221 b. Commercial. ..... .................... 222 C. Office/ Institutional ........................... 223 d. Heavy Industrial ... ... .. ............ ► .. 224 e. Light Industrial .............................. 225 f. Mixed Use ............................... 226 g- High Density Residential ........................ 226 h. Medium Density Residential ..................... 227 i. Low Density Residential ........................ 228 j. Conservation ............................... 228 SECTION VII. TOOLS FOR MANAGING DEVELOPMENT .................... 233 A. Guide for Land Use Decision Making ............ ... ........ 233 B. Existing Development Program ... .. .. .... • • • • • • • . 233 C. Additional Tools ......................................... 233 D. Action Plan/Schedule ....... - .. - . * * .... ' - * * — - * * ... 234 1. Citizen Participation ............................... 234 2. Action Plan/Schedule .............................. 235 E. Resource Conservation Management Action Plan/Positive and Negative Impacts of Land Use Plan Policies ........................... 237 SECTION VIII. * HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ........................... 243 TABLES Table 1 Percent of State Coastal Population, 1990 .............. 12 Table 2 Population and Population Projections for the City of Washington, Beaufort County, the Greenville Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the 100-Mile Radius, 2004 and 2009 ..... 15 City of Washington v Core Land Use Plan PAGE Table 3 Year -Round (Permanent) Population Estimates for the City of Washington and Beaufort County, 1970 to 2003 ............ 22 Table 4 Racial Composition of the City of Washington, 2000 ........ 23 Table 5 Racial Composition of the City of Washington and Beaufort County from 1970 to 2000.... ............. ...... 24 Table 6 Age Composition of the City of Washington and Beaufort County from 1970 to 2000 .............................. 25 Table 7 Male to Female Ratio at Various Age Cohorts, City of Washington, 2000 .............................. 25 Table 8 Percentage of Persons Over the Age of 25 by Educational Attainment for the City of Washington and Beaufort County, 27 2000....................................... Table 9 Population, Housing Units, Land and Water Areas and Population and Housing Unit, Density for the State of North Carolina, City of Washington and select nearby municipalities ............. 30 Table 10 Housing Tenure and Occupancy, City of Washington 1990 and 2000, State of North Carolina, 2000 .. .... .......... 30 Table 11 Structures per Unit and Tenure, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 ...... ....... ...... 32 Table 12 Tenure by Year Structure Built, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 ............. ............ 33 Table 13 Occupancy per Room and Availability of Essential Services per Housing Unit by Tenure, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 ............................ 34 Table 14 Persons Per Housing Unit and Various Householder Characteristics by Tenure, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 ............................ 35 Table 15 Income and Poverty Statistics for the City of Washington, the City of New Bern, the City of Greenville, Beaufort County, and the Town of Beaufort, 1999 ........................ 40 Table 16 Income and Poverty Statistics for the City of Washington, . Beaufort County, and the State of North Carolina, 1990 and 2000 41 Table 17 Employment Statistics by Type of Industry for the City of Washington, 1990 and 2000 ........:.. ............ 42 Table 18 Employment and Wages, by Sector (Fourth Quarter, 2003) for Beaufort County and North Carolina .................. 43 Table 19 Major Manufacturers in or near the City of Washington, 2004 .: 44 Table 20 Establishments and Retail Sales, City of Washington and Beaufort County, 1992 and 1997 ........................... 45 Table 21 Travel Time to Work, City of Washington, 2000 ........... 45 City of Washington vi Core Land Use Plan PAGE Table 22 Population and Forecast Populations for the City of Washington and Beaufort County through 2030 .... . ............. 48 Table 23, Climatic Conditions by Month at Washington, NC .......... _ 53 Table 24 Land Area by SFHA in the City of Washington, 2005 ........ 54 Table 25 Storm Surge Inundation at Different Magnitude Storm Events for the City of Washington based on SLOSH Model ............ 56 Table 26 Tier II Facilities in the City of Washington, 2003 .......... 60 Table 27 City of Washington, Building Site Development Soil Features, Prevalence of Soil Types, and Prime Farmland Soils ........ 64 Table 28 City of Washington (Within Corporate Limits Only) Coastal Wetlands by Type and Aerial Extent, 2005 .............. 69 Table 29 City of Washington (ETJ Only) Coastal Wetlands by Type and Aerial Extent, 2005 .............................. 69 .Table 30 Marina Sites in the City of Washington, 2005 ............. 83 Table 31 Water Quality Classifications for Stream Segments in and near the City of Washington, 2005 ....................... 84 Table 32 Environmental Composite Layers for the City of Washington ... 90 Table 33 City of Washington Environmental Composite Classifications by Category and Acreage, 2003 ...................... 92 Table 34 Area, Population, and Land Cover of Subbasin 03-03-05 ...... 95 Table 35 Area, Population, and Land Cover of Subbasin 03-03-06 ...... 96 Table 36 Area, Population, and Land Cover of Subbasin 03-03-07 ...... 98 Table 37 Registered Animal Operations in Subbasins 03-03-05, 03-03-06, and 03-03-07 of the Tar/Pamlico River Basin, 1998 ......... 99 Table 38 Existing Land Use in the City of Washington, March 2005 ..... 102 Table 39 Land Use by Subbasin, City of Washington and ETJ, 2005 ..... 103 Table 40 City of Washington Groundwater Sources, 2005 ........... 167 Table 41 Beaufort County Schools Serving the City of Washington, 2005 111 Table 42 City of Washington Recreation Facilities and Properties, 2005 120 Table 43 City of Washington Transformer Capacity Versus Peak Load, 2005 122 Table 44 Staffing By Department, City of Washington, February 2005 ... 126 Table 45 Land Suitability Analysis Criteria ..................... 137 Table 46 Land Suitability Analysis for the City of Washington and ETJ, 138 2005 .............. .............. ......... Table 47 City of Washington Land Demand Forecast .............. 155 Table 48 Funding Sources and Recommended Methods of Implementation for Selected Transportation Improvements .............. 159 Table 49 Construction Priorities and Cost Estimates .............. 160 City of Washington vii Core Land Use Plan PAGE Table 50 City of Washington Water System Carrying Capacity Forecast .. 166 Table 51 City of Washington Future Land Use Map Acreages ......... 219 Table 52 City of Washington Future Land Use by Sewer Service Area ... 220 Table 53 City of Washington Zoning of Vacant Parcels ............. 220 Table 54 Future Land Use Plan Compatibility Matrix .............. 231 Table 55 City of Washington Policy Analysis Matrix ............... 238 MAPS Map 1 City of Washington General Location .. .... ......... 10 Map 2 City of Washington North Carolina River Basins ........... 14 Map 3 City of Washington100 Mile Market ............. 16 Map 4 City of Washington North Carolina Planning Regions ........ 18 Map 5 City of Washington Areas of Substandard Housing .......... 38 Map 6 City of Washington Subbasins and 14-digit Hydrologic Code ... 50 Map 7 City of Washington Flood Hazard Areas ................ 55 Map 8 City of Washington Storm Surge Inundation .............. 57 Map 9 City of Washington Soils Classifications ................ 63 Map 10 City of Washington Areas of Environmental Concern - Wetlands 71 Map 11 City of Washington Significant Natural Heritage Areas and Protected Lands .............. .. ... ...... 77 Map 12 City of Washington Water Quality ...... ..... ..... 88 Map 13 City of Washington Environmental Composite Map ......... 91 Map 14A City of Washington Existing Land Use by Subbasin ......... 104A Map 14B City of Washington Existing Land Use (Downtown) ......... 104B Map 15 City of Washington Water and Sewer Lines .............. 109 Map 16 City of Washington Community Facilities ............... 112 Map 17 US 17 Washington Bypass Project .................. 115 Map 18 City of Washington Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts ..... 118 Map 19 City of Washington Land Suitability Analysis ............. 136 Map 20 City of Washington Historic District ................... 144 Map 21A City of Washington Future Land Use Map ............... 217 Map 21 B City of Washington Future Land Use Map (Downtown) ....... 218 FIGURES Figure 1 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway ..................... 9 Figure 2 Pictorial Representation of a Watershed ............... 12 City of Washington viii Core Land Use Plan PAGE Figure 3 Capacity Use Area and Areas of Declining Water Quantity and/or Quality in the Central Coastal Plain of North Carolina ....... 66 Figure 4 Coastal Wetland Plant Species in North Carolina .......... 68 Figure 5 Boardwalk Near NC Estuarium at. Pamlico River .......... 164 Figure 6 Site Planning Techniques ..... ..... ........... 175 Figure 7 Linked Parking Areas Behind Stores .........:......... 176 Figure 8 Alternatives for Arranging Commercial Development ... 176 Figure 9 Examples of Connectivity within Developments ........... 177 Figure 10 Building on Sensitive Areas vs. Protecting Sensitive Areas .. 177 Figure 11 Reducing Lots Sizes to Locate Homes on Better Soils ........ 178 APPENDICES Appendix I Citizen Participation Plan Appendix II Absentee Property Owners Survey Results Appendix III Levels of Service (LOS) Appendix IV Beaufort County Transportation Improvement Plan Projects Appendix Future Infrastructure Map Appendix VI Downtown Washington Revitalization Strategy Appendix VI Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategies and Policies City of Washington ix Core Land Use Plan MATRIX OF REQUIRED ELEMENTS ELEMENT CAMA CORE LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSED (a) .Organization of the Plan page 1-5 (b) Community Concerns and Aspirations (1) Significant Existing and Emerging Conditions page 20 (2) Key Issues page 20 (3) A Community Vision page 21 (c) Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions pages 22-28 (1) Population, Housing, and Economy (A) Population: (i) Permanent population growth trends using data from the two most recent decennial Censuses; (ii) .Current permanent and seasonal population estimates; (iii) Key population characteristics; , (iv) Age; and (v) Income (B) Housing Stock: pages 29-39 (i) .Estimate of current housing stock, including permanent and seasonal units, tenure, and types of units (single- family, multi -family, and manufactured); and (ii) Building permits issued for single-family, multi -family, and manufactured homes since last plan update (C) Local Economy pages 40-46 (D) Projections page 47 (2) Natural Systems Analysis pages 49-88 (A) Mapping and Analysis of Natural Features (i) Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs); (ii) Soil characteristics, including limitations for septic tanks, erodibility, and other factors related to development; (iii) Environmental Management Commission water quality classifications and related use support designations, and Division of Environmental Health shellfish growing -areas and water quality conditions; (iv) Flood and other natural hazard areas; (v) Storm surge areas; (vi) Non -coastal wetlands including forested wetlands, shrub - scrub wetlands, and freshwater marshes; (vii) Water supply watersheds or wellhead protection areas; (viii) Primary nursery areas, where mapped; (ix) Environmentally fragile areas; and (x) Additional natural features or conditions identified by the local government. ELEMENT LAMA CORE LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSED' (B) Composite Map of Environmental Conditions: pages 89-92 (i) Class (ii) Class II (iii) Class III (C) Environmental Conditions pages 93-100 (i) Water Quality: (I) Status and changes of surface water quality, including impaired streams from. the most recent NC Division of water Quality Basinwide Water Quality Plans, 303(d) List and other comparable data; (II) Current situation and trends on permanent and temporary closures of shellfishing waters as determined by the Report of Sanitary Survey by the Shellfish Sanitation Section of the NC Division of Environmental Health; (III) Areas experiencing chronic wastewater treatment system malfunctions; and (IV) Areas with water quality or public health problems related to non -point source pollution (ii) Natural Hazards: (I) Areas subject to storm hazards such as recurrent flooding, storm surges, and high winds; (II) Areas experiencing significant shoreline erosion as . evidenced by the presence of threatened structures or public facilities; and (III) Where data is available, estimates of public and private damage resulting from floods and wind that has occurred since the last plan update (iii) Natural Resources: (I) Environmentally fragile areas or areas where resource functions may be impacted as a result of development; and (II) Areas containing potentially valuable natural resources (3) Analysis of Land Use and Development page 100- 147 (A) A map of land including the following: residential, commercial, page 104 industrial, institutional, public, dedicated open space, agriculture, forestry, confined animal feeding operations, and undeveloped; ELEMENT CAMA CORE LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSED (B) The land use analysis shall including the following: pages 102- (i) Table that shows estimates of the land area allocated to 107 each land use; (ii) Description of any land use conflicts; (iii) Description of any land use -water quality conflicts; (iv) Description of development trends using indicators; and (v) Location of areas expected to experience development during the five years following plan certification by the CRC and a description of any potential conflicts with Class II or Class III land identified in the natural systems analysis (C) Historic, cultural, and scenic areas designated by a state or page 121 federal agency or by local government (D) Projections of future land needs pages 153 (4) Analysis of Community Facilities (A) Public and Private Water Supply and Wastewater Systems pages 107- 110 (B) Transportation Systems pages 113- 118 (C) Stormwater Systems pages 128- 133 (D) Other Facilities pages 110- 128 (5) Land Suitability Analysis pages 134- (A) Water quality; 137 (B) Land Classes I, II, and III summary environmental analysis; (C) Proximity to existing developed areas and compatibility with existing land uses; (D) Potential impacts. of development on areas and sites designated by local historic commission or the NC Department of Cultural Resources as historic, culturally significant, or scenic; (E) Land use and development requirements of local development regulations, CAMA Use Standards and other applicable state regulations, and applicable federal regulations; and (F) Availability of community facilities, including water, sewer, stormwater, and transportation .. (6) Review of Current CAMA Land Use Plan pages 138- (A) Consistency of existing land use and development ordinances 147 with current CAMA Land Use Plan policies; (B) Adoption of the land use plan's implementation measures by the governing body; and (C) Efficacy of current policies in creating desired land use patterns and protecting natural systems City of Washington xii Core Land Use Plan y } ELEMENT CAMA CORE LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSED (d) Plan for the Future (1) Land. Use and Development Goals: (A) Community concerns. and aspirations identified at the page 20 . beginning of the planning process; (B) Needs and opportunities identified in the analysis of existing pages 148- and emerging conditions 170 (2) Policies: Pages 171- (A) Shall be consistent -with the goals of the CAMA, shall address 214 the CRC management topics for land use plans, and comply with all state and federal rules; (B) Shall contain a description of the type and extent of analysis . completed to determine the impact of CAMA Land Use Plan policies on the management topics, a description of both positive and negative impacts of the land use plan policies on the management topics, and a description of the policies, methods, programs, and processes to mitigate any negative impacts on applicable management topics; ' (C) Shall contain a clear statement that the governing body either accepts state and federal taw regarding land uses and development in AECs or, that the local government's policies exceed the requirements of state and federal agencies. (3) Land Use Plan Management Topics. (A) Public Access page 183 (B) Land Use Compatibility. page 187 (C) Infrastructure Carrying Capacity page 196 (D) Natural Hazard Areas page 202 (E) Water Quality page 204 (F) Local Areas of Concern page 208 CAMA CORE LAND. USE ELEMENT ELEMENT DISCUSSED (4) Future Land Use Map page 215- (A) 14-digit hydrological units encompassed by the planning area; 232 (B) Areas and locations planned for conservation or open space and a description of compatible land use and activities- (C) Areas and locations planned for future growth and development with descriptions of the following characteristics: (i) Predominant and supporting land uses that are encouraged in each area; (ii) Overall density and development intensity planned for each area; (iii) Infrastructure required to support planned development in each area (D) Areas in existing developed areas for infill, preservation, and redevelopment; (E) Existing and planned infrastructure, including major roads, water, and sewer In addition, the plan shall include an estimate of the cost of any page 155- community facilities or services that shall be extended or developed. 156 and 219- The amount of land allocated to various uses shall be calculated and 220 compared to the projection of land needs. The amount of land area thus allocated to various uses may not exceed projected needs as delineated in Part (c)(3)(A)(iv) - Projection of Future Land Needs. (e) Tools for Managing Development page 233- (1) Guide for Land Use Decision -Making 242 (2) Existing Development Program (3) Additional Tools. (A) Ordinances: (i) Amendments or adjustments in existing development codes required for consistency with the plan; (ii) New ordinances or codes to be developed (B) Capital Improvements Program (C) Acquisition Program , (D) Specific Projects to Reach Goals (4) Action Plan/Schedule City of Washington xiv Core Land Use Plan' Section I - Introduction Section I. Introduction A. Why Plan? In the early 1970's, North Carolina and other coastal states found that their precious coastal areas, including coastal sound and estuarine areas like those bordering the City of Washington, were under threat from pollution caused by population growth, industrial development, and increased recreational usage. In response to these threats, the North Carolina legislature passed CAMA in 1974 (see text box, below). What is CAMA? CAMA is the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-100, et seq. ), which establishes a cooperative program of coastal area management between local and state governments. The Act, originally passed in 1974 and since amended, states that local governments shall have the initiative for planning, while the state government establishes areas of environmental concern. With regard to planning, the state government is directed to act primarily in a supportive, standard -setting, and review capacity, except in situations where local governments do not elect to exercise their initiative. In addition, the CAMA establishes the Coastal Resource Commission within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, whose duties include approval of Coastal Habitat Protection Plans and designation of Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). After designation of these areas, the Commission is responsible for issuing all permits (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center). Counties covered by CAMA As the threats to the coastal environment have only increased since CAMA's adoption, the following goals for coastal management set by CAMA in 1974 continue to summarize the benefits of planning in protecting sensitive coastal areas: (1) To provide a management system capable of preserving and managing the natural ecological conditions of the estuarine system, the barrier dune system, and the beaches, so as to safeguard and perpetuate their natural productivity and their biological, economic, and aesthetic values; (2) To ensure that the development or preservation of the land and water resources of the coastal area proceeds in a manner consistent with the capability of the land and water for development, use, or preservation based on ecological considerations; (3) To ensure the orderly and balanced use and preservation of our coastal resources on behalf of the people of North Carolina and the nation; City of Washington 1 Core Land Use Plan Section I - Introduction (4) To establish policies, guidelines, and standards for: (a) Protection, preservation, and conservation of natural resources including but not limited to water use, scenic vistas, and fish and wildlife; and management of transitional or intensely developed areas and areas especially suited to intensive use or development, as well as areas of significant natural value; (b) The economic development of the coastal area, including but not limited to construction, location and design of industries, port facilities, commercial establishments, and other developments; (c) Recreation and tourist facilities and parklands; (d) Transportation and circulation patterns for the coastal area including major thoroughfares, transportation routes, navigation channels and harbors, and other public utilities and facilities; (e) Preservation and enhancement of the historic, cultural, and scientific aspects of the coastal area; (f) Protection of present common-law and statutory public rights in the lands and waters of the coastal area (Source: N.C.G.S. 113A-102). While municipalities such as the City of Washington are not technically required to complete a CAMA Land Use Plan, if the City does not complete its own CRC -certified plan, state and federal reviewing bodies would automatically use the CRC -certified Beaufort County CAMA Land Use Plan by default for project application reviews. Whereas the City of Washington has unique development issues, separate and distinct, although related to those of Beaufort County's, the City has determined that it is prudent to develop and adopt its own CAMA Land Use Plan. Finally, the data, analysis, goals, objectives, and implementing actions developed to complete the CAMA Land Use Plan (CAMA LUP) will be used to inform and influence the City's planned 2004-2005 Update of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). This document, together, with the CLUP, will provide consistent and comprehensive guidance for the physical development of the City. This plan is based on a 20-year planning horizon. City of Washington 2 Core Land Use Plan Specifically, the CAMA LUP will be used by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to determine whether any given development proposal subject to a major CAMA permit is consistent with the City's goals for its future development and for environmental protection (see text box at right for a description of the CAMA permit system). The CLUP will be used by the City's Planning Board and City Council to determine the appropriateness of zoning classifications at specific sites and other land use decisions. Together, these planning documents will help guide the future land use in the City of Washington. Section I - Introduction What is the CAMA Permit System? The CAMA permit system is divided into major and minor permits, based on the size and possible impacts of a project. Major permits are required for activities that require other state or federal permits, for projects that cover more than 20 acres, or for construction covering more than 60,000 square feet. Applications for major permits are reviewed by ten state and four federal agencies before a decision is made, and this process is coordinated by the CRC. General permits are an expedited form of major permit used for routine projects that usually pose little or no threat to the environment. Minor permits are required for projects, such as single-family houses, that do not require major permits or general permits. They are reviewed, issued, and administered to CRC. standards by the City of Washington under contract with the Division of Coastal Management (Source: Association of National Estuary Programs). B. Regulatory Authority and Planning Model This plan is intended to fulfill the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requirements for the preparation of a Core CAMA Land Use Plan. This plan is organized to adhere to 15A NCAC 7B requirements, specifically rule .0702, which specifies the required content of CAMA land use plans. A matrix is provided immediately following the Table of Contents, which specifies how and where in this Plan compliance with 15A NCAC 7B is accomplished. The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). This is reflected on all maps. Upon certification of this plan by the CRC, City annexations (which may extend beyond the planning boundary) and ETJ boundary changes beyond the current Future Land Use Map boundary cannot be recognized as applicable for state and federal permit or grant - funded project reviews until the land use plan is formally amended to include the added areas. In such cases, the determination would default to the latest certified Beaufort County land use plan. On June 15, 2006, copies of this draft land use plan were provided to Beaufort County, the Town of Washington Park, and the Town of Chocowinity with a request for review and comment. As of September 30, 2006, no comments were received from any of the jurisdictions. City of Washington 3 Core Land Use Plan Section I - Introduction C. Planning Process and Citizens Participation On September 13, 2004, at the beginning of the preparation of this document, the City of Washington adopted a Citizen Participation Plan which is intended to ensure that all interested citizens have an opportunity to participate in the development of this plan through both oral and written comments. A copy of the Citizen Participation Plan is included as Appendix I. The citizen input received during the development of this plan has greatly influenced the final contents of the plan and its policies. On October 11, 2004, the City Council of the City of Washington designated the City Planning Board as its Land Use Plan Advisory Committee (LUPAC) for the CAMA LUP development process. The LUPAC's role was to discharge all duties required of a "principal local board" as defined at 15A NCAC 71.0506, essentially overseeing and guiding the CAMA LUP development process and providing extensive input to the City's planning consultant, Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., as well as making a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the CAMA LUP. The City of Washington LUPAC was composed of the following membetrs: Steve Moler Doris (Dot) Moate John B. Tate III Marie Freeman -Barber Jane Alligood Jim Nance Danny McNeil The LUPAC held publicly advertised meetings almost every month for the duration of the Plan development period, a total of sixteen (16) meetings. LUPAC meeting dates are listed below: November 1, 2004 December 6, 2004 January 13, 2005 February 7, 2005 March 7, 2005 April4, 2005 May 2, 2005 June 6, 2005 July 6, 2005 August 1, 2005 October 3, 2005 December 5, 2005 March 6, 2006 March 29,2006 April 3, 2006 April 26, 2006 City of Washington 4 Core Land Use Plan Section I - Introduction Following adoption of this Plan by the City of Washington City Council on August 27, 2007, it was submitted to the CRC for certification. Certification of the plan was achieved on November 30, 2007. The City realizes that adoption of this Plan is the beginning, not the end, of the land use planning process. As General (later President) Dwight David Eisenhower famously said "... have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." Eisenhower meant that plans must be living documents, constantly being reviewed and assessed for relevance and value in order to be useful. Therefore, the City has committed to making this CAMA LUP a living, breathing document by constantly monitoring and evaluating its implementation through the City's Planning Department. City of Washington 5 Core Land Use Plan Section II - History Section II. History As early as 1585, the first English explorers visited the area that would become Washington. However,'it was not until the 1690s that the first settlements appeared. In 1705, the. Town of Bath, located 15 miles to the east of present-day Washington, was founded and became the first town in North Carolina. The region went by a number of names until 1712, when the county was named Beaufort after Henry. Somerset, Duke of Beaufort. The settlement that would be called Washington appeared in the 1770s, when James Bonner started a town on his farm, which bordered the Pamlico and Tar Rivers. First called "Forks of the Tar," the name was changed in 1776 to Washington in honor of General George Washington, making the original Washington the first town to be named after our. 227 East 2nd Street in Washington - built in 1880, First President. it is a typical Victorian style home in the City's Historic District. (Source: Carolina House Bed and Breakfast) During the Revolutionary War, the town was the principal mainland port for boats plying Ocracoke Inlet. In fact, Washington played a strategic role during the Revolutionary War. With the ports of Savannah, Charles Town, and Wilmington under British siege, the Continental Army relied on Washington as a supply port.After the war, the town grew in importance as a commercial and cultural center due to its prized location on navigable waterways. Washington soon established itself as the economic center of.Beaufort County and its agriculture, fishing, and commerce trades. Near the end of the eighteenth century, the County seat of government was relocated from Bath to Washington, since it had a more central location in Beaufort County, which was and still is split in two by the Pamlico- Tar River. In 1790, Congress authorized a custom ' house at Washington. At that time, the town's & waterborne traffic was exceeded in North Carolina only by Wilmington (Source: Clairborne S. Young, ^..y "Cruising Guide to Eastern North Carolina"). View along Stewart Parkway on the Pamlico River. (Source: Washington Visitor's Center.) The city was burned and then occupied by the Union Army during the Civil War. Following the war, residents rebuilt the town, and the railroad came in 1878, helping spark a boom in the lumber business. Unfortunately, the town was destroyed again by fire on City of Washington 6 Core Land Use Plan Section II - History September 3, 1900. A faulty stove flue sparked flames which consumed much of the city's rebuilt central business district. Much of the downtown area's late Victorian commercial architecture was rebuilt in the decade after this second fire and still remains as one of the most intact and historically and architecturally significant commercial downtown areas in eastern North Carolina. View of Washington's historic waterfront. (Source: Washington Visitor's Center.) In 1969, Washington undertook a major renovation project and witnessed the construction of Stewart Parkway, a road and park parallelling the waterfront area. This project included the construction of a 1,500 foot long walkway and bulkhead along the Pamlico River designed for both pedestrian and boat traffic. In 1978, the Washington Historic District was established and placed on the National Register of Historic Places, encompassing more than 600 properties in the central business district and residential areas on both sides. Structures in the Historic District date mainly from the late 1800s and early 1900s, but include several structures dating from the late 1700s and early 1800s, which were able to survive the two tragic fires. Numerous famous citizens and personalities have called Washington home, including film producer Cecil B. DeMille (The Ten Commandments); actor Murray Hamilton (The Graduate, Jaws); journalist Charles Kuralt; US Congressman and first US Comptroller General Lindsay Warren; US Congressman Herbert Bonner; NC Governor Daniel Fowle; publishing magnate and diplomat Josephus Daniels; pioneering woman physician Susan Dimock; professional basketball player Dominique Wilkins; and CNN News Anchor Carl Rochelle (Source: Washington Visitor's Center). A period of downtown revitalization which began in the early 1990s continues today. New and exciting shops and restaurants continue to operate and open in the historic downtown area, overlooking the Pamlico River. In May 1993, Washington won the prestigious All - America City Award, which recognizes communities where organizations cooperate to improve the community. After receiving the award, Washington officials were honored by an invitation to meet with President Clinton at the White House and by resolutions in the N.C. General Assembly (Source: Washington Visitor's Center). In 2002, the City of Washington completed the Renaissance and Stormwater Management projects that expanded boater and pedestrian access to Washington's waterfront, enhanced parking and traffic flow, and created a stronger tie between the waterfront, the Historic District, and downtown. City of Washington 7 - Core Land Use Plan Section II - History Today, Washington maintains an important position in eastern North Carolina. As a City of approximately 10,000 people, with approximately 26,000 residents in nearby and adjacent areas, Washington remains the economic, cultural, recreational, and medical center of Beaufort County and of several other counties as well. The rivers, although no Longer vital to the shipping trade, supply a valuable recreational, ecological, and aesthetic resource. With the renewed interest in historic preservation and downtown revitalization, Washington is a city that truly lives up to its motto: "Pride in the past, faith in the future." Note: Unless otherwise noted above, all historical information was provided by the City of Washington and excerpted verbatim. City of Washington 8 Core Land Use Plan Section III - Regional Setting Section III. Regional Setting A. Location of the City of Washington Washington is the County seat of Beaufort County, North Carolina, and is located along the Pamlico Sound. Washington is approximately 105 miles east/southeast of Raleigh, the State capitol (see Map 1). B. Importance of Regional Setting From pre -history to the mid -nineteenth century, many human communities were largely self-sufficient, producing the goods and services that local residents needed locally. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, however, and subsequent innovations in agriculture and communications technology, labor has become increasingly specialized and broader; and broader regional, national, and global networks have developed to efficiently provide an ever expanding array of goods and services. These trends have greatly accelerated with the recent improvements in the Internet and other digital and telecommunications technologies that allow people and businesses to locate in a broader range of sites than ever. Therefore, understanding the regional networks that the City of Washington has the most interaction with will help clarify the forces that will influence the City's growth and development over the 20-year planning period and beyond. The following provides some background and data on several of the most significant regional networks. 1. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) facilitates navigation along the southeastern seaboard of the United States. Its course includes manmade canals, bays protected by barrier islands, natural river channels, and estuaries. The AIWW extends from Norfolk, Virginia, to Key West, Florida. The navigable mileage, of the AIWW is approximately 1,200 miles (see Figure 1 at right). Figure 1: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway City of Washington 9 Core Land Use Plan The preparation of this map was financed In part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 0 20 40 0 ff oCP I I I Miles 80 120 160 Legend Washington City Limits Washington ETJ �i NC DOT Primary Roads Beaufort County NC County Boundaries Hydrology The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. I&FTAIaI City of Washington Land Use Plan Regional Location Section III - Regional Setting The AIWW is federally maintained, and for much of its length the system consists of naturally deep estuaries, rivers, and sounds. However, these natural stretches are connected by man-made cuts through land areas and shallows, many of which require periodic dredging to maintain their depths. The authorized project depth of the AIWW is 12 feet (at low tide) from Norfolk, VA to Ft. Pierce, FL and 10 feet from Ft. Pierce to Miami. Despite the 12 foot authorization, the project depths on the AIWW vary from 12 to as little as 5 feet. The controlling depth can be as shallow as five feet (Source: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association). The AIWW allows for the movement of commercial boat traffic, such as barges, but in recent years has become a significant by -way for recreational boaters. The economic value of these boaters to the City and the region will grow in significance over time. 2. Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Communities As noted above, CAMA covers all coastal and inland counties and municipalities adjacent to the open ocean or any coastal sound in North Carolina. CAMA communities have grown at a significantly higher rate than North Carolina at -large, as coastal population nationwide has grown at a significantly higher rate than non -coastal areas. Nationally, the narrow fringe of coastal land — comprising less than one -fifth of the contiguous United States land area — accounts for over one-half of the nation's population and housing supply. The population of these areas grew by more than 38 million people between 1960 and 1990, and coastal growth is expected to keep pace with the rest of the nation as we move into the next century (Source: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment). Historically, the percentage of North Carolina's population in coastal counties has been less than the national average - 27% of total population in 1990 (see Table 1 below) - but recent population trends show that North Carolina's coastal growth is rapidly catching up to that of other Atlantic Coast states. City of Washington 11 Core Land Use Plan Table 1. Percent of State Coastal Population, 1990" 100 Percent Rhode Island Connecticut Delaware Hawaii District of Columbia 90 to 99 Percent New Jersey (99%) Florida (98%) Massachusetts (96%) Maryland (92%) Maine (91%) New York (90%) 80 to 89 Percent Michigan (89%) California (88%) Alaska (83%) New Hampshire (80%) 50 to 79 Percent Louisiana (78%) Washington (78%) Virginia (67%) Oregon (56%) Section III - Regional Setting Less than 50 Percent Illinois (49%) Wisconsin (48%) Pennsylvania (48%) South Carolina (42%) Ohio (40%) Texas (33%) North Carolina (27%) Indiana (23%) Mississippi (20%) Alabama (16%) Georgia (12%) Minnesota (6%) 'Based on counties or equivalents. Source: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. While it is significant that the population of wholly or primarily oceanfront counties in North Carolina have grown much faster than those counties with soundfront only, soundfront counties will likely experience similar growth pressures to oceanfront counties as population growth and high costs make continued development in oceanfront counties more and more untenable for most people. 3. Tar -Pamlico Watershed A watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place. John Wesley Powell, scientist geographer, put it best when he said that a watershed is: "that area of Land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community." (Source: Agency). US Environmental Protection Produced by Lane Council of Goernments Figure 2: Pictorial Representation of a Watershed (Source: Lane (Oregon) Council of Governments) City of Washington 12 Core Land Use Plan Section III - Regional Setting The City of Washington is located wholly in the Tar -Pamlico watershed and (significantly) at the outfall of the watershed (see Map 2). The Tar -Pamlico River Basin, with 5,578 square miles, is the fourth largest drainage area in North Carolina. Within this area, which stretches from near the Virginia border to the coast, are 2,414 stream miles. The area within the basin is relatively undeveloped. Agriculture accounts for 33.6% of the land use, forests 29.6%, open water 19.7%, and wetlands 11.4%. Urban lands and scrub growth account for 5.2% of the land usage. Approximately 5.5% (364,862) of the North Carolina population lives in the 16 counties that comprise the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. These counties are Beaufort, Dare, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Hyde, Martin, Nash, Pamlico, Person, Pitt, Vance, Warren, Washington, and Wilson. In 1989, the Tar -Pamlico River Basin was designated as Nutrient Senstive waters. Almost one-third of the freshwater streams in the basin are impaired due to sediment, low pH, and fecal coliform. Only 21% of the streams in this basin fully support their designated uses. Forty-three percent (43%) of the streams are threatened, 20% are partially supporting, and 5% do not support their uses. Approximately 92% of the pollution is caused by polluted runoff from agriculture, hydrologic/habitat modification (e.g., stream channelization, drainage, ditching, wetlands drainage), urban development, and forestry. The remaining 8% of the pollution comes from point sources. Water quality problems in the estuary include algae blooms, fish kills, toxic dinoflagellates, diseased crabs and fish, and closed shellfish waters. Many of the problems in the estuary are caused by excessive nutrients from polluted runoff. It is estimated that 85% of the pollution comes from this polluted runoff and 15% comes from point discharges. The excess phosphorus and nitrogen come from agricultural and urban runoff, septic systems, marinas, wastewater treatment plant discharges, and atmospheric deposition. There is also a problem with high fecal coliform bacteria counts. Although dischargers have met their nutrient reduction goals, it is apparent that nitrogen from both nonpoint and point dischargers must be decreased. A 30% goal reduction in nitrogen loading into the river has been recommended. Waters in this river basin provide habitat for nine state or federally threatened or endangered freshwater mussel species (Source: North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences). City of Washington 13 Core Land Use Plan The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. WAT, City of Washington Land Use Plan North Carolina River Basins NEW _9. FRENCH CATAWBA LITTLE BROAD TENNESSE BROAD HIWASSEE SAVANNAH A Legend 0 NC RIVER Basins 95 Tar-Pamilico River Basin Beaufort County City of Washington Hydrology of and Consulting Planners, Inc. ROANOKE 'ar-Pamlic NEUSE CAPE FEAR LUMBER CHOWAN WHITE 1 inch equals 49 miles 0 20 40 80 120 PASQUOTAN Wiles 160 Section III - Regional Setting In conclusion, the growth and land use policies set forth by the other 51 municipalities and 16 counties in the Tar -Pamlico Watershed will significantly affect the quality of the natural environment in the City of Washington, especially as these upstream areas continued to grow. 4. 100-Mile Market When conducting market assessments for major commercial (especially retail establishments and tourism related businesses) and (to a lesser extent) industrial facilities, businesses often set a regional area radiating 100 miles from a proposed location and assess the demographic and economic viability of that area. A 100-mile radius is generally accepted as the maximum distance a consumer will travel for all but the most unique goods or services and is also considered the maximum distance that a worker will commute for employment. For example, the Downtown Washington on the Waterfront, Inc., an organization committed to the redevelopment of Washington's downtown, has focused much of its analysis of potential avenues for growth in downtown Washington on attracting visitors to Washington from a 100-mile radius (see Executive Summary: Economic Repositioning Program Downtown Wash ington (NC), Strategic Planning Group, Inc., October, 2004 Draft). Therefore, the economic and demographic profile of the radial area extending 100 miles out from downtown Washington will strongly influence the growth and development pressures the City experiences over the 20-year planning period considered in this document. Map 3 depicts this 100-mile market area and Table 2 provides salient information regarding this area. Table 2. Population and Population Projections for the City of Washington, Beaufort County, the Greenville Metropolitan Statistical Area and the 100-Mile Radius, 2004 and 2009 2004 Population 2009 Population % of Total Population in 100- Area Estimate Estimate Mile Radius, 2004 City of Washington 9,696 9,849 .0028 Beaufort County 45,937 47,081 .0135 City of Greenville, Pitt County 139,714 146,860 .0420 and Greene County 100-Mite Radius from Downtown 3.5 million 3.9 million 100.0000 Washington, NC Source: Claritas Corporation and Strategic Planning Group, Inc., 2004, excerpted from "Executive Summary: Economic Repositioning Program: Downtown Washington, NC" Strategic Planning Group, Inc, 2004. City of Washington 15 Core Land Use Plan Miles 0 10 20 40 60 80 r , ' /Rocky Mount Durham � � *Tarboro � �Ralei 9 *Wilson Cary i Greenville r � - � r� Have L Jacksonville, Legend Surrounding Cities Washington Beaufort County NC Counties Hydrology ington MAP 3 Beaufort The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. City of Washington Land Use Plan 100 Mile Market Area ol� Consulting Planners, Inc. Page 16 Section III - Regional Setting As Table 2 indicates, the Cities of Greenville and New Bern figure prominently in the formation of a regional market for goods, services, and employment in the City of Washington because of their large and relatively affluent population bases. Because of its orientation along the Pamlico Sound, its historic downtown, and other factors, New Bern may be considered more of a competitor to Washington for employment and tourism, while Greenville, with its inland location and relatively less attractive downtown area, may be considered more of a source for drawing customers, employers and visitors. 5. Historic Albermarle Area The Albermarle region of North Carolina is the area of North Carolina's earliest settlements by Europeans. As promotional material for the Historic Albermarle Tour (HAT) states, "America's past is written in the story of North Carolina's Albemarle Region." Founded in 1975, HAT is one of the oldest natural heritage trails in North Carolina and maintains a non-profit organization based in Washington to staff signage, interpretation, and education regarding the region. The area is replete with significant historical sites, particularly from the colonial and antebellum periods, such as Somerset Place (near Cresewell), a representative historic site offering a comprehensive and realistic view of nineteenth-century life on a large-scale North Carolina plantation and the "Lost Colony" on Roanoke Island (Source: HAT). The area also has numerous unspoiled natural areas, making it a natural for "eco- tourism." The City of Washington is on the southern border of the Albermarle region and is one of its largest cities, making it an ideal site for visitors and new residents attracted by the rich history of the area. 6. State Planning Region Q In 1970, Governor Robert Scott realized that the delivery of quality government services and programs could be facilitated through planning and development on the regional level. Therefore, the NC Legislature developed 17 multi -county planning and development regions in the State. The City of Washington is located in Region Q which is comprised of Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Martin and Pitt Counties, as well as their two cities (Washington and Greenville) and 38 Towns (see Map 4). City of Washington 17 Core Land Use Plan ►l TTATWXI I CD IN City of Washington w, � � 1, Land Use Plan S North Carolina Planning Reqions Planning District Q: Beaufort County, Bertie County, Hertford County, Martin County & Pitt County The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. rU Consulting Planners, Inc. Section III - Regional Setting The above -referenced legislation also created regional councils of governments staffed by planning professionals with the intent of implementing regional planning and development. The City of Washington and all of Region Q are served by the Mid -East Commission Council of Governments (COG), based in Washington. The COG's mission, as stated on its website (www.mideastcom.org) is "to enhance the ability of local governments to successfully improve the quality of life for area citizens; leadership in technical assistance, planning, program management and development, and public -private partnerships." As its mission statement indicates, the COG is responsible for helping coordinate regional development efforts. For example, the COG helps staff the Greenville Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which is responsible for coordinating transportation -related planning for the Greenville Urban Area. Although this area does not include the City of Washington proper, the decisions of the MPO greatly affect transportation routes to and from the City. 7. Beaufort County The City of Washington is part of Beaufort County, serving as its County seat. Under North Carolina law, many governmental responsibilities, including tax collection, health, and emergency management are restricted to County governments, and municipalities such as the City of Washington cannot undertake these responsibilities. As such, Beaufort County is one of the most important regional entities to which the City belongs. In addition to the governmental services provided by the County, the City of Washington serves as the primary retail and employment center for the County and its other six (6) incorporated municipalities — Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, Chocowinity, Pantego, and Washington Park (see Map 1 for depiction of location of other municipalities). For these reasons alone, continuous and close coordination with County government and the other municipalities in the County is essential. As mentioned above, the regional setting of the City of Washington will greatly influence its future growth and development. As such, many of the above -listed regional areas will be compared with the City in terms of population and demographics, housing, employment, and the economy, particularly in Section V (A), (B), and (C) of this Plan. City of Washington 19 Core Land Use Plan Section IV - City of Washington Concerns and Aspirations Section IV. City of Washington Concerns and Aspirations A. Identification of Primary Planning Issues While this document attempts to comprehensively assess all issues and concerns that will affect growth and the natural environment over the 20-year planning period, resource limitation obviously necessitates the prioritization of key or "primary" issues. These primary issues are those that the City will spend additional resources in analyzing, assessing and developing goals, policies, objectives, and implementing tasks to address over the 20-year planning period. (See Section VI(E), Land Use Plan Management Topics, page 181.) In order to identify these issues, the City held an Issues Identification Meeting on February 7, 2005. This meeting was widely advertised, through direct solicitation of citizens with known interests in civic affairs and representatives of organizations with interest in these affairs (including State representatives). Additionally, a notice was sent to popular retail and commercial locations for posting and was advertised in the Washington Daily News. At the Issues Identification Meeting, the City's planning consultant, Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., provided an overview of the CAMA Land Use Planning process and then instructed the assembled group of 16 persons to "brainstorm" issues that the group adjudged to be significant to Washington's growth and environment over the 20-year planning period. These issues were then listed on large writing pads and affixed to the wall of the Washington Civic Center where the meeting was held. At the end of the meeting, meeting participants received 10 "votes" and identified their 10 top issues (one vote per issue - no "multi -voting" with multiple votes per issue). The results are recorded below: Washington Issues Identification Issue Score Improve Central Business District 13 Highway 17 Bypass (Quality of Adjacent Dev't/Minimize Negative Impacts) 13 Developing/Improving Gateways into the City 13 Feasibility and cost of capital improvements/capital improvements planning 12 Prioritization of Areas for Annexation Accommodating Multiple Uses of the River 11 im City of Washington 20 Core Land Use Plan Issue Section IV - City of Washington Concerns and Aspirations Score Stabilizing and improving neighborhoods adjacent to historic district 10 Strengthen code enforcement 9 Promoting the City 8 Encouraging Recreation Uses on Southern Shore of Tar/Pamlico 8 Cohesive Plan for Historic District/Coordination with DWOW 7 Impact of New School Construction 6 Improving Traffic Flow in Historic District 5 Expanded recreational and cultural opportunities 4 The top ten issues identified were flagged for additional analysis and consideration in the remainder of this document. Additionally, surveys were mailed out to 104 absentee property owners owning property within the city's corporate limits and 97 owning property within the city's ETJ. A total of 49 completed questionnaires were received (24 corporate limits; 25 ETJ). See Appendix II for a comparison of these results as well as the tabulation of additional questions from the absentee property owners survey. B. City of Washington Vision Statement Through its ongoing comprehensive planning process, the City of Washington provides an accessible and clearly articulated framework that allows city management and staff, citizens, external public agencies, and development interests to work cooperatively to establish objectively derived and balanced policies, plans, and development regulations while continuing to encourage economic and residential development that: • Is cooperatively planned and implemented with the city staff and appropriate external agencies. • Provides objectively perceived economic incentives and benefits to the citizens of the City of Washington. • Does not pose obvious adverse impacts to the city's abundant natural resources or established neighborhood character and aesthetics. City of Washington 21 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Section V. Analysis of Existing Conditions* A. Population and Demographics 1. City of Washington Permanent Population The City of Washington's permanent population was estimated as 9,767 as of July 1, 2003, by the North Carolina State Demographic Office, representing a modest 1.5% increase since the year 2000. Table 3. Year -Round (Permanent) Population Estimates for the City of Washington and Beaufort County, 1970 to 2003 Population Percentage Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 '70-'80 '80-'90 '90-'00 '00-'03 '70-'03 Washington 8,961 8,418 9,160 9,619 9,767 -6.1% 8.8% 5.0% 1.5% 9.0% Beaufort County 27,019 31,937 33,123 35,339 38,822 18.2% 3.7% 6.7% 9.9% 43.7% (excluding Washington) Source: 1970,1980, 1990 and 2000 estimates US Census Bureau, 2003 estimate North Carolina State Demographic Office. Population growth in the City of Washington has occurred since 1970 primarily due to the annexation of areas adjacent to the City and the development of subdivisions in these areas, primarily along the eastern and western ends of the City's geographic area, and due to the natural increase (births -deaths) of population in the City (see Section V(A)(2) below). This trend is reflective of the many areas of urban development in the United States and North Carolina since approximately 1970 — diffusion of population and development away from urban core areas and towards suburban areas. The City's growth rate has been comparable to nearby communities such as Plymouth and Williamston, but is significantly less than the growth rate of larger cities such as New Bern and Greenville, and less than that of Beaufort County outside the city Limits. Population forecasts through 2030 are found on pages 47 to 48. *NOTE: Section VI. Plan for the Future discusses future demands/emerging conditions, page 148. City of Washington 22 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 2. City of Washington Population Profile a. Racial Composition A significant aspect of the City of Washington's population profile is its racial composition. In the year 2000, according to the US Census Bureau, the City was 51.8% white and 48.2% non -white (see Table 4 below). The vast majority (96.9%) of the non -white population is Black or African -American (the term "African -American" will be used for the remainder of this Plan). The remaining 208 citizens were Asian, American Indian, or Native Hawaiian or listed as "some other race" on their 2000 US Census form. Table 4. Racial Composition of the City of Washington, 2000 Race Population, 2000 % of Total Population, 2000 White 4,962 51.8% African -American 4,360 45.5% American Indian or Alaska Native 16 0.2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 >.1% Asian 47 0.5% Some Other Race 100 1.0% More than One Race 96 1.0% TOTALS' 9,583 100.0% ' - Please note that the total population of the City of Washington is 9,583 in this Table and subsequent tables and is 9,619 in Table 3 (Total Population) above. This is because the US Census Bureau adjusted the City's population upward in the year 2003, but have not released revised detailed demographic or housing tables as of this date. Source: United State Census Bureau. Unlike Beaufort County, which has experienced an increase in white population as a percentage of total population since 1970, the percentage of whites as a percentage of the total population in the City of Washington has remained relatively consistent, and in fact declined slightly, during this time frame (see Table 5). City of Washington 23 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 5. Racial Composition of the City of Washington and Beaufort County from 1970 and 2000 % of Total % of Total White White Population Population as a % of as a % of 1970 2000 '70-'00 Total Total 1970 2000 '70-'00 Non- Non- Non- Population, Population, White White White White White White 1970 2000 Washington 5,234 4,962 -5.2% 3,727 4,621 24.0% 58.4% 51.8% Beaufort County 18,798 25,806 37.3% 8,221 9,569 16.4% 69.6% 72.3% (excluding Washington) Source: US Census Bureau. Only 261 persons, or 2.7% of the population of the City of Washington, identified themselves as Hispanic in the 2000 US Census according to the US Census Bureau. Of these, approximately 72% (187 persons), identified themselves as Mexican. This represents a significantly smaller number of Hispanics as a percentage of population than that found Statewide (4.7% of the Statewide population). b. A_qe and Gender Composition Based on US Census figures, the median age of the population of the City of Washington in the year 2000 was 39.5, significantly higher than the State median of 35.3 (see Table 6). This can be largely attributed to the large relative percentage of citizens over the age of 65 - 19.6% of the City's population versus 12.0% statewide. Despite this fact, the percentage of citizens under the age of 18 is slightly higher than the statewide average (24.7% for the City of Washington, 24.4% statewide) (Source: US Census Bureau). This means that the percentage of citizens in their most productive years — 18 to 64 — is approximately 8% below the state average (55.7% for the City of Washington and 63.6% statewide). Taken together, this age composition indicates a particular burden on health care providers and social service agencies in the City, since children and the elderly require these services at a higher rate than those citizens of working age (i.e., 18 to 64), on average. City of Washington 24 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 6. Age Composition of the City of Washington and Beaufort County from 1970 and 2000 Median Median Population % of Total Population % of Total Population % of Total Age Age Under 18 Population Aged 18-64 Population Aged 65 Population 1980 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 and older 2000 Washington 34.1 39.5 2,364 24.7% 5,345 55.7% 1,874 19.6% Beaufort County 31.2 40.2 8,158 23.1% 21,963 62.0% 5,254 14.9% (excluding Washington) Source: US Census Bureau. Statewide in the year 2000, the number of males per 100 females was 96.0, according to the US Census Bureau. Because of significantly shorter lifespans, on average, the number of males over 18 per 100 females over 18 was 93.3 Statewide. These statistics were generally consistent with national averages. In the City of Washington, these numbers were 77.4 males per 100 females and 70.8 males over the age of 18 per 100 females over the age of 18. These figures for the City of Washington are frankly astonishing and are among the lowest in the nation. The male to female ratio appears to deviate significantly from State and regional averages at about age 20 and remains unbalanced for almost all age cohorts. The reasons for this imbalance are difficult to fathom, but a large number of men working and living outside the City to support their families in the City has been posited as a (partial) explanation. In any case, this phenomenon should be carefully examined for its implications on growth and development. Table 7. Mate to Female Ratio at Various Age Cohorts, City of Washington, 2000. Number Percent Males per Age Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female 100 females 10 to 14 years 655 341 314 6.8 8.2 5.8 108.6 15 to 19 years 645 326 319 6.7 7.8 5.9 102.2 20 to 24 years 577 264 313 6.0 6.3 5.8 84.3 25 to 29 years 534 211 323 5.6 5.0 6.0 65.3 30 to 34 years 547 276 271 5.7 6.6 5.0 101.8 35 to 39 years 576 244 332 6.0 5.8 6.1 73.5 40 to 44 years 693 307 386 7.2 7.3 7.1 79.5 45 to 49 years 690 334 356 7.2 8.0 6.6 93.8 50 to 54 years 622 276 346 6.5 6.6 6.4 79.8 55 to 59 years 436 176 260 4.5 4.2 4.8 67.7 (Continued on next page) City of Washington 25 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Number Percent Males per Age Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female 100 females 60 to 64 years 419 176 243 4.4 4.2 4.5 72.4 65 to 69 years 432 179 253 4.5 4.3 4.7 70.8 70 to 74 years 449 171 278 4.7 4.1 5.1 61.5 75 to 79 years 410 127 283 4.3 3.0 5.2 44.9 80 to 84 years 269 72 197 2.8 1.7 3.6 36.5 85 to 89 years 198 41 157 2.1 1.0 2.9 26.1 90 years and over 116 13 103 1.2 0.3 1.9 12.0 Source: US Census Bureau. C. Female -Headed Households The significance of the phenomenon of a disproportionate number of women to men in the City is further indicated by examining the number of female - headed households in the City. In the City of Washington in 2000, 838 households were female -headed with no husband present out of a total of 3,968 households (21.1% of all households in the City). Statewide, only approximately 12.4% of households are female headed. Five hundred and eighteen (518) female -headed households had children present in the City in 2000 (13.1% of all households). This compares to approximately 7.2% of all households statewide (Source: US Census Bureau). Numerous studies have documented the fact that female -headed households with no husband present have, on average, much higher incidences of poverty and lower educational attainment than other types of households. Additionally, Federal and State policies over the past decade or so appear to have disproportionately hurt the economic situation of this type of household. In a 1999 study conducted by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it was found that between 1995 and 1997 the income of the poorest 20% of female -headed families with children fell an average of $580 per family. The study included the families' use of food stamps, housing subsidies, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and other benefits. Even when these benefits are included, these families have incomes below three-quarters of the poverty line. Additionally, studies have found that single mothers on welfare rarely find full-time, permanent jobs at adequate wages. Recent welfare legislation has focused on child support enforcement. However, full payment of child support only constitutes a small portion of the total cost of raising a child. City of Washington 26 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions d. Educational Attainment Educational attainment in the City of Washington is significantly below state average. For example, 21.8% of the population over the age of 25 statewide have less than a high school diploma (or equivalent). In the City of Washington this figure is 30.7%. Statewide 22.5% of the population over age 25 have a bachelor's degree or higher, while in the City of Washington, this figure is 16.6% (see Table 8). Table 8. Percentage of Persons Over the Age of 25 by Educational Attainment for the City of Washington and Beaufort County, 2000 Beaufort County Washington (excluding Washington) Less than 9th Grade 10.4% 8.0% 9`" to 12'h Grade (No Diploma) 20.3% 15.5% High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 27.7% 35.4% Some College, no degree 15.9% 19.3% Associate's Degree 4.9% 7.1% Bachelor's Degree 14.5% 10.0% Graduate/Professional Degree 2.1% 4.8% Total Population Over the Age of 25 6,333 24,535 Source: US Census Bureau. e. Disability Status The US Census Bureau defines a "disability" as a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more that makes it difficult to perform certain activities. Of persons over the age of five in the City, 2,448 persons indicated a disability in the 2000 Census. This represents 28.7% of the City's population. This is significantly higher than the Statewide percentage of disabled persons (21.1 %). Among persons 18 to 64 years old, 24.8% of the population reported a disability. This is significant since disabled persons suffer from much higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and lower educational attainment from the non - disabled population. City of Washington 27 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 3. Summary of Population Profile • The population of the City of Washington has risen approximately 6.6% since 1990, with a total estimated 2003 population of 9,767. • Population increase appears to be a function of annexation and natural population increase rather than significant in -migration. • The population of the City of Washington is 51.8% white and 48.2% non- white. • Non -white population is almost exclusively African -American (96.9%of non- white population). • Hispanics (self -identified independent of race) were 2.7% of the City population — this is far less than the State's population of 4.7%. • The percentage of non -white population as a percentage of total City population has increased from 41.6% in 1970 to 48.2% in 2000. The absolute number of white persons has decreased from 5,234 in 1970 to 4,962 in 2000. • The median age of the population of the City in the year 2000 was 39.5, significantly higher than the State median of 35.3. • Over nineteen percent (19.6%) of the City's population is over age 65, compared to 12.0% statewide. • The percentage of persons under the age of 18 is comparable to the state average — 24.4% statewide compared to 24.7% for the City. • The City had 77.4 males per 100 females in the year 2000, one of the lowest percentages of males nationally and well below the state average of 96.0 males per 100 females. • Approximately 21.1% of households in the City were female -headed with no husband present, as compared to 12.4% statewide. City of Washington 28 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • Educational attainment in the City of Washington is significantly below state averages but is close to comparable with regional educational attainment. • Over 28% of persons over the age of 5 reported a disability in the year 2000, well over the state average of approximately 21 %. NOTE: Population forecasts through 2030, in five-year increments, are provided on pages 47 to 48. All future demands/needs are based on these population projections. B. Housing 1. Housing Characteristics The following section of the Plan provides salient statistics regarding housing and householder characteristics in the City. a. Housing Units and Density The City of Washington had a total of 4,399 housing units in 2000, according to the US Census Bureau and a land area of approximately 6.5 square miles. Despite a number of recent annexations, this provides the City with a relatively dense development pattern (see Table 9). With 677 housing units per square mile, the City of Washington is comparable to the nearby towns of Beaufort and Edenton or the City of New Bern in terms of housing density. This fact provides the City with a strategic advantage in attracting new development, since cities with comparable density and their associated urban amenities are rare in eastern North Carolina and many recent trends, such as the aging of the "Baby Boom" generation, indicate that denser urban environments are attractive to these soon -to -be retirees and many young persons attracted to the interactions and connections available only in an urban setting. City of Washington 29 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 9. Population, Housing Units, Land and Water Areas and Population and Housing Unit Density for the State of North Carolina, the City of Washington and select nearby municipalities Area in square miles Housing Total Water Land Geographic area Population Units area area area State of North Carolina 8,049,313 3,523,944 53,818.5 5,107.6 48,710.9 City of Washington 9,583 4,399 6.8 0.3 6.5 City of New Bern 23,128 11,094 27.0 1.2 25.8 Town of Beaufort 3,771 2,187 3.6 0.8 2.7 Town of Edenton 5,394 2,204 5.2 0.2 5.0 Town of Greenville 60,476 28,145 26.3 0.7 25.6 Source: US Census Bureau. b. Housing Occupancy and Tenure Density per square mile of land area Housing )ulation units 165.2 72.3 1,475.2 677.0 895.5 429.5 1,374.4 797.1 1,076.3 439.8 2,364.6 1,100.4 Of the City's 4,399 housing units, 3,968 are occupied (90.2% of all units) (Source: 2000 US Census). Of the occupied units in the City, 2,043, or 51.5% of occupied units, are owner -occupied. Salient statistics regarding housing occupancy and tenure in the City for 1990 and 2000 and for the State in 2000 are provided in Table 10. Table 10. Housing Tenure and Occupancy, City of Washington 1990 and 2000, State of North Carolina, 2000 City of Washington State of North Carolina Housing Unit # of Housing % of Total, # of Housing % of Total, Description Units, 2000 2000 Units, 1990 1990 Total # of Units 4,399 100% 3,873 100% Occupied Units 3,968 90% 3,579 92% Owner -Occupied 2,043 46% 1,815 46% Renter -Occupied 1,925 44% 1,764 46% Vacant Units 431 10% 294 8% For Rent 54 1% 124 3% For Sale 192 4% 53 1% For Seasonal, 26 >1% 13 >1% Recreational or Occasional Use All Other 159 4% 104 3% Source: US Census Bureau. City of Washington 30 # of Housing % of Total, Units, 2000 2000 3,523,944 100% 3,132,013 89% 2,172,355 69% 959,658 31% 391,931 11% 43,896 1% 92,888 3% 134,824 4% 120,323 3% Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The City experienced a net increase of 528 housing units, or 13.6%, from 1990 to 2000 (Source: US Census Bureau). Most of these new units are in newly annexed areas of the City. The fact the City's total population has increased by only 148 persons from 1990 to 2000 indicates that the City is experiencing the same trend that is happening statewide and nationwide - the reducing size of the average household (see Section V(B)(1)(e) below). As the preceding table indicates, the City of Washington has a much higher percentage of renter -occupied housing units than the State does, on average (46% of all units, versus 38% statewide). Large numbers and concentrations of rental housing often leads to neighborhood deterioration, since the incentives for renters to maintain or improve housing conditions are often limited. C. Units per Structure (as related to Tenure) The vast majority of the owner -occupied housing units in the City of Washington (88.2% in the year 2000 according to the US Census Bureau) were single-family detached houses. This contrasts with the units per structure for renter -occupied units, where 64.5 percent of these units had 2 units or greater (see Table 11). These rates are very similar to the Statewide average and are roughly consistent with the 1990 data. Typically speaking, as land values rise, the number of multi -family, owner -occupied units rise over time. Several developments of this type are under consideration in the Downtown area. The existence of multi- family owner -occupied units is significant to downtown redevelopment, as they are often necessary to attract retail, restaurant and entertainment services that make an area attractive as a destination after normal business hours (i.e., 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., Monday through Friday). City of Washington 31 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 11. Structures per Unit and Tenure, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 City of Washington State of North Carolina Percentage of Percentage of Number Total by Tenure Number Total by Tenure Owner -occupied housing units 2,036 100.0 2,172,270 100.0 1, detached 1,795 88.2 1,718,100 79.1 1, attached 92 4.5 53,422 2.5 2 33 1.6 6,747 0.3 3 or 4 0 0.0 8,723 0.4 5 or more 0 0.0 19,689 0.9 Mobile home 116 5.7 364,414 16.8 Boat, RV, van, etc 0 0.0 1,175 0.1 Renter -occupied housing units 1,937 100.0 959,743 100.0 1, detached 687 35.5 332,742 34.7 1, attached 186 9.6 41,410 4.3 2 371 19.2 69,629 7.3 3 or 4 277 14.3 92,337 9.6 5 to 9 146 7.5 121,395 12.6 10 to 19 30 1.5 90,110 9.4 20 to 49 129 6.7 38,334 4.0 50 or more 18 0.9 43,066 4.5 Mobile home 93 4.8 130,141 13.6 Boat, RV, van, etc 0 0 579 0 - Please note that the owner -occupied and renter -occupied figures for the City of Washington and the state are different in this table and subsequent tables than those figures in Table 10. This is because the US Census Bureau made adjustments to the data in 2003, but have not released revised detailed demographic or housing tables as of this date. Source: US Census Bureau. d. Age, Condition and Characteristics of Housing Units The average owner -occupied house in the City of Washington is 14 years older than the average owner -occupied house statewide (see Table 12). In fact, approximately 44.4% of the City's occupied housing units were built prior to 1959, versus approximately 22% statewide. This percentage is significantly higher than that found in Greenville (approximately 13.5%) or New Bern (approximately 26%) in the year 2000 (Source: US Census Bureau). City of Washington 32 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing, and Emerging, Conditions Overall, the City believes that this fact is an overall asset for the City, as historical houses are difficult to replaceable or duplicate in terms of beauty and overall appeal. The charm and character of the many older houses in the City remains essential to its efforts to attract new visitors and residents. The existence of this older housing stock, however, also brings special challenges and costs, as such housing units are more costly to maintain than newer units. Table 12. Tenure by Year Structure Built, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 City of Washington State of North Carolina Housing Units Percentage Housing Units Percentage Owner -occupied housing units 2,036 100.0 2,172,270 100.0 Built 1999 to March 2000 30 1.5 91,289 4.2 Built 1995 to 1998 133 6.5 302,569 13.9 Built 1990 to 1994 82 4.0 253,589 11.7 Built 1980 to 1989 238 11.7 414,560 19.1 Built 1970 to 1979 407 20.0 378,348 17.4 Built 1960 to 1969 263 12.9 271,748 12.5 Built 1950 to 1959 323 15.9 206,939 9.5 Built 1940 to 1949 156 7.7 108,105 5.0 Built 1939 or earlier 404 19.8 145,123 6.7 Median 1965 N 1979 N Renter -occupied housing units 1,937 100.0 959,743 100.0 Built 1999 to March 2000 79 4.1 21,613 2.3 Built 1995 to 1998 33 1.7 88,463 9.2 Built 1990 to 1994 51 2.6 83,152 8.7 Built 1980 to 1989 389 20.1 195,835 20.4 Built 1970 to 1979 376 19.4 193,987 20.2 Built 1960 to 1969 303 15.6 128,992 13.4 Built 1950 to 1959 353 18.2 102,948 10.7 Built 1940 to 1949 79 4.1 64,618 6.7 Built 1939 or earlier 274 14.1 80,135 8.3 Median 1969 N 1975 N Source: US Census Bureau. Occupancy -per -room and availability of essential services such as telephone, plumbing and kitchen facilities is comparable or exceeds the statewide average (see Table 13 below). This fact is attributable to, in part, the City's commitment to provide water and sewer services throughout its jurisdiction and its commitment to effective housing and building code enforcement. The City's City of Washington 33 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions performance on the measures depicted in Table 13 exceed those of the County in almost every respect. Table 13. Occupancy per Room and Availability of Essential Services per Housing Unit by Tenure, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 City of Washington State of North Carolina Units Percentage Units Percentage TENURE BY OCCUPANTS PER ROOM Owner -occupied housing units 2,036 100.0 2,172,270 100.0 0.50 or less occupants per room 1,654 81.2 1,625,862 74.8 0.51 to 1.00 occupants per room 366 18.0 507,834 23.4 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 11 0.5 28,660 1.3 1.51 or more occupants per room 5 0.2 9,914 0.5 Mean 0.36 (x) 0.42 N Renter -occupied housing units 1,937 100 959,743 100 0.50 or less occupants per room 1,283 66.2 577,448 60.2 0.51 to 1.00 occupants per room 589 30.4 314,110 32.7 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 49 2.5 40,823 4.3 1.51 or more occupants per room 16 0.8 27,362 2.9 Mean 0.51 N 0.54 N TENURE BY TELEPHONE SERVICE AVAILABLE Owner -occupied housing units 2,036 100.0 2,172,270 100.0 With telephone service 1,996 98.0 2,139,976 98.5 No telephone service 40 2.0 32,294 1.5 Renter -occupied housing units 1,937 100.0 959,743 100.0 With telephone service 1,732 89.4 897,100 93.5 No telephone service 205 10.6 62,643 6.5 TENURE BY PLUMBING FACILITIES Owner -occupied housing units 2,036 100.0 2,172,270 100.0 With complete plumbing facilities 2,036 100.0 2,162,786 99.6 Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0 0.0 9,484 0.4 Renter -occupied housing units 1,937 100.0 959,743 100.0 With complete plumbing facilities 1,923 99.3 949,932 99.0 Lacking complete plumbing facilities 14 0.7 9,811 1.0 TENURE BY KITCHEN FACILITIES Owner -occupied housing units 2,036 100.0 2,172,270 100.0 With complete kitchen facilities 21036 100.0 2,166,160 99.7 Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0 0.0 6,110 0.3 (Continued on next page) City of Washington 34 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions City of Washington State of North Carolina Units Percentage Units Percentage Renter -occupied housing units 1,937 100.0 959,743 100.0 With complete kitchen facilities 1,914 98.8 949,651 98.9 Lacking complete kitchen facilities 23 1.2 10,092 1.1 Source: US Census Bureau. e. Householder Characteristics by Tenure The City's persons -per -household (2.3) is slightly less, but consistent with the statewide average of 2.49 persons per household (see Table 14). As has been previously noted, homeowners in the City of Washington are older than the state average and there are a slightly higher percentage of female -headed households than the state average. Additionally, the City has a slightly higher percentage of "non -family" households than the statewide average (approximately 37.5% for the City versus approximately 31% statewide). A "non -family" household is defined by the US Census Bureau as one where a householder is living alone or with unrelated individuals. This fact is likely related to the large number of elderly persons living alone in the City (see Table 14). Overall, however, owner and rental unit characteristics are similar to the state averages. Table 14. Persons per Housing Unit and Various Householder Characteristics by Tenure, City of Washington and the State of North Carolina, 2000 City of Washington State of North Carolina Persons Percentage Persons Percentage Per occupied housing unit 2.30 N 2.49 N Per owner -occupied housing unit 2.32 N 2.54 N Per renter -occupied housing unit 2.28 (x) 2.37 N HOUSEHOLD TYPE Owner -occupied housing units 2,043 100.0 2,172,355 100.0 Family households 1,420 69.5 1,643,514 75.7 Householder 15 to 64 years 1,016 49.7 1,335,952 61.5 Householder 65 years and over 404 19.8 307,562 14.2 Married -couple family 1,102 53.9 1,368,767 63.0 Mate householder, no wife present 57 2.8 70,767 3.3 Female householder, no husband present 261 12.8 203,980 9.4 (Continued on next page) City of Washington 35 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions City of Washington State of North Carolina Persons Percentage Persons Percentage Nonfamily households 623 30.5 528,841 24.3 Householder 15 to 64 years 306 15.0 328,281 15.1 Householder 65 years and over 317 15.5 200,560 9.2 Male householder 183 9.0 216,437 10.0 Living alone 150 7.3 176,332 8.1 65 years and over 45 2.2 43,560 2.0 Not living alone 33 1.6 40,105 1.8 Female householder 440 21.5 312,404 14.4 Living alone 419 20.5 283,306 13.0 65 years and over 262 12.8 150,554 6.9 Not living alone 21 1.0 29,098 1.3 Renter -occupied housing units 1,925 100.0 959,658 100.0 Family households 1,047 54.4 515,355 53.7 Householder 15 to 64 years 938 48.7 481,736 50.2 Householder 65 years and over 109 5.7 33,619 3.5 Married -couple family 380 19.7 276,579 28.8 Mate householder, no wife present 90 4.7 52,759 5.5 Female householder, no husband present 577 30.0 186,017 19.4 Nonfamily households 878 45.6 444,303 46.3 Householder 15 to 64 years 572 29.7 366,171 38.2 Householder 65 years and over 306 15.9 78,132 8.1 Male householder 330 17.1 226,216 23.6 Living alone 267 13.9 161,243 16.8 65 years and over 63 3.3 17,618 1.8 Not living alone 63 3.3 64,973 6.8 Female householder 548 28.5 218,087 22.7 Living alone 493 25.6 174,390 18.2 65 years and over 236 12.3 58,409 6.1 Not living alone 55 2.9 43,697 4.6 Source: US Census Bureau. f. Concentrations of Substandard Housing Map 5 provides a graphic depiction of areas within the City where more than 50% of the homes in the area are moderately deteriorated, severely deteriorated or dilapidated. "Moderately deteriorated" means that two or more major housing systems (e.g., roof, plumbing, walls, foundation) are in poor repair and in need of significant repair/renovation. "Severely deteriorated" means that the three or more major housing systems are in poor repair and in need of significant repair/renovation. "Dilapidated" means that a unit is vacant or City of Washington 36 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions abandoned and beyond economically efficient repair (Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.). Concentrations of substandard housing are a significant deterrent to development or redevelopment of nearby areas. The City has worked, and will continue to work, diligently to identify and address these areas through the procurement of Federal and State community development and housing repair funds. The following provides a summary of revitalization projects undertaken by the City: • Ongoing Code Enforcement Activities. • Three CDBG Concentrated Needs Programs (all adjacent to the CBD) - 82 housing rehabilitations, 25 clearances ($2.55 million, including a $250,000 city match which required a city-wide needs assessment). • FY99 CDBG Community Empowerment Project, which provided funds for the acquisition of the Business Development Center along with the construction of 10 new single-family dwellings and one housing rehabilitation for first-time home buyers (grant total $500,000). • Project HOPE I, II, and III Community Development - first time single-family home ownership program, 36 units, estimated cost $2.1 million. • Metro House - construction of 9 multi -family dwellings for HIV patients. • Metro Arms - construction of 12 multi -family units for 62 years of age on a fixed income, HD grant $250,000. • New Horizons - construction of 36 multi -family dwelling units for low to moderate income persons, HD grant $250,000. • Shalom House - 24 units for handicapped individuals, HD grant $250,000. • Sunrise Apartments - 24 duplex units, HD grant $250,000. • FY02 NCHFA Single -Family Rehabilitation Program (12 units - coordinated with FY02 CDBG Program). • NCHFA - new construction of approximately 50 units in one location and another 50 units in a different location. • HMGP Plan ($100,000 - improves the city's CRS rating, GIS hardware/software, allows city to apply for future HMGP funds). • Fran HMGP Elevation/Acquisition ($3.1 million - 40 elevations, 20 buyouts, comprehensive planning to preserve green space for linear park system). • Fran CDBG-DRI ($300,000 - 8 relocations; 6 rehabilitations) City of Washington 37 Core Land Use Plan MAP 5 76th St \�\, ;^\ •� /%lam I ¢th sr Sr Y\\. ,X° 771 / `� , 7 !��,4' n•` �.\/\ •�✓ / �" ��`/ ram`'\. h IV / `�� 264 �, m f �i, iICY ��m "T1 % `�� / �h. / �/� ✓ / T.\ J�/i TaY/pest O h O 7/ 5 �Ar wsth k;�•/'�T�,\�..�c�!� �.` /' _ �c Da�;a thSt �gjh; rho` / .\2 / wst , 1t h st Shr,\ Q J / ;//" " - �x, �. 2 / 4 t h S t ACO i C7 sfe �a7 i iOkY. i CD R \,'-_ iINI V er o� 2�. Z _ Small Ave 4 Q•o . \'.. FgthSr:',° ! VI Y , 'A- is\ :% / o° 32 NI �\ 1 P" ��A 1 City of Washington Land Use Plan Areas of Substandard Housing Legend City Limits Substandard Housing — Bridges Washington Park Planning Area Railroads \ _ Major Roads The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. N NA' J E S 1 inch equals 795 feet �L I I Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 jf�lolrd Consulting Planners, Inc. Page 38 Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions E. Natural Systems Analysis (Refer to land use compatibility policies and implementing actions, pages 187 to 196.) 1. Mapping and Analysis of Natural Features The purpose of this section of the CAMA Land Use Plan Update is to describe, analyze, and map the natural features and environmental conditions currently found in the City of Washington and to assess their capabilities and limitations for development. What are Hydrological Units? The United States is divided and sub -divided into successively smaller hydrologic units which are classified into six levels. The first of these four are established by the U.S. Geological Survey and are as follows: regions, sub -regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has further subdivided the aforementioned cataloging units into smaller units - the 11-digit HUC (watershed) and the 14-digit HUC (sub watershed or local watershed). a. Topography/Geology As required by CAMA regulations at Chapter 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, planning should be done on a watershed basis. As such, the six -digit and 14-digit hydrological unit codes (HUC) for the City of Washington are depicted on Map 6 and will be referenced throughout this Plan. Refer to the adjacent text box for a definition of the HUC and a description of its significance. The City of Washington is located in the low coastal plain physiographic province of North Carolina, along the banks of the Tar/Pamlico River. The City is characterized topographically by flat terrain that averages about ten feet above mean sea level, generally sloping from the north and west towards the south and east, following the course of the Tar/Pamlico River. There are no slopes in excess of 12% in the City or its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), and slopes range from completely level to approximately four percent throughout the City. City of Washington 49 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Based on U.S. Census Department figures reflected in Table 22 below, the population of the City of Washington appeared to stabilize at approximately 30% of the total population of Beaufort County in the mid-1980's, at least through the 2000 U.S. Census. This means that approximately 30 out of every 100 citizens living in Beaufort County lived in the planning area of the City of Washington. For purposes of population forecasting, we have assumed that this ratio (29.7%) remains constant throughout the State NCSDO's forecast period remains constant. Table 22. Population and Forecast Populations for the City of Washington and Beaufort County through 2030 1970 1980 1990 2000 City of Washington 8,961 8,418 9,160 9,619 Beaufort County (Excluding City) 27,019 31,937 33,123 35,339 Beaufort County (Total) 35,980 40,355 42,283 44,958 % of Total from City 24.91% 20.86% 21.66% 21.40% 2005' 2010' 2015' 2020' 2025' 2030" City of Washington Corporate Limits 9,671 9,954 10,173 10,392 10,541 10,707 City of Washington ETJ" 3,997 4,114 4,204 4,295 4,357 4,425 City of Washington Total Planning 13,668 14,068 14,377 14,687 14,898 15,132 Area Beaufort County (Excluding City and 32,383 33,331 34,064 34,797 35,295 35,852 ETJ) Beaufort County (Total) 46,051 47,399 48,441 49,484 50,193 50,984 % of Total (City) 29.7% 29.7% 29.7% 29.7% 29.7% 29.7% 'Forecast only. Beaufort County figures are produced by the NCSDO, City figures by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., based on assumption that City will retain 29.7% of total County population throughout the forecast period. '"ETJ population is based on Holland Consulting Planners' estimates. Source: NCSDO and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. As Table 22 depicts, the City of Washington is forecast to grow by 10.7% from 2005 to 2030, or at an average annual rate of 0.43% per year. This forecast is based on the assumption, pursuant to recent trends, of modest but accelerating "in -migration" (i.e., residents from outside the City moving to the City) throughout the forecast period and modest "natural growth" (i.e., births exceeding deaths) through approximately 2015, at which time deaths will exceed births very slightly, based on the forecast of an aging population. City of Washington 48 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • The average wage of manufacturing employment remained approximately 200% that of retail employment and 150% that of the County -wide average wage of $543.00 per week. • The City has done an excellent job of attracting and retaining manufacturing and commercial establishments to the City and adjacent areas - over 69% of manufacturing and retail trade establishments in the County are in the City. • Approximately 69% of workers in the City commute less than 19 minutes to work, implying that they work in the City or nearby. Unfortunately, income statistics indicate that City residents fill many low wage jobs, rather than medium to high wage jobs. D. Population Projections Section V(A) of this Plan provides population data for the City through the year 2003. This section of the Plan provides population forecasts through 2030. Population forecasts are very important, since they help determine the need for future residential, commercial and related land requirements, as well as the need for capital facilities, such as roads, sewage treatment facilities, and parks. The population forecasts provided in this section are based on population forecasts for Beaufort County provided by the North Carolina State Demographics Office (NCSDO). The NCSDO projects were based on extrapolating April 2000, to July 2003, growth trends through the year 2030 based on a statistical model developed by NCSDO and released in June 2004. The complete methodology used by NCSDO can be found on the World Wide Web at http://demog.state.nc.us. As with any population forecast, if the birth, death, or migration assumptions used change significantly over time, the validity and accuracy of this forecast will be endangered. The NCSDO does not make population forecasts for areas smaller than counties. Holland Consulting Planners, therefore, has developed the following analysis of population trends to develop the municipal population forecast found in Table 22 below. These forecasts rely on the existing corporate limit line and do not speculate on annexations. City of Washington 47 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions C. Income, Employment and Economy Summary • The City of Washington is far below regional and statewide averages for all measures of income and economic well-being. • The per capita (per person) income for the City of Washington in the year 2000 was $14,319, well below the statewide average of $20,307. • The median income for households (related and non -related individuals) in the City was $22,057 and for families (related persons only) it was $30,208, well below the statewide averages of $39,184 and $46, 335, respectively. • Approximately 43% of all children under the age of 18 in the City and approximately 19% of persons over the age of 65 live below the Federally -defined poverty level. • Average household and family incomes in the City are highly correlated with race and family status, as is the case statewide and nationwide. • African -American persons in the City were over 4 times as likely to live below the Federal poverty line than white persons (48.7% versus 11.2%). • The total number of employed persons and the total number of persons participating in the labor force decreased slightly in the City between 1990 and 2000. • The total number of persons employed in manufacturing in the City declined by almost 50% from 1990 to 2000 - from 1,048 to 528. • The total number persons employed in non -manufacturing activities, especially food service, accommodations and retail sales, increased from 1990 to 2000. City of Washington 46 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 20. Establishments and Retail Sales, City of Washington and Beaufort County, 1992 and 1997 % of Total for Beaufort County City of Washington in City of Washington Beaufort County Manufacturing Establishments 45 69.23 65 Retail Trade Establishments 161 68.80 234 Professional, Scientific and Technical 50 83.33 60 Services Establishments Administrative, Support and Waste 17 85.00 20 Management Services Establishments Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 9 75.00 12 Establishments Accommodations and Food Services 51 75.00 68 Establishments Retail Sales, 1992 $181,582,000 67.31 $269,758,000 Retail Sales, 1997 $244,021,000 63.21 $386,040,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. b. Commuting Patterns As indicated by Table 21 below, the vast majority of the working persons in the City of Washington work in and near the City. For example, approximately 69% of all workers that do not work at home commute less than 19 minutes to work each way. Alternatively, however, this data does suggest that a substantial minority (14.3%) of workers commute over 34 minutes - probably to Greenville or New Bern for professional jobs that are more available in these locations. Table 21. Travel Time to Work, City of Washington, 2000 TRAVEL TIME TO WORK Total % of Total Workers who did not work at home 3,226 100.0 Less than 10 minutes 1,089 33.8 10 to 14 minutes 826 25.6 15 to 19 minutes 312 9.7 20 to 24 minutes 152 4.7 25 to 29 minutes 103 3.2 30 to 34 minutes 281 8.7 35 to 44 minutes 143 4.4 45 to 59 minutes 182 5.6 60 to 89 minutes 91 2.8 90 or more minutes 47 1.5 Mean travel time to work (minutes) 18.5 (X) Source: U.S. Census Bureau. City of Washington 45 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 19. Major Manufacturers in or near the City of Washington, 2004 Approximate # of Name of Manufacturer Product(s) Manufactured Employees National Spinning Co., Inc. Textiles 289 Pamlico Apparel Services Apparel 20 Coeur Medical, Inc. Plastics 85 Stanadyne, Inc. Diesel Components 375 Stitchworks Apparel 15 Maxwell Industries Injection Molding 10 Camfil Farr Filters 71 Carver Machine Works Fabrication and Machining 60 Prettl Noma Systems Injection Molding 75 Weir Valves Valves 51 Coca-Cola Bottling Soft Drinks 19 Coastal Industries Truck Bodies / Emergency Support Vehicles 33 Flanders Filters, Inc. Filters 270 Fountain Power Boats Power Boats 352 Frischkorn, Inc. Pipes 24 Hackney and Sons, Inc. Truck Bodies 80 Mason Lumber Company Lumber 28 Source: Beaufort County Economic Development Commission. This phenomenon - of much of the employment based in the City of Washington being taken by non -City residents - appears to extend to many other industries (see Table 20 below). Simply stated, the City of Washington is a hub for goods and services County -wide, but much of the economic and employment benefits accrue to non -citizens of the City. For example, the City has approximately 20% of the County population, but 69% of its manufacturing establishments, 69% of its retail establishments, 63% of its retail sales, and 83% of its professional service firms (see Table 20). Taken together, these facts indicate that the City has done an excellent job of providing infrastructure needed for growth of the commercial and industrial sectors and of attracting and retaining retail and manufacturing establishments, which significantly enhance the City's tax base and contribute significantly to its growth. The benefits of this economic base, however, accrue disproportionately to non -citizens of the City of Washington. City of Washington 44 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 18. Employment and Wages, by Sector (Fourth Quarter, 2003) for Beaufort County and North Carolina Beaufort County North Carolina Avg Wkly Avg Wkly Employment and Wages, by Sector Avg Emp % Total Wage Avg Emp % Total Wage Total All Industries 16,621 100.0 $543 3,761,541 100.0 $679 Total Government 3,140 18.9 $616 649,907 17.3 $753 Total Private Industry 13,481 81.1 $537 3,111,634 82.7 $677 Agriculture Forestry Fishing & Hunting 395 2.4 $587 30,466 0.8 $496 Mining ' ' 3,956 0.1 $1,031 Utilities ' 14,892 0.4 $1,136 Construction 698 4.2 $578 214,248 5.7 $693 Manufacturing 3,369 20.3 $782 586,985 15.6 $801 Wholesale Trade 512 3.1 $622 163,875 4.4 $960 Retail Trade 2,271 13.7 $364 450,021 12.0 $439 Transportation and Warehousing 573 3.4 $586 133,589 3.6 $732 Information 248 1.5 $569 76,176 2.0 $928 Finance and Insurance 389 2.3 $648 139,874 3.7 $1,049 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 93 0.6 $541 47,173 1.3 $638 Professional and Technical Services 273 1.6 $727 148,766 4.0 $1,095 Management of Companies and " 60,925 1.6 $1,332 Enterprises Administrative and Waste Services 743 4.5 $295 216,759 5.8 $460 Educational Services 1,713 10.3 $548 348,638 9.3 $655 Health Care and Social Assistance 2,250 13.5 $555 459,599 12.2 $716 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 121 0.7 $246 48,301 1.3 $558 Accommodation and Food Services 1,165 7.0 $189 296,012 7.9 $241 Other Services Ex. Public Admin 463 2.8 $442 97,123 2.6 $453 Public Administration 1,258 7.6 $568 216,304 5.8 $692 Unclassified 28 0.2 $410 7,859 0.2 $635 "Not reported at the County or City level. Source: N.C. Department of Commerce. Finally, the vast majority of the large manufacturing concerns in Beaufort County are in the City or in directly adjacent areas (see Tables 19 and 20). The implication of this fact is that a large number of the manufacturing jobs based in the City of Washington - approximately 86%, or 2,841 of 3,369, of all manufacturing jobs - are taken by citizens who live outside of the City of Washington, in unincorporated Beaufort County, other Beaufort County municipalities or in adjacent Counties. City of Washington 43 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 17. Employment Statistics by Type of Industry for the City of Washington, 1990 and 2000 Employment Statistic City of Washington, 1990 City of Washington, 2000 Total Employed Persons (Age 16+) 3,704 3,479 Total Unemployed Persons (Age 16+) 309 474 Total Labor Force Participation 4,013 3,953 Total Population 9,160 9,619 Labor Force Participation Rate (%) 43.81 41.10 Implied Unemployment Rate (%) 7.70 11.99 Persons Engaged in Manufacturing Employment 1,048 528 Persons Engaged in Non -Manufacturing Employment 2,656 2,951 Percentage of Total Employed Workforce Engaged in 28.29 15.18 Manufacturing Employment Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Historically, manufacturing has been the base of the City of Washington's economy and a chief source of employment. While manufacturing remains a very significant contributor to the City's economy, and produces (on average) the highest weekly wages of any industry, manufacturing has decreased as a percentage of overall employment in the City since 1990 (see Tables 17 and 18). While the total percentage of employees in manufacturing has decreased, the total number of employees in retail trade has increased since 1990 (see Table 18). Unfortunately, retail trade jobs pay, on average, approximately 45% ($364 per week versus $782 per week) of what the average manufacturing job does on a weekly basis. It is also noteworthy that the total number of jobs in manufacturing in Beaufort County is still significant and represents a much higher percentage of all jobs County -wide than the State average (20.3% versus 15.6% as of December, 2003 - see Table 18). City of Washington 42 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions As Table 15 indicates, income in the City of Washington is highly correlated with family status, as is the case regionally, Statewide and nationally. For example, the median income of families (i.e., 2 or more related individuals living together) in the City was $30,280, while for households (i.e., all households including single individuals and unrelated persons living together in one housing unit) was $22,057. This phenomenon is particularly relevant to the City of Washington, however, due to the relatively large number of non -family households in the City (see Section V(B)(1)(e) above). Sadly, income and poverty status are also correlated with race, both in the City of Washington, regionally, statewide, and nationally. This is another phenomenon particularly relevant to the City, due to the large disparity between the poverty status of white citizens and African -American citizens combined with the large number of African -American residents of the City (see Table 16). Table 16. Income and poverty statistics for the City of Washington, Beaufort County and the State of North Carolina, 1990 and 2000 Number of African -American Persons in Poverty Percentage of Total African - American Persons in Poverty Number of White Persons in Poverty Percentage of Total White Persons in Poverty Source: 1990 and 2000 US Census. City of Washington Beaufort County State of North Carolina 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1,698 2,089 4,849 4,997 377,109 379,349 41.99% 48.66% 37.21 % 38.23% 27.09% 22.89% 650 526 3,217 3,442 419,479 477,510 14.14% 11.22% 11.30% 11.36% 8.65% 8.45% 2. Employment and Economy a. Total Employment and Employment by Sector The total number of employed persons and the total number of persons participating in the labor force decreased in the City between 1990 and 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A primary explanation for this phenomenon is the reduction in the total number of persons engaged in manufacturing employment by approximately 50% (see Table 17 below). City of Washington 41 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing, and Emerg,ing, Conditions • The City has an average of 2.3 persons -per -household, just below the state average of 2.49 persons per household, due largely to the large number of elderly homeowners and renters living along in the City. • While the City has made great strides in improving housing quality through the procurement of Federal and State community development funds and the repair or replacement of deteriorated housing units, there are still substantial concentrations of substandard housing in the City. C. Income, Employment, and Economy 1. Income and Poverty Status The City of Washington is far below the regional and Statewide averages for all measures of income and economic well-being. According to the US Census, for example, the City's per capita income (i.e., total income divided by total residents) was $14,319 compared to $20,307 statewide and $16,722 for Beaufort County. As a result, the City has 42.8% of its children under the age of 18 and 19.3% of its elderly citizens below the Federally defined poverty level (see Table 15 below). Table 15. Income and poverty statistics for the City of Washington, the City of New Bern, the City of Greenville, Beaufort County and the Town of Beaufort, 1999 Income below poverty level % of population for whom poverty status is determined Median earnings of Median income full-time workers Related Per children House- Capita under 18 65 years % of Geographic area holds Families Income Male Female All ages years 8 over families State of North Carolina $39,184 $46,335 $20,307 $32,132 $24,978 12.3% 15.7% 13.2% 9.0% City of Washington $22,057 $30,280 $14,319 $26,053 $21,641 28.7% 42.8% 19.3% 23.3% City of New Bern $29,139 $38,990 $18,499 $28,720 $21,687 19.4% 29.4% 14.1% 14.7% City of Greenville $28,648 $44,491 $18,476 $31,847 $26,324 26.1% 24.1% 20.4% 15.6% Town of Beaufort $28,763 $39,429 $19,356 $30,859 $22,955 16.6% 35.0% 10.4% 13.3% Beaufort County $31,066 $37,893 $16,722 $30,483 $21,339 19.5% 27.6% 19.3% 15.2% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000. City of Washington 40 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and EmerQinQ Conditions • Floyd - Washington Arms Buyout ($944,000 including $352,000 from the city, match coordinated with the comprehensive plan for Jack's Creek. • Floyd Single -Family Buyout ($1.2 million - 27 structures, application coordinated with comprehensive planning effort). • Floyd/SARF Relocation Assistance ($960,000 - assistance to households displaced by Floyd buyout activity). • Floyd Crisis Housing Assistance ($900,000 - 19 units). • Northgate Subdivision Improvements - $1.6 million. 2. Summary of Housing Characteristics • The City of Washington had 4,399 housing units as of the 2000 US Census. • The City has approximately 677 housing units per square mile, giving the City a density greater than that of the nearby City of New Bern and Town of Edenton and comparable to the Town of Beaufort. • Approximately 90.2%, or 3,968, of the total housing units in the City were occupied in 2000, with the remainder vacant - comparable to state as a whole and similar to 1990 for the City. • The City experienced a net increase of 526 housing units 1990 to 2000, representing a 13.6% increase. • The vast majority (88.2%) of owner -occupied housing units were single- family detached homes in 2000. • The majority of renter -occupied units (64.5%) in the City in 2000 were multi -family units (attached one -family or 2 or more family units). • Approximately 17% of the City's housing stock was built before 1939 and approximately 44.4% was built before 1959 - far greater than the statewide average (approximately 7% and 22% respectively). • The availability of essential facilities and services, such as plumbing, kitchen and potable water are nearly universal (over 99%) in the City's housing units - better than the state and regional average. City of Washington 39 Core Land Use Plan City of Washington Land Use Plan MAP 6 Subbasin and 14 Digit Hydrologic Code The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided v by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of `n Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National 0 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Legend City of Washington (Planning Area) C3Beaufort County Hydrology O 14-Digit Hydrologic Code Tar-Pamilico River Basin NC River Basins Subbasins 03-03-05 03-03-06 03-03-07 The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Floodplains in the City can be broken down into "A zone" areas and "floodway areas." A "floodway" is the channel of a river or stream, and the overbank areas adjacent to the channel. This is the area where water flows are fastest and deepest and development is strictly prohibited in these areas under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). An "A zone" is a riverine area with greater than 1% chance per year of flooding that is not a floodway. Flood hazard areas are depicted graphically on Map 7 and characterized in Table 24. The following defines the flood zones: Zone AE. Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the one percent annual chance floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods of analysis. In most instances, base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. Zone AEFW (Floodway). The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the one percent annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Zone Shaded X. The shaded area includes the flood insurance rate zones that correspond to areas outside the one percent annual chance floodplain, areas of one percent annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than one foot, areas of one percent annual chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage is less than one square mile, or areas protected from the one percent annual chance flood by levees. No base flood elevations or depths are shown in this zone. Flood insurance purchase is not required in these zones. Table 24. Land Area by SFHA in the City of Washington, 2005 Corporate Limits ETJ Entire Planning Area % of Total % of Total % of Total Flood Hazard Areas Acres Land Area Acres Land Area Acres Land Area AE 2,132.55 38.6% 5,680.57 38.2% 7,813.17 38.3% AEFW 107.51 1.9% 246.26 1.7% 353.91 1.7% Shaded X 576.10 10.4% 582.24 3.9% 1,158.34 5.7% TOTAL 2,816.16 50.9% 6,509.06 43.8% 9,325.42 45.8% Source: Holland Consulting Planners and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). City of Washington 54 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions b. Climate The climate of Beaufort County is mild throughout the year. Summers are generally hotter and humid, but sea breezes frequently cool the area. Winter is mild with brief cold spells. Rainfall is frequent throughout the year, but is heaviest in the late summer. Relevant climate statistics for the City are provided in Table 23 below. Table 23. Climatic Conditions by Month at Washington, NC Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Average temp. ff) 42 44.4 51.9 59.9 67.9 75.2 79.2 77.8 72.6 61.8 53.3 45.2 High temperature ff) 52.3 55.2 63.1 71.7 78.7 85.3 88.8 87.3 82.5 73.2 64.7 55.9 Low temperature ff) 31.6 33.5 40.7 48.2 57 65 69.5 68.2 62.6 50.4 41.7 34.4 Precipitation (in) 4.1 3.4 4.2 3.4 4.2 4.3 5.5 5.4 5.1 3.5 3.0 3.0 Days with precip. 11 10 11 9 10 9 12 11 9 8 9 10 Wind speed (mph) 10.2 10.4 10.8 10.5 9.5 9.1 8.6 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.7 Morning humidity (%) 80 79 80 79 83 85 87 88 87 86 83 81 Afternoon humidity (%) 62 59 57 54 60 63 65 66 64 60 59 61 Sunshine (%) 51 54 61 66 63 64 63 62 62 61 57 51 Days clear of clouds 9 9 10 10 9 7 7 8 10 12 11 10 Partly cloudy days 7 5 7 9 10 11 11 11 9 8 8 7 Cloudy days 16 14 14 11 13 12 13 12 11 12 12 14 Snowfall (in) 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Source: State Climate Office of North Carolina. C. Flood Zones (Refer to natural hazards policies and implementing actions, pages 202 to 204.) Approximately 84% of Washington and 87% of the area in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) lies within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). A SFHA is defined as a land area with a greater than 1 % chance per year of flooding and is also known as a "floodplain." SFHA are indicated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), which are considered the most reliable and consistent source for delineating SFHAs and are the source used to determine whether or not the purchase of flood insurance is mandatory for developed properties with mortgages. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a home located within an SFHA has a 26% chance of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. City of Washington 53 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions What are the CCPCUA Water Withdrawal Rules? The Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules took effect on August 1, 2002, administered by the NC Division of Water Resources. The rules regulate water withdrawals within a 15-county area of east - central North Carolina, including the City of Washington. Who Must Comply with the Rules? All those within the region who withdraw more than 10,000 gallons per day of groundwater and/or surface water. What Does the New Rule Require? * Users of more than 10,000 gallons per day of groundwater and/or surface water must register and report their annual water use. * Users of more than 100,000 gallons per day of groundwater must apply for a water use permit, and those permitted users of the Cretaceous Aquifer System in critical areas must reduce withdrawals in staged amounts over the next 16 years (at years 6, 11, and 16). * Well pump intakes must be placed above the top of the aquifer from which water is withdrawn. * Permitted users must monitor and report water levels and withdrawal amounts to the State. * Owners of mines, sandpits, and quarries are required to apply for withdrawal permits and develop dewatering or depressurization monitoring plans. (Source: NC Rural Center) City of Washington 52 Because of the concerns regarding salt water intrusion and aquifer recharge rates, approximately 2,500 square miles of the Castle Hayne aquifer, including the portion underlying Beaufort County, have been designated as a capacity use area by the NC Groundwater Section due primarily to large groundwater withdrawals by the PCS Phosphate mine near Aurora and to increased withdrawals associated with urban development. A capacity use area is defined as an area where the use of water resources threatens to exceed the replenishment ability to the extent that regulation may be required (see text box to the left). According to DWR Hydrologist Nat Wilson, since PCS Phosphate shifted its mining operations and decreased pumping activities from approximately 68 MGD in 1990 to 35 MGD in 2003, the cone of depression centered on the mine has Lessened, showing that the aquifer is capable of recharging itself fairly quickly. Wilson said these developments indicate that it may be possible to manage the resources of the Castle Hayne aquifer by methods other than limiting withdrawals (Source: Water Resources Research Institute). In any case, however, salt water intrusion will continue to be a serious problem confronting the City, and must be closely monitored. Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The City of Washington (and all of Beaufort County) are underlain by a thick wedge of sedimentary deposits of the Pleistocene era. The Castle Hayne aquifer underlays the City of Washington and serves as the source of its water supply. The primary ramifications of the City's topography and geology are: 1) The flat, low-lying topography of the City coupled with its location directly on the Pamlico Sound exposes the City to significant risks from hurricanes and other tropical/extra-tropical weather systems and the potential impacts of sea level rise. Flooding resulting from sea level rise may be a long-term problem for the City of Washington. Over the last 100 years, the sea level has risen approximately one foot. Most experts agree that the rate of sea level rise will increase over the next 100 years. The most reliable current estimate of sea level rise over the next century is approximately two feet, with a maximum increase of as much as four to seven feet (Source: The Probability of Sea Level Rise. James G. Titus and Vijay Narayanan. 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 186 pp. EPA 230-R95-008). An increase of that magnitude (i.e., four to seven feet) would be a serious problem for Washington. Approximately 25% or more of the City could be inundated. For this reason, the rate of sea level rise should be carefully monitored. 2) The aforementioned Castle Hayne aquifer, because of its geological composition, is susceptible to salt water intrusion. This condition is exacerbated by the expected sea level rise described above. City of Washington Salt water is present in the eastern portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer. The top of the salt water ranges from 250 to 800 feet below ground surface. There does not appear to be any impermeable strata separating the fresh and salt water. The US Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune in Onslow County, the City of Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County, and the PCS Phosphate mining operations in Beaufort County have witnessed increases in chloride concentrations in groundwater which had been fresh water. 51 Core Land Use Plan i r; \ Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions One of the greatest threats of flooding in the City of Washington is from storm surge. The majority of Washington's land area lies below ten feet above mean sea level and is potentially subject to storm surge related flooding. Storm surge is ocean overwash associated with hurricanes or other tropical or extra - tropical weather events. Map 8 shows the general areas of Washington which may be affected by hurricane -generated storm surge based on the SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which computes storm surge heights from tropical cyclones, such as hurricanes. The SLOSH model estimates the extent of storm surge inundation for "fast-moving" storms (forward velocity greater than 15 miles per hour) and for "slow -moving" storms (forward velocity less than 15 mph). Table 25 provides a tabular representation of the areas in the City inundated by storm surge flooding at different category events. Table 25. Storm Surge Inundation at Different Magnitude Storm Events for the City of Washington based on SLOSH Model Corporate Limits ETJ % of Total City % of Total ETJ Fast Storm Inundation Acres Land Area Acres Land Area Category 1/2 884.6 38.3% 4,224.7 67.3% Category 3 1,851.1 80.2% 4,881.2 77.8% Category 4/5 2,309.0 100.0% 6,275.3 93.0% Corporate Limits ETJ % of Total City % of Total ETJ Slow Storm Inundation Acres Land Area Acres Land Area Category 1/2 1,385.2 60.0% 4,678.2 69.2% Category 3 2,109.0 91.3% 6,295.0 93.1% Category 4/5 2,309.0 100.0% 6,754.8 100.0% Source: Holland Consulting Planners and NOAA. City of Washington 56 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The various categories of storm surge areas and a description of expected damages are provided below: Category 1. Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour. Damage primarily to shrubbery, trees, foliage, and unanchored mobile homes. No appreciable wind damage to other structures. Some damage to poorly constructed signs. Storm surge possibly 4 to 5 feet above normal. Low-lying roads inundated, minor pier damage, some small craft in exposed anchorage torn from moorings. Category 2. Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour. Considerable damage to shrubbery and tree foliage; some trees blown down. Major damage to exposed mobile homes. Extensive damage to poorly constructed signs. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. No major wind damage to buildings. Storm surge possibly 6 to 8 feet above normal. Coastal roads and low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 2 to 4 hours before arrival of hurricane center. Considerable damage to piers. Marinas flooded. Small craft in unprotected anchorages torn from moorings. Evacuation of some shoreline residences and low-lying island areas required. Category 3. Winds of 111 to 130 miles per hour. Foliage torn from trees; large trees blown down. Practically all poorly constructed signs blown down. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. Some structural damage to small buildings. Mobile homes destroyed. Storm surge possibly 9 to 12 feet above normal. Serious flooding at coast and many smaller structures near coast destroyed; larger structures near coast damaged by battering waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Category 4. Winds of 131 to 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down; all signs down. Extensive damage to roofing materials, windows, and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many small residences. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Storm surge possibly 13 to 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of structures near shore due to flooding and battering by waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Major erosion of beaches. Category 5. Winds greater than 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down; considerable damage to roofs of buildings; all signs down. Very severe and extensive damage to windows and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many residences and industrial buildings. Extensive shattering of glass in windows City of Washington 58 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions and doors. Some complete building failures. Small buildings overturned or blown away. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Storm surge possibly greater than 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of all structures less than 15 feet above sea level. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. It should be noted that the above data regarding storm surge presumes a "direct hit" by the eye of the storm at Washington. Actual inundation areas, damages, and impacts will likely be less severe than the model if the City receives a "glancing blow" from a storm. Washington also experiences intermittent flooding from high intensity rainfall and storm water runoff. The soil associations shown on Map 9 (page 63) provide an indication of the locations of high water table areas. The water table depths, flooding frequency, and permeability rates for various soil types are provided in Section (V)(E)(1)(e). d. Man -Made Hazards/Restrictions There are two primary man-made hazards in the City, all related to the City's position as a regional hub of manufacturing and commerce. These are Tier II facilities and Underground Storage Tanks (UST). These hazards are described below. (1) Tier II Facilities Facilities covered by the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act (EPCRA) must report the characteristics and quantities of chemicals stored on -site as well as emergency contact information by the first day of March every year. This information, known as Tier II reporting, is submitted to the State Emergency Response Commission, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the fire department with jurisdiction over the facility. Once information is submitted by the facility, it must be reviewed and filed at the state and county levels. In general, facilities that have Tier II reporting requirements contain materials that can be mildly to extremely (depending on the specific chemical) dangerous if mishandled, spilled, or burned. Such facilities should generally be located away from residential and retail City of Washington 59 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions commercial land uses. Table 26 provides a listing of Tier II facilities in the City that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) characterizes as Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) under Section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act. Table 26. Tier II Facilities in the City of Washington, 2003 Facility Name Facility Address City of Washington Wastewater Plant 250 Plymouth Street City of Washington Regional Water Plant 550 Wells Avenue Stanadyne Automotive Corporation 230 Clark's Neck Road Royster Clark, Inc. 933 West 3rd Street Hackney and Sons 400 Hackney Avenue Flanders Filters 531 Flanders Filters Road Sprint Communication 135 West 2n' Street National Spinning West 3rd Street Extension Jenkins, the Energy Company 613 Grimes Street D.S. Swain Gas Company 1851 Carolina Avenue F. Ray Moore Oil Co. 189 Cherry Lane Road The Pantry, Inc. Corner of 5`h and Bridge Streets Source: City of Washington Fire/Rescue/EMS; and Beaufort County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). (2) Underground Storage Tanks (UST) A significant man-made hazard located in Washington are fuel storage tanks located at marinas, retail stores and service stations that are engaged in selling fuel. Because the City relies on groundwater for its water supply, the underground fuel tanks could pose a threat. There are 465 facilities with underground storage tanks registered with the Groundwater Section of the North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the City or ETJ. North Carolina's underground storage tank (UST) program is administered by the Division of Waste Management's UST Section in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The UST Section enforces UST regulations and manages funds used to perform cleanups of petroleum UST discharges or releases. The program was initiated in 1988 in response to growing reports of LISTS leaking petroleum into soil and drinking water supplies. All tank removal and City of Washington W Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions efforts to remove ground and groundwater contamination should be coordinated with the UST Section of DENR. The following should be accomplished concerning potential releases from home heating oil underground storage tanks: » The NCDENR Washington Regional Office Underground Storage Tank (UST) Section recommends removal of any abandoned or out -of -use underground storage tanks within the project area. The UST Section should be contacted regarding use of any proposed or on - site USTs. Any above -ground fuel tanks must be installed and maintained in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. » Any chemical or petroleum spills must be contained and the area of impact must be properly restored. Spills of significant quantity must be reported to the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, in the Washington Regional Office. Any soils excavated during demolition or construction that show evidence of chemical or petroleum contamination, such as stained soil, odors or free product must be reported immediately to the local Fire Marshall to determine whether explosion or inhalation hazards exist. Also notify the UST Section of the Washington Regional Office. Any questions or concerns regarding USTs should be directed to the UST Section. There was no offshore oil exploration or drilling underway in 2005. However, future exploration and/or drilling could pose a threat for the Washington shoreline if it were to occur. Presently there are seven known hazardous waste sites identified in the City of Washington. These subject sites are described as follows: • the Old Beaufort County landfill site (NCD 986 166 734); • the Flanders filters site (NCD 045 922 986); City of Washington 61 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • the Washington Coal Gas Plant site (NCD 986 197 275); • the National Spinning Co. site (NCD 003 196 847); • the FCX Inc. site (NCD 981 475 932); • the Stanadyne Inc. site (NCD 091 567 065); • the Perkins Auto Body Shop site (NONCD 000 1055) Both the Old Beaufort County landfill site and the Stanadyne site have been removed from the CERCLIS list. (The CERCLIS is a database that displays site information for National Priorities List sites.) The landfill site is on the NC Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Priority List. The IHSB has granted the Stanadyne site a No Further Action status. The Flanders filters site is undergoing remediation under the guidance of the US EPA, Region IV. The FCX site is listed on the National Priorities List and is undergoing remedial action. The Flanders site is on the IHSB Priority List. The FCX site has not yet been addressed by the IHSB. The National Spinning site has a federal status of No Further Remedial Action Planned and is on the IHSB Priority List. The Washington Coal Gas site is undergoing remediation under the Manufactured Gas Plant Initiative. The Perkins Auto Body site is solely under the IHSB jurisdiction and has been granted a No Further Action status. e. Soils A detailed soils survey of Beaufort County was completed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 1983. This survey was made to provide information about the soils in Beaufort County. The information includes a description of the soils and their location, and a discussion of the suitability, limitations, and management of the soils for specified uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of slopes; the general pattern of drainage; and the kinds of crops and native plants growing on the soils. Based on that survey, there are 30 different soils types located within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction. These soil types, as well as prime farmland soils, are delineated on Map 9 and their conditions for site development are provided in Table 27. Most of the soils within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction are hydric soils that are prone to flooding and thus present constraints to development. City of Washington 62 Core Land Use Plan fit �44 Ol Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 27. City of Washington, Building Site Development Soil Features, Prevalence of Soil Types, and Prime Farmland Soils Map Symbol and Soil Dwellings Without Local Roads Lawns and % of Total Name Basements and Streets Landscaping Acres Planning Area AaA*, AbA*** - Moderate: wetness Moderate: wetness, Moderate: wetness 1,770.7 8.69% Altavista low strength Ap**- Arapahoe Fine Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness 232.5 1.14% Sandy Loam At** - Augusta Severe: wetness Moderate: wetness, Moderate: wetness 334.3 1.64% low strength BoB*** - Bonneau Slight Slight Moderate: droughty 22.1 0.11% CnB - Conetoe Slight Slight Moderate: droughty 127.4 0.63% CrA, CrB*, CsC2 - Moderate: wetness, Severe: low Slight 3,435.5 16.86% Craven shrink -swell strength Ct - Croatan Muck Severe: wetness, low Severe: wetness Severe: too acid, 54.2 0.27% strength wetness Cu - Currituck Severe: flooding, Severe: ponding, Severe: ponding, 213.7 1.05% ponding, low flooding flooding, excess strength humus DgB* - Dellwood Moderate: wetness, Severe: low Moderate: wetness 7.4 0.04% Gravelly Fine Sandy shrink -swell strength Loam Do - Dorovan Severe: subsides, Severe: subsides, Severe: ponding, 2,206.9 10.83% flooding, ponding ponding, flooding flooding, excess humus Ds*** - Dragston Severe: wetness Moderate: wetness Moderate: wetness, 90.2 0.44% droughty GoA* - Goldsboro Moderate: wetness Moderate: wetness Slight 746.0 3.66% La- Leaf Severe: wetness, Severe: shrink- Severe: wetness 1,404.6 6.89% shrink -swell swell, low strength, wetness Le*** - Lenoir Severe: wetness Severe: low Moderate: wetness 1,770.9 8.69% strength Ly**- Lynchburg Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness 635.6 3.12% Me - Muckalee Severe: flooding, Severe: flooding, Severe: flooding, 1,099.7 5.40% wetness wetness wetness Pm - Pits Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness 24.1 0.12% Pt** - Portsmouth Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness 23.2 0.11% Ra** - Rains Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness 116.2 0.57% Ro - Roanoke silt Severe: wetness Severe: low Severe: wetness 1.4 0.01% loam strength, wetness Sb, Se - Seabrook Moderate: wetness Moderate: wetness Severe: droughty 1,005.6 4.93% StA* - State Slight Moderate: low Slight 677.4 3.32% strength TaB - Tarboro Slight Slight Moderate: too 1,316.9 6.46% sandy, droughty To** - Tomotley Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness 313.1 1.54% Ur - Urban Land N/A 946.8 4.65% WtD - Wynott-Ehon Severe: wetness, Severe: slope Severe: slope 47.1 0.23% complex slope *Prime farmland soils. **Prime farmland soils, if drained. ***Farmland of statewide importance. Source: Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina, USDA/NRCS, 1983. City of Washington 64 Core Land Use Plan f. Water Supply As mentioned above, the City of Washington relies on groundwater for its water supply (see adjacent text box for discussion of groundwater). The Castle Hayne Aquifer is a limestone aquifer that underlays the City (and much of Eastern North Carolina) and serves as the source of its water supply. Eight wells have been installed into the aquifer between 5 and 10 miles east of the City, and water for the City Water System is pumped from these wells to the City's Regional Water Treatment Plan located near the Douglas Cross Roads community. The Castle Hayne Aquifer is the most productive aquifer in the state. It is primarily limestone and sand. The Castle Hayne Aquifer is noted for its thickness (more than 300 feet in places) and the ease of water movement within it, both of which contribute to high well yields. It lies fairly close to the surface toward the south and west, deepening rapidly toward the east. Chloride content exceeds 250 parts per million east of a line between Gates and Beaufort counties. Water in the Castle Hayne aquifer ranges from hard to very hard because of its limestone Section V - Analysis of Existing, and Emerging Conditions Groundwater - What Is it? The ground beneath our feet is not completely solid. It is more like a sponge with pores of many shapes and sizes. When rain falls, it soaks into the ground and moves throughout this pore space. Pore space may account for up to 50 percent of the total volume of some soils. Near the soil surface, in the unsaturated zone, the pores contain a combination of air and water. Further down is the saturated zone where all of the pore space is filled with water. This water is called groundwater. The water table is the boundary between the saturated zone and the unsaturated zone. A well must reach down below the water table, into the saturated zone, to obtain groundwater. Groundwater Aquifers and Confining Beds The word aquifer comes from the Latin for "water bearing" and is used for any geologic formation that contains water in sufficient quantity and with sufficient mobility to be useful as a water source (for example, a layer of sand or gravel). When water mobility is very limited (such as in a layer of clay or silt), the formation is called a confining bed or an aquitard. Recharge and Discharge Aquifer recharge is the movement of water from the surface down into an aquifer. In a recharge area, the net movement of water is downward. Recharge usually occurs in the upland areas between streams. On the other hand, a discharge area is an area where the net movement of water is toward the surface. Groundwater discharge usually occurs in low areas close to streams and through the banks and beds of streams. (Source: Rodney L. Huffman, Publication Number AG- 450, NC Cooperative Extension Service, 1996) composition. Iron concentrations tend to be high near recharge areas but decrease as the water moves further through the limestone. City of Washington 65 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions At Washington, the Castle Hayne aquifer is subject to salt water intrusion. Because of the potential for salt water intrusion, approximately 2,500 square miles of the Castle Hayne Aquifer, including the portion underlying Beaufort County, have been designated as a capacity use area (CCPCUA, see page 52) by the NC Groundwater Section due to large groundwater withdrawals in the Central Coastal Plain. As mentioned on page 52, a capacity use area is defined as an area where the use of water resources threatens to exceed the replenishment ability to the extent that regulation may be required. Therefore, wells are not permitted to pump more than 2.018 million gallons per day, as permitted under CCPCUA. Exacerbating the risk of salt water intrusion are declining water levels in the Castle Hayne Aquifer. These declining water levels are due to dewatering activities attributable to industrial activities, particularly mining, and urbanization in areas that overlay the aquifer, particularly those areas west and north of Washington such as Kinston, Goldsboro, Greenville, and New Bern (see page 52 for additional information on this phenomenon). Water levels in the Cretaceous and Upper Aquifers, aquifers above and adjacent to the Castle Hayne, are declining between one and nine feet per year, on average (Source: George Kunkel, "Groundwater Supply in Coastal North Carolina", 2000) (see Figure 3). a 0 Declining water level zone Dewatering zone Salt water encroachment xtLt Vll ov ov !L � T e r 77 �OYF ............ ,. ,:._.. ,,..... c rexer Iljriiii4ltu=ai�_�' LtiL A R L A Figure 3: Capacity Use Area and Areas of Declining Water Quantity and/or Quality in the Central Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Source: NC Division of Water Quality) City of Washington 66 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions As the above graphic indicates, salt water encroachment, dewatering and declining water levels are not, at the present time, significant concerns to the City of Washington, but could become so over time without vigilant monitoring and regulation of groundwater supplies, particularly from the Castle Hayne Aquifer. This is particularly true since the August 2004, report from the NC Division of Water Quality entitled "Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Status Report" encourages urbanizing communities in the Coastal Plain to consider developing "alternate aquifers," especially the Castle Hayne, and reducing reliance on the Cretaceous and Upper (Surficial) aquifers referenced above. Any such efforts should be carefully monitored and evaluated for their potential impact on the available water supply in the City of Washington. Municipal water service in the City will be addressed in Section V(G)(1) of this Plan. g. Fragile Areas and Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) (Refer to the natural hazard areas policies and implementing actions, pages 202 to 204.) In coastal North Carolina, fragile areas are considered to include coastal wetlands, ocean beaches and shorelines, estuarine waters and shorelines, public trust areas, complex natural areas, areas sustaining remnant species, unique geological formations, registered natural landmarks, swamps, prime wildlife habitats, areas of excessive slope, areas of excessive erosion, scenic points, archaeological sites, historical sites, and 404 wetlands. While not identified as fragile areas in the 15A NCAC 7H use standards, maritime forest and outstanding resource waters (ORWs) should also be considered fragile areas. The Washington 15A NCAC 7H Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) include coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines, and public trust areas. (1) Coastal Wetlands Coastal Resources Commission's rules define "Coastal Wetlands" as any marsh in the 20 coastal counties (including Beaufort County and Washington) that regularly or occasionally floods by lunar or wind tides, and that includes one or more of the following 10 plant species: City of Washington 67 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Spartina alterniflora: Salt Marsh (Smooth) Cord Grass Juncus roemerianus: Black Needlerush Salicornia spp.: Glasswort Distichlis spicato: Salt (or Spike) Grass Limonium spp.: Sea Lavender Scirpus spp.: Bulrush Cladium jomaicense: Saw Grass Typho spp.: Cattail Spartina patens: Salt Meadow Grass Spartina cynosuroides: Salt Reed or Giant Cord Grass COASTAL WETLAND PLAINT SPECIES r /Y 1f .41J $,n Ih Curd Grnr— ip+rVar ail rrwk,.a) Salt hard �Vr Gk nr Coal) Crass ISyarU"y usurakf-) Siw Ga Srll kiead. Goys ff./arinrm Jarrv:�rm«) (Sj .rnrra pammi) yak Gras �i zi, Str Lwcnder {tinxv�l4m aFtp,) {Sctrpus %PrA ) Figure 4: Coastal Wetland Plant Species in North Carolina (Source: NCDCM, "CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina", 2002) Coastal wetlands provide significant environmental and economic benefits to Washington. They protect against flooding, help maintain water quality, provide habitat to wildlife, and serve as part of the estuarine system described earlier in this plan. City of Washington 68 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing, and Emerging Conditions In 2003, NCDCM classified and mapped coastal wetlands based on an analysis of several existing data sets, including aerial photographs and satellite images of coastal areas in North Carolina, including Washington. Even though the presence of wetlands must be established by an onsite delineation and investigation of plants, NCDCM produced an excellent representation of wetlands in the City, and throughout coastal North Carolina (see Map 10). According to NCDCM's 2003 Coastal Wetlands Inventory, approximately 2.51 % of the City's land area, or 129 acres, were coastal wetlands (see Table 28 below). In the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), almost 22% is coastal wetland, or 3,262 acres (see Table 29 below). Table 28. City of Washington (Within Corporate Limits Only), Coastal Wetlands by Type and Aerial Extent, 2003 Wetland Names Acres % from Total Bottomland Hardwood 18.799 0.370% Cleared Bottomland Hardwood 0.128 0.002% Hardwood Flat 4.976 0.100% Human Impacted 0.915 0.020% Managed Pineland 12.638 0.250% Riverine Swamp Forest 91.039 1.770% Salt/Brackish Marsh 0.551 0.010% TOTAL 129.046 2.510% Source: NCDCM Wetlands Inventory, 2003. Table 29. City of Washington (ETJ Only), Coastal Wetlands by Type and Aerial Extent, 2003 Wetland Names Acres % from Total Bottomland Hardwood 346.774 2.30% Cleared Bottomland Hardwood 8.904 0.06% Cleared Depressional Swamp Forest 0.677 0.004% Cleared Hardwood Flat 0.066 0.0004% Cutover Bottomland Hardwood 8.539 0.06% Cutover Depressional Swamp Forest 0.760 0.01% Cutover Hardwood Flat 0.179 0.001% Cutover Headwater Swamp 0.627 0.004% Cutover Pine Flat 0.005 0.00003% Depressional Swamp Forest 28.520 0.19% (Continued on next page) City of Washington K. Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Wetland Names Acres % from Total Drained Pine Flat 5.320 0.04% Freshwater Marsh 12.942 0.09% Hardwood Flat 75.883 0.50% Headwater Swamp 82.603 0.55% Human Impacted 26.596 0.18% Managed Pineland 82.881 0.55% Pine Flat 80.737 0.54% Riverine Swamp Forest 2,354.236 15.63% Salt/Brackish Marsh 145.735 0.97% TOTAL 3,261.984 21.66% Source: NCDCM Wetlands Inventory, 2003. The following provides the NCDCM descriptions of the various wetland areas found in the City of Washington (source: NCDCM Wetlands Inventory, 2003): • Sa(t/Brackish Marsh. Any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses), as long as this flooding does not include hurricane or tropical storm waters. Coastal wetland plant species include: smooth cordgrass; black needlerush; glasswort; salt grass; sea lavender; salt marsh bullrush; saw grass; cattail; salt meadow cordgrass; and big cordgrass. • Estuarine Shrub/Scrub. Any shrub/scrub dominated community subject to occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach these areas through natural or artificial watercourses). Typical species include wax myrtle and eastern red cedar. • Estuarine Forested. A forested wetland community subject to occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses). Examples include pine -dominated communities with rushes in the understory or fringe swamp communities such as those that occur along the Albemarle and Pamlico sounds. City of Washington 70 Core Land Use Plan .� 44 PEAW ` 4 Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging, Conditions • Maritime Swamp Forest. A forested community characterized by its stunted growth due to the stresses imposed by its proximity to salt spray from the ocean. Typical vegetation includes live oak, red maple, and swamp tupelo. • Freshwater Marsh. Herbaceous areas that are flooded for extended periods during the growing season. Included are marshes within lacustrine systems, managed impoundments, some Carolina Bays, and other non -tidal marshes (i.e., marshes which do not fall into the Salt/Brackish Marsh category). Typical communities include species of sedges, millets, rushes, and grasses that are not specified in the coastal wetland regulations. Also included are giant cane, arrowhead, pickeralweed, arrow arum, smartweed, and cattail. • Bottomland Hardwood. Riverine forested or occasionally shrub/scrub communities, usually occurring in floodplains, that are seasonally flooded. Typical species include oaks (overcup, water, laurel, swamp chestnut), sweet gum, green ash, cottonwoods, willows, river birch, and occasionally pines. • Swamp Forest. Very poorly drained riverine or non-riverine forested or occasionally shrub/scrub communities which are semi - permanently flooded, including temporarily flooded depressional systems. Typical species include cypress, black gum, water tupelo, green ash, and red maple. • Headwater Swamp. Wooded, riverine systems along first order streams. These include hardwood dominated communities with soil that is moist most of the year. Channels receive their water from overland flow and rarely overflow their own banks. • Hardwood Flat. Poorly drained interstream flats not associated with rivers or estuaries. Seasonally saturated by high water table or poor drainage. Species vary greatly but often include sweet gum and red maple. City of Washington 72 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • Pine Flat. Freshwater, seasonally saturated pine communities on hydric soils that may become quite dry for part of the year. Generally occur in flat or nearly flat areas that are not associated with a river or stream system. Usually dominated by loblolly pine. This category does not include managed pine systems. • Managed Pineland. Seasonally saturated, managed pine forests (usually loblolly pine) occurring on hydric soils. Since this category is based primarily on soils data and 30 meter resolution satellite imagery, it is less accurate than the other wetland categories. • Human Impacted (w-type 40). Areas of human impact have physically disturbed the wetland, but the area is still a wetland. Impoundments and some cutovers are included in this category, as well as other disturbed areas, such as power lines. • Partially Drained Wetland. Any wetland system described above that is, or has been, effectively drained (according to the National Wetlands Inventory). • Cutover Wetland. Areas for which satellite imagery indicates a lack of vegetation in 1994. These areas are likely to still be wetlands; however, they have been recently cut over. Vegetation in these areas may be regenerating naturally, or the area may be in use for silvicultural activities. Note that marshes cannot be considered cutover. • Cleared Wetland. Areas of hydric soils for which satellite imagery indicates a lack of vegetation in both 1988 and 1994. These areas are likely to no longer be wetlands. Areas identified as coastal wetlands are subject to CAMA regulations as specified above for estuarine shoreline areas. Freshwater swamps and inland, non -tidal wetlands are not in the CAMA permit jurisdiction, unless they are within the estuarine shoreline or public trust shoreline. However, these wetlands are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. An Army Corps of Engineers "Section City of Washington 73 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 404" permit (USACE 404) may be required for projects taking place in these wetlands. Site -specific delineation of potential wetlands is required, under USACE wetland delineation guidelines, in order to determine whether a specific proposed development project requires a USACE 404 permit. There are several different types of USACE 404 permits. In general, however, the basic premise of the USACE 404 program is that no discharge of dredge or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. (2) Estuarine Waters Estuarine waters are generally those waters found in estuaries, sounds, bays, salt water shorelines, and the Atlantic Ocean within three miles of the shoreline. They are the dominant component and bonding element of the entire estuarine system, integrating aquatic influences from both the land and the sea. The estuarine waters are among the most productive natural environments within Washington's planning jurisdiction. The waters support the valuable commercial and sports fisheries of the coastal area which are comprised of estuarine dependent species such as menhaden, flounder, shrimp, crabs, and oysters. (3) Estuarine Shorelines Estuarine shorelines are those non -ocean shorelines that are especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse effects of wind and water. They are intimately connected to the estuary. In shoreline areas not contiguous to waters classified as outstanding resource waters by the Division of Coastal Management, all land 75 feet landward from the normal water level are considered to be estuarine shorelines. Development within the estuarine shorelines influences the quality of estuarine life and is subject to the damaging processes of shorefront erosion and flooding. City of Washington 74 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions (4) Public Trust Areas Public trust areas are all waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from the mean high water mark to the seaward limit of state jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject to measurable lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean high water mark; all navigable natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to the mean high water level or mean water level as the case may be, except privately -owned lakes to which the public has no right of access; all water in artificially created bodies of water containing significant public fishing resources or other public resources which are accessible to the public by navigation from bodies of water in which the public has rights of navigation; and all waters in artificially created bodies of water in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedication, or any other means. In determining whether the public has acquired rights in artificially created bodies of water, the following factors shall be considered: (1) the use of the body of water by the public, (2) the length of time the public has used the area, (3) the value of public resources in the body of water, (4) whether the public resources in the body of water are mobile to the extent that they can move into natural bodies of water, (5) whether the creation of the artificial body of water required permission from the state, and (6) the value of the body of water to the public for navigation from one public area to another public area. These areas are significant because the public has rights in these areas, including navigation and recreation. The public trust areas also support valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have aesthetic value, and are important resources for economic development. The public trust areas must be determined through in -field analysis and definition. (5) Wetlands Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 404 wetlands are areas covered by water or that have waterlogged soils for long periods during the growing season. Plants growing in wetlands are capable of living in soils lacking oxygen for at least part of City of Washington 75 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions the growing season. 404 wetlands include, but are not limited to, bottomlands, forests, swamps, pocosins, pine savannahs, bogs, marshes, wet meadows, and coastal wetlands. (6) Protected Lands and Significant Natural Heritage Areas "Protected Lands" are areas dedicated to conservation and open space based uses that are protected from development by regulation or by ownership by governments or non-profit organizations. NCDCM has identified these areas through the assistance of the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA). NCDCM identifies Havens Gardens Park and Seventh Street Park, both owned by the City of Washington, as "Protected Lands." Havens Gardens Park is a 5.97-acre site located on the Pamlico River on Park Drive, just before the Runyon Creek Bridge, the park has two covered picnic shelters, playground equipment, a fishing pier, and open grass areas for volleyball, tag football and other activities. Seventh Street Park is a 17.67-acre facility with playground equipment, picnic tables, large shade trees, outdoor basketball courts, and small open grills for picnicking. Together, these facilities are approximately 23.64 acres, or 0.46%, of the land area of the City. "Significant Natural Heritage Areas" (SNHA) are areas containing ecologically significant natural communities or rare species. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program of the NC Division of Parks and Recreation (NCDPR) identifies and helps facilitate the protection of these areas. NCDCM has identified these areas through the assistance of NCGIA. Within the City of Washington, NCDCM has identified 1.91 acres (or 0.04% of the City's total land area) of marsh and swampland areas south of the City, known as the "Lower Tar River Marshes and Swamps Significant Natural Heritage Area," as an SNHA. This site includes an additional 1,302 acres within the City's ETJ, representing 8.7% of the City's ETJ area (see Map 11). Finally, a 23.9-acre SNHA known as the "Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat" is located in the City's ETJ. City of Washington 76 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions (7) Outstanding Resource Waters All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ). "Outstanding Resource Waters" (ORW) is a supplemental classification intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. To qualify, waters must be rated "Excellent" by DWQ and have one of the following outstanding resource values: • Outstanding fish habitat or fisheries, • Unusually high level of waterbased recreation, • Some special designation such as NC or National Wild/Scenic/ Natural/Recreational River, National Wildlife Refuge, etc., • Important component of state or national park or forest, or • Special ecological or scientific significance (rare or endangered species habitat, research or educational areas). No new or expanded wastewater discharges are allowed, although there are no restrictions on the types of discharges to these waters. There are also associated stormwater runoff, building density, best agricultural practices, and landfill siting controls enforced by DWQ. Washington is not adjacent to any waters classified as ORW by DWQ. h. Areas of Resource Potential (1) Regionally Significant Parks Although not of regional or Statewide significance from a standpoint of environmental preservation, there are three City -owned facilities that attract a significant attendance from outside of the City limits, as follows: • Havens Garden Park and 71h Street Park • Stewart Parkway & Waterfront Docks - Located at the Pamlico River on Washington's Downtown waterfront, this facility is recently renovated. The area now features 36 boat slips with water, electricity, and sewer pump -out; additional dockage for visiting boaters; floating dock for canoe launch; and waterfront brick City of Washington F Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions promenade that connects with elevated, lighted boardwalk through a wetland area east of the North Carolina Estuarium. The waterfront is popular with walkers. • Susiegray McConnell Sports Complex - Located at the intersection of Airport Road and Market Street, this facility contains soccer fields, lighted youth softball and baseball fields, concessions area, restroom facilities, playground, picnic tables, walking trails, archery range, and aquatic Et fitness center. Although it is approximately ten miles east of downtown Washington and not in the City's corporate limits or planning jurisdiction, the 1,200-acre Goose Creek State Park along the banks of the Pamlico River is a regionally significant park that harbors a vast array of flora and fauna. (2) Commercial Forest Lands There are no significant commercial forest lands located within Washington's planning jurisdiction. (3) Marinas and Mooring Fields "Marinas" are defined as any publicly- or privately -owned dock, basin, or wet boat storage facility constructed to accommodate more than ten boats and providing any of the following services: permanent or transient docking spaces, dry storage, fueling facilities, haulout facilities, and repair service. Not included in this definition are facilities that only allow boat access or temporary docking and that do not include the services provided by marinas specified above. To receive a CAMA permit to construct a marina, a marina must meet the general CAMA rules for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas specified above as well as the specific rules below (Source: 15A NCAC 7H .0208(b)(5)). • Marinas should be built in non -wetland sites or in deep waters that do not require dredging. They must not disturb valuable shallow - water or wetland habitats, except for dredging necessary for access City of Washington 79 Core Land Use Plan Section V Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions to high -ground sites. Marinas should be designed to protect the environment as much as possible. The following are four alternatives for siting marinas, ranked in order of Coastal Resources Commission preference: 1) An upland site that requires no alteration of wetlands or other estuarine habitats and has adequate water circulation to prevent the accumulation of sediment and pollutants in boat basins and channels; 2) An upland site that causes no significant damage to fisheries or wetlands and requires dredging for access only; 3) An open water site that does not require dredging or wetland alteration and is not a primary nursery area; and 4) An open water site that requires dredging in less productive habitat, but not deeper than any connecting channels. • Marinas that require dredging may not be in primary nursery areas or in areas that require dredging a channel through nearby primary nursery areas to deeper waters. DCM will consider maintenance dredging in primary nursery areas for existing marinas on a case -by - case basis. • Marinas that require dredging must provide acceptable disposal areas to accommodate future maintenance dredging. • Marinas may not be enclosed within breakwaters that hinder the water circulation needed to maintain water quality. Breakwaters that obstruct or alter the circulation of estuarine waters can accumulate sediment and pollutants and accelerate erosion on nearby shorelines. This could threaten marine life and public health, and it requires more frequent maintenance dredging. • Marinas serving residential developments and built in public trust waters must be limited to 27 square feet of public trust area for every one linear foot of adjacent shoreline. The square -footage limit shall not apply to fairways between parallel piers or any portion of the pier used only for access from land to the docking spaces. City of Washington 80 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and emerging Conditions • Marinas may not be located within areas where shellfish harvest for human consumption is a significant use, or in adjacent areas, if the proposed marina will cause closure of the harvest areas. Construction or enlargement of a marina must not lead to the closure of an open shellfishing area. • Marinas should minimize interference with public waters by using a mixture of dry storage areas, public launching facilities, and docking spaces. • Marinas may not be built without written confirmation that the proposed location is not subject to a submerged lands lease or deed. (State law requires that marina owners receive an easement from the State Property Office.) • Marina basins must be designed to promote flushing: Basin and channel depths should gradually increase toward open water and must not be deeper than connecting waters. When possible, an opening shall be provided at opposite ends of the basin to promote flow -through circulation. • Marinas must be designed to minimize adverse effects on boat traffic, federally maintained channels, and public rights to use and enjoy state waters. • Marinas must meet all applicable requirements for stormwater management. • Boat maintenance areas must be designed so that all scraping, sandblasting, and painting is over dry land and so that pollutants such as grease, oil, paint, and sediments do not flush into estuarine waters. Grease and sediment traps can protect water quality at the marina and throughout the estuarine system. • Marinas shall post a notice prohibiting the discharge of waste from boat toilets and explaining the availability of information on pumpout services. If dumped overboard, marine sewage can present a threat to marine life and public health. City of Washington 81 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • Marinas must comply with all other applicable standards for docks and piers, bulkheading, dredging and spoil disposal. • Marina replacement may be allowed if all rules are met to the maximum extent practicable. • New marinas over public trust bottoms are subject to the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act and must undergo a NCEPA review. • Upland development associated with marinas must comply with coastal shoreline rules, which require that structures with non - water -dependent uses be located at least 30 feet from the water, unless the structures are located in a designated urban waterfront. A "freestanding mooring" is any means to attach a ship, boat or other water craft to a stationary underwater device, mooring buoy, buoyed anchor, or piling not associated with an existing or proposed pier, dock, or boathouse. When one or more freestanding moorings is used in the same general vicinity, it is known as a "mooring field." CAMA has regulations for the safe siting and operation of moorings and mooring fields at 15A NCAC 7H.0208 (b) (10) or 7H.2200. There are no mooring field sites currently operating within the City of Washington. C.. The 1996 City of Washington CAMA Land Use Plan opposes mooring fields within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction. However, the City of Washington has since amended their position on this subject. The City supports the establishment of mooring fields for economic development, boating and shoreline access to the City. Additionally, the City will pursue the preparation of a water use plan to regulate the development of mooring fields within the City's planning jurisdiction. Because of its waterfront location, there are a number of marina sites in the City of Washington planning area. Public and private marina sites are listed in Table 30 below. City of Washington 82 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 30. Marina Sites in the City of Washington, 2005 Marina Name Public or Private? Carolina Wind Yachting Center Private Stewart Parkway Docks Public McCotter's Marina Private Park Boat Company Private Pungo Creek Motel Et Marina Private The Progress Company Private Twin Lakes Resort Private Washington Yacht and Country Club Private Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. (4) Floating Homes or Structures A floating home or structure is any structure, not a boat, supported by means of flotation and designed to be used without a permanent foundation which is used for human habitation or commerce. A structure is considered a floating home or structure if it is inhabited or used for commercial purposes for more than 30 days in any one location. A boat may be deemed a floating structure if its means of propulsion have been removed or rendered inoperative and it contains at least 200 square feet of living area. There are no known or permitted floating homes or structures within the City of Washington's jurisdiction at this time. (5) Channel Maintenance The Intracoastal Waterway traverses Beaufort County east of Washington along the Pungo River, across the Pamlico River, and along Goose Creek. The AIWW is a series of federally (i.e., USACE) maintained navigation channels that extend from Norfolk, VA to Miami, FL. For much of its length, the system consists of naturally deep estuaries, rivers, and sounds. These natural stretches are connected by man-made cuts through land areas and shallows, many of which require periodic dredging to maintain their depths. The authorized project depth of the AIWW is 12 feet (at low tide) from Norfolk, VA to Ft. Pierce, FL. City of Washington 83 Core Land Use Ptan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging, Conditions Proper maintenance of channels is very important to Washington because of the substantial economic impact of commercial fisheries and to a lesser extent, tourism. If silt or other deposits fill in the channels, safe and efficient movement of commercial fishing and recreational vehicles could be impeded. Recent cutbacks in the USACE budget for channel maintenance of the AIWW threaten the safe navigability of the waterway and should be carefully monitored. However, there are numerous navigable channels maintained within the City with access to the AIWW. A general CAMA permit can be obtained from the regional CAMA office for maintenance dredging of channels, canals, boat basins and ditches in estuarine waters, public trust areas and estuarine shorelines, as long as the maintenance doesn't remove more than 1,000 cubic yards of material unless in a primary nursery area(source: NC Division of Coastal Management, "CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina", 2002). (6) Marine Resources (Water Quality) In North Carolina, the water quality of each stream mile of water is evaluated and rated by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (see text box below). Table 31 provides the water quality classifications for all stream segments in or affected by the City and/or its planning jurisdiction. Table 31. Water Quality Classifications for Stream Segments in and near the City of Washington, 2005 Steam Segment Name Stream Index # DWQ Classification Cherry Run 28-103-17 C; Sw; NSW Herring Run 29-3-3 C; NSW Jack's Creek 29-2 C; NSW Maple Branch 29-6-2-1-7 C; Sw; NSW Mitchell Branch 28-103-16 C; Sw; NSW Pamlico River 29-(1) SC; NSW Pineygrove Branch 29-3-3-1 C; NSW Runyon Creek 29-3-(2) SC; NSW Tar River 28-(102.5) C; NSW Tranter's Creek 28-103 C; Sw; NSW Source: NC Division of Water Quality. City of Washington 84 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions North Carolina Water Quality Basics WHAT ARE SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS? Surface Water Classifications are designations applied to surface water bodies, such as streams, rivers and lakes, which define the best uses to be protected within these waters (for example swimming, fishing, drinking water supply) and carry with them an associated set of water quality standards to protect those uses. Surface water classifications are one tool that state and federal agencies use to manage and protect all streams, rivers, lakes, and other surface waters in North Carolina. Classifications and their associated protection rules may be designed to protect water quality, fish and wildlife, the free flowing nature of a stream or river, or other special characteristics. HOW DO THEY AFFECT ME? Before you buy property, plan a new development project, construct a new road or undertake other land use activities, you should check with local, state, and federal agencies about the assigned surface water classification for the water body on your property. Many of the newer classifications, especially those designed to protect drinking water supplies and certain high quality waters, have protection rules which regulate some land disturbance and other human activities. WHY DO THEY SOMETIMES OVERLAP? Many streams, rivers, and lakes may have several classifications applied to the same area. This is because surface waters are classified to protect different uses or special characteristics of the water body. For example, a stream or specific stream segment may be classified as Class WS-III Tr HQW by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ). This protects it as a drinking water supply (WS-III), as Trout Waters Jr), and as High Quality Waters (HQW). The stream segments upstream or downstream may have different classifications based on other water uses or stream characteristics. STREAM'S CLASSIFICATION? DWQ classifies all surface waters. A water body's classification may change at the request of a local government or citizen. DWQ reviews each request for a reclassification and conducts an assessment of the water body to determine the appropriateness of the reclassification. DWQ also conducts periodic water body assessments which may result in a recommendation to reclassify the water body. In order for a water body to be reclassified it must proceed through the rule -making process (Source: NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, "Surface Freshwater Classifications Used in North Carolina", 1997). All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ). All waters must at least meet the standards for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters. The other primary classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water (Water Supply Classes I through V). Supplemental classifications are sometimes added to the primary classifications by DWQ to provide additional protection to waters with special uses or values. The following provides the definition of DWQ water quality classifications found in and near the City of Washington: Primary Classifications Class SC. All tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating and other activities involving minimal skin contact; aquatic life propagation and survival; and wildlife. Stormwater controls are required under CAMA and there are no categorical restrictions on discharges. City of Washington 85 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Class C. Waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges. Supplemental Classifications Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general, management strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution control require control of nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus usually) such that excessive growths of vegetation are reduced or prevented and there is no increase in nutrients over target levels. Management strategies are site -specific. Swamp Waters (Sw). Supplemental classification intended to recognize those waters that generally have naturally occurring very low velocities, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen. No specific restrictions on discharge types or development are involved. As a review of the above data indicates, the quality of water bodies in and near the City is generally poor. This is due primarily to the fact that the City is at an outflow point of a large portion of the entire Tar/Pamlico River Basin, which includes numerous urbanized areas such as the Cities of Oxford, Rocky Mount, and Greenville, as well as a large concentration of animal operations. Water quality will be discussed in further detail in Section (V)(E)(3) below. City of Washington 86 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions (7) Primary Nursery Areas, Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation "Anadromous" fish are those that migrate up rivers (or into estuaries) from the sea to breed in fresh water. The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) defines anadromous fish spawning areas as those where evidence of spawning of anadromous fish has been documented by direct observation of spawning, capture of running ripe females, or capture of eggs or early larvae as established under NCAC 15A 31.0101 (20)C. Anadromous fish nursery areas are those areas in the riverine and estuarine systems used by juvenile anadromous fish as established at NCAC 15A 31.0101 (20)D. The anadromous fish spawning areas near the City of Washington are depicted on Map 12. There are no primary nursery areas identified by the Division of Coastal Management located in or near the City of Washington planning jurisdiction. However, the NC Wildlife Resource Commission also has jurisdiction over the designation of inland waterway primary nursery areas, and the Tar River upriver of the railroad bridge is an inland waterway and has been designated as a primary nursery area. Under provisions of the North Carolina Fisheries Reform Act of 1997, the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission disallowed trawling in approximately 200,000 acres of submerged areas designated as Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV). These vast grassbeds provide protection and also serve as nursery areas for fish, scallops, crabs, and shrimp. No restricted SAV is within close proximity to Washington. Some small patches of SAV exist approximately 7,000 linear feet downstream from Washington within the Pamlico River. City of Washington 87 Core Land Use Plan #i Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 2. Environmental Composite Map (Refer to the natural hazard policies and implementing actions, pages 202 to 204.) In 2002, the NC Coastal Resources Commission adopted revisions to the land use planning guidelines regulating CAMA plans [15A NCAC 7B]. One of the primary modifications to these guidelines was in the area of land suitability analysis. Essentially stated, the new guidelines ask local governments to do more analysis of the planning area's supply of land that is suited for development. This analysis should place more emphasis on how local governments address natural system constraints in land use planning. This new requirement was borne of a recognition of the fact that all land use development is heavily influenced by attractive and repellent forces caused by the natural and built environments. For example, the presence of a public sewer line near a particular parcel of land will, all other things being equal, attract the dense development allowed by a sewer system. On the other hand, the presence of a wastewater treatment plant will discourage most types of development in immediately adjacent areas. Section V(H) of this plan will present a land suitability analysis (LSA) based on a number of factors, including compatibility with existing land uses and development patterns, existing land use policies, and the availability of community facilities, as well as natural system constraints. But first, pursuant to CAMA regulatory requirements, we have developed an Environmental Composite Map for the City of Washington that will be used in conjunction with the LSA referenced above to provide a guide to the City for the most appropriate use of land. The Environmental Composite Map was popularized by Scottish landscape architect and urban planner Ian McHarg following his 1969 classic work, Design with Nature. McHarg argued that the natural landscape - its constraints and its positive features - should be the most significant factor considered when planning for and siting future land use development. In order to do this, McHarg posited, multi -layered maps must be developed that depicted the various natural features of land masses. Advances in Geographic Information System (GIS) technology in the 1990's and 2000's have made using McHarg's approach more feasible and precise. City of Washington 89 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The Environmental Composite Map (Map 13) breaks down land masses within the City into three different categories based on natural features and environmental conditions. The categories utilized are as follows: Class I - Land that contains only minimal hazards and limitations that can be addressed by commonly accepted land planning and development practices. Class I land will generally support the more intensive types of land uses and development. Class II - Land that has hazards and limitations for development that can be addressed by restrictions on land uses, special site planning, or the provision of public services, such as water and sewer. Land in this class will generally support only the less intensive uses, such as low density residential, without significant investment in services. Class III - Land that has serious hazards and limitations. Land in this class will generally support very low intensity uses, such as conservation and open space. An overlay analysis was performed, breaking the City into one -acre cells utilizing only map layers determined to be environmental factors. The layers used, and their assigned classes, are outlined in Table 32. Table 32. Environmental Composite Layers for the City of Washington Layer Class I Class II Class III Coastal Wetlands Exceptional or Substantial Non -Coastal Wetlands ✓ Beneficial Non -Coastal Wetlands ✓ Estuarine Waters Soils with Slight or Moderate Septic Limitations ✓ Soils with Severe Septic Limitations Flood Zones Storm Surge Areas HQW/ORW Watersheds ,/ Water Supply Watersheds Significant Natural Heritage Areas ✓ Protected Lands a Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions For a given cell, the computed value of the cell will be determined by the highest class theme that contains the cell. For example, if a cell is in a coastal wetland (Class III) and in a storm surge area (Class II) and intersects a soil with a slight or moderate septic limitation (Class 1), the cell value will be Class III. In other words, if a cell does not meet the criteria for Class III, but qualifies as Class II, it has Class II for a value. If a cell does not qualify for either Class III or Class II, then it is Class I by default. This order enables the modeler to leave out themes that are not associated with Classes II or III to simplify the model (yielding the same results). Table 33. City of Washington Environmental Composite Classifications by Category and Acreage, 2003 Environmental Composite City and ETJ Acres % from total Class 1 11,114.855 54.95% Class 2 4,446.100 21.98% Class 3 4,666.210 23.07% Corporate Limits Only Acres % from total 2,813.824 54.48% 1,741.069 33.71% 610.184 11.81% ETJ Only Acres % from total 8,301.031 55.11% 2,705.031 17.96% 4,056.026 26.93% TOTAL 20,227.165 100.00% 5,165.077 100.00% 15,062.088 100.00% Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., and NC Division of Coastal Management. As Table 33 indicates, the majority of the City (55%) is located in the most environmentally suitable classification. As Map 13 illustrates, the environmental suitable land for development in the City and ETJ generally increases with distance from the Tar/Pamlico River and its tributaries. Although the type of analysis presented in this section should serve as a valuable tool in determining the most appropriate use of land in the City of Washington, it has significant limitations that should be acknowledged, as follows: • The environmental composite map only allows land areas to be analyzed on one -acre blocks. This level of aggregation is too large to effectively assess each developable site within the City for environmental conditions. • The Environmental Composite Map, as the name suggests, only analyzes environmental factors when considering the appropriateness of land development. Environmental development constraints, while significant to consider, should always be considered in conjunction with the other forces that attract or repel development, such as the availability of community facilities and consumer demand for different types of land City of Washington 92 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions development. The LSA provided in Section V(H), page 134, of this plan provides this more comprehensive analysis of land suitability for development. 3. Water Quality (Refer to water quality policies and implementing actions, pages 204 to 208.) Water quality in and near the City of Washington is considered at many points in this Plan. However, because of the significant relationship between land use and water quality, a section focusing specifically on local and regional water quality is included here, prior to detailed discussions of existing and future land use. This Plan will primarily analyze water quality on the watershed and subbasin level. (NOTE: A discussion of land use as related to water quality begins on page 103.) A watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place. Geographer John Wesley Powell put it best when he said that a watershed is: "that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple Logic demanded that they become part of a community." (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The City of Washington is located wholly in the Tar/Pamlico River watershed and (significantly) at an outfall of the watershed to Pamlico Sound (see Map 6). Subbasins are geographic areas that represent part of a watershed, made up of a combination of drainage areas and/or distinct hydroponic features, all draining to the primary watershed. The City of Washington is located in three subbasins, also known by their USGS designations - the Lower Tar River Watershed (subbasin number 03-03-05), the Tranter's Creek Watershed (subbasin number 03-03-06), and the Pamlico River Watershed (subbasin number 03-03-07) (see Map 6). In North Carolina, water quality is assessed primarily at the watershed or river basin (i.e., "basinwide") level, due to the interconnectedness of watersheds described above. Basinwide water quality plans are prepared by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in the State and updated at City of Washington 93 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions five-year intervals. The basinwide plan for the Tar -Pamlico River Basin was developed by DWQin 1994 and updated in July 1999 and again in 2004. This document will be referred to as "BWP" in this Plan. The goals of the BWP are as follows: • Identify water quality problems and restore full use to impaired waters; • Identify and protect high value resource waters; • Protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth; These goals are accomplished by addressing the following objectives: • Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies; • Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity; • Better evaluate cumulative effects of pollution; and • Improve public awareness and involvement. a. Tar -Pamlico River Basin Watershed The Tar -Pamlico River basin is contained entirely within the state of North Carolina. It covers a 5,571-square mile area, making it the fourth largest river basin in the state. It encompasses all or portions of 16 counties and 50 municipalities. The basin originates in the upper Piedmont region in Person, Granville and Vance counties, west of Interstate 85, and flows southeastward toward the Pamlico Sound. Upstream of the City of Washington, the main stem is called the Tar River. Below this point, it becomes the Pamlico River which is an estuary. The Tar River is primarily freshwater while the Pamlico River is entirely estuarine. Major tributaries include Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Town Creek, Conetoe Creek, Chicod Creek, Swift Creek, Cokey Swamp, Tranter's Creek, and the Pungo River. The basin also includes North Carolina's largest natural lake, Lake Mattamuskeet. Map 6 provides a map of the entire river basin. b. Lower Tar River Watershed - Subbasin 03-03-05 This subbasin contains the most downstream freshwater reach of the Tar River and is located completely within the coastal plain eco-region (see Map 6). The Tar River becomes deeper and much slower flowing in this area, compared to upstream reaches. This area is characterized by large amounts of forest/wetland City of Washington 94 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions areas (60.6%) as well as cultivated cropland (33%). The highest potential for nonpoint source pollution comes from the Chicod Creek watershed. While runoff from crop and forage lands has been a historic problem here, a large influx of intensive poultry and hog operations within the last five years has become the largest nonpoint concern. The only major metropolitan area is Greenville. There are three NPDES discharge permits. Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) WWTP discharges 17.5 MGD into the Tar River, the GUC WTP discharges unlimited into the Tar River, and Catalytica Pharmaceuticals discharges into Parker Creek (Source: BWP, Appendix 1). There are no specific recommendations in the BWP for this subbasin. Table 34. Area, Population, and Land Cover of Subbasin 03-03-05 Land and Water Area (square miles) Total Area: 297.4 Land Area: 293.4 Water Area 4 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Population: 57,247 persons Population Density: 192 persons/sq. mi. Land Cover(%) Forest Wetland: 60.6% Surface Water: 1.1% Urban: 2.3% Cultivated Crop: 33.0% Pasture/Managed Herbaceuos: 3.0% C. Tranter's Creek Watershed - Subbasin 03-03-06 The entire Tranter's Creek catchment is a relatively small subbasin contained completely within the coastal plain eco-region. Streams in this subbasin are typical swamp streams having low current velocities, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Many streams in this area were channelized prior to 1970. The largest urban area within this Subbasin is Robersonville. Two of the major dischargers, the Town of Robersonville (1.8 MGD) and Gibbs, Roebuck Et Smith, LLC (0.3 MGD), discharge into Flat Swamp. Martin County Schools' Bear Grass Elementary (0.005 MGD), the other major discharger, discharges into Turkey Swamp. The potential for nonpoint source pollution is generally low in this subbasin with the greatest potential coming from forestry. Map 6 provides a map of the subbasin. City of Washington 95 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions There were no newly impaired waters within this subbasin. However, Tranters Creek was identified as waters with noted impact. Recommendations were listed for the water body as follows: Tranters Creek is currently Supporting from the source to the subbasin boundary because of a moderate stress bioclassification at a site and elevated phosphorus at another site. The depressed biological community may be associated with drought conditions. The lower portion of the creek is influenced by saltwater during extremely low flow. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Tranters Creek to determine if the cause of the depressed biological community is from extreme meteorological events of land use activities and possibly the Robersonville WWTP. Land disturbing activities should implement BMPs to minimize or prevent future impacts to water quality in the watershed. Table 35. Area, Population, and Land Cover of Subbasin 03-03-06 Land and Water Area (souare miles Total Area: 242.7 Land Area: 242.5 Water Area 0.2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Population: 20,560 persons Population Density: 85 persons/sq. mi. Land Cover (%) Forest Wetland: 63.5% Surface Water: 0.3% Urban: 0.6% Cultivated Crop: 31.9% Pasture/Managed Herbaceuos: 3.7% d. Pamlico River Watershed - Subbasin 03-03-07 This area is primarily estuarine in nature, extending from tidal freshwater areas around Washington to Roos Point, east of the Pungo River. Tides in these estuarine areas tend to be wind dominated rather than following a lunar cycle. Freshwater streams in this subbasin are limited to headwaters of estuarine creeks and the East Dismal Swamp. Most streams in the East Dismal Swamp are ditched canals. Primary land cover is forest and wetland with cultivated cropland, an urban area around Washington, and a phosphate mine near Aurora. There are 20 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits, the largest being the Washington City of Washington Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging, Conditions WWTP (3.2 MGD). Following is a list of the NPDES discharge permits and their receiving stream. (Source: BWP) Discharge Permit Holder Receiving Stream Town of Pantego (WWTP) Pantego Creek Town of Chocowinity (Hughes Street WTP) Maple Branch Town of Chocowinity (Edgewood Drive WTP) Maple Branch Town of Chocowinity (Hill Road WTP) Chocowinity Bay Town of Belhaven (Milt Street WTP) Pantego Creek Town of Belhaven (WWTP) Battalina Creek Town of Belhaven (WTP #2) Pantego Creek Town of Aurora (WWTP) South Creek Sea Safari LTD Pantego Creek PCS Phosphate Co., Inc. Pamlico River Pantego Rest Home Pantego Creek National Spinnning Company (Washington Mill) Tar River Dowry Creek Community Association Pungo River City of Washington (WWTP) Tar River City of Washington (WTP) Pamlico River Carolina Seafood Muddy Creek Beaufort County Water District VI Pamlico River Beaufort County Water (Richland WTP) South Creek Aurora Packing Company, Inc. South Creek Hyde County Water System (Ponzer WTP) Pungo Lake Canal Currently, 338 acres of the Tar River are impaired because the Chlorophyll A criterion was exceeded in 17% of the samples collected at a site during the assessment. Research completed at ECU also indicated high levels of Chlorophyll Ain the Pamlico River near Washington. DWQwill continue to monitor nutrient loading into this portion of the Tar -Pamlico estuary to assess the success of implementation of the Tar Pamlico Basin NSW strategy. Algal monitoring in and around the Pamlico River will also continue during the next five years. City of Washington 97 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 36. Area, Population, and Land Cover of Subbasin 03-03-07 Land and Water Area (sauare miles Total Area: 1,190.0 Land Area: 997.4 Water Area 192.6 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Population: 44,232 persons Population Density: 44 persons/sq. mi. Land Cover (%) Forest Wetland: 55.5% Surface Water: 17.5% Urban: 0.5% Cultivated Crop: 25.5% Pasture/Managed Herbaceuos: 1.0% e. Registered Animal Operations in the Tar/Pamlico River Basin Agriculture is an extremely important component of the economy in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. As evidenced by the land cover data presented previously in this section, almost one -quarter of the entire area of the Tar -Pamlico basin is comprised of cultivated cropland. Within the entire state, Pitt County is ranked as number one in tobacco production and number two in wheat production, and Beaufort County is ranked as the top producer of corn, wheat, and sorghum (NC Department of Agriculture, 1998). Animal agriculture is also prominent in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. In the last several years, much attention has been given to this sector of agriculture due to concerns for environmental impacts associated with these operations. In 1992, the Environmental Management Commission adopted a rule modification (15A NCAC 2H.0217) establishing procedures for managing and reusing animal wastes from intensive livestock operations. The rule applies to new, expanding or existing feedlots with animal waste management systems designed to serve animal populations of at least the following size: 100 head of cattle, 75 horses, 250 swine, 1,000 sheep or 30,000 birds (chickens and turkeys) with a liquid waste system. These facilities are also required to obtain an approved waste management plan certification. In 1996, Senate Bill 1217 required any operator of a dry litter animal waste management system involving 30,000 or more birds to develop an animal waste management plan by January 1998. The plan must consist of three specific items: 1) periodic testing of soils where waste is applied; 2) development of waste utilization plans; and 3) completion and maintenance of records on -site for three years (source: BWP). City of Washington 98 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 37 below provides salient statistics on registered animal operations in the subbasins of the Tar/Pamlico River Basin in which the City is located. Table 37. Registered Animal Operations in Subbasins 03-03-05, 03-03-06, and 03-03-07 of the Tar/ Pamlico River Basin, 1998 Swine Subbasin No. of Facilities No. of Animals 03-03-05 16 93,554 03-03-06 4 13,920 03-03-07 18 79,988 Source: BWP, page 27. f. Tar -Pamlico Buffer Rules and Nutrient Sensitive Waters The Tar -Pamlico River Basin was designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) by the Environmental Management Commission as a result of finding nutrient levels in excess within the basin. The NSW designation required the development of a strategy that would decrease the nutrient levels. The strategy consisted of three phases. Phase I initially targeted point source pollutants but evolved into a collective nutrient trading program between point source and nonpoint source pollutants. Phase I was effective from 1990-1994. Phase I successfully reduced overall nitrogen and phosphorus loads by about 20% and an association of dischargers was formed that consisted of 14 dischargers. Phase II covered the period from 1995-2004 and the major goal was to establish nutrient reduction goals for nonpoint sources and point sources and to implement a plan for the nonpoint source reductions. The goals were to reduce nutrients by 30% and to have no increase in phosphorus loads. Phase III covers the period through December 2014 and involves continued nutrient control for point source dischargers, reaffirms loading goals set in Phase II, and proposes time frames for restoration of nutrient related estuarine use support. The nutrient rules for the Tar -Pamlico River follow: • Buffer Rules. Existing vegetated riparian buffers in the basin must be protected and maintained on both sides of intermittent and perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuarine waters. Fifty feet on each side of water bodies. (Zone 1 - within the first 30 feet is to remain undisturbed with some exceptions. Zone 2 - the outer 20 feet must be vegetated with certain uses allowed.) City of Washington 99 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • Nutrient Management Rule. Requires people that apply fertilizer (other than residential homeowners applying fertilizer to their own land) to take either a state -sponsored nutrient management training course or have a nutrient management plan in place for the land on which they apply fertilizer. • Stormwater Rule. Requires stormwater programs to be implemented within six municipalities and five counties within the basin. The entities were selected based on their possible nutrient contribution. • Agricultural Rule. Requires farmers to implement land management practices that achieve certain nutrient reduction goals - reduction in nutrient loading and control of phosphorus levels. g. Population and Growth Trends There are 16 counties that are entirely or partially located within the Tar - Pamlico River Basin. The total 2000 population of those counties is 735,316. That number reflects an increase of 89,000 persons, or a 13.9% increase. The fastest growing counties are Franklin, Granville and Nash in the upper part of the basin, and Pitt in the lower part of the basin. The population within the basin is expected to grow by 170,000 by 2020. F. Analysis of Land Use and Development 1. Introduction This section will serve to take a closer look at how land use in the City relates to water quality. This section has been compiled, in part, with information provided by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Under the Basinwide Management Program, the DWQcompletes Basinwide Water Quality Plans (BWP). The BWP for the Tar - Pamlico River Basin was updated in March 2004. Also referenced in this analysis will be the Basinwide Assessment Report (BAR) for the Tar -Pamlico Watershed completed by DWQ in April 2003. Basinwide water quality planning is a non -regulatory, watershed -based approach to restoring and protecting the quality of North Carolina's surface waters. Preparation of a basinwide water quality plan is a five-year process. While these plans are prepared by the DWQ their implementation and the protection of water quality entails the City of Washington 100 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions coordinated efforts of many agencies, local governments, and stakeholder groups in the state. The first cycle of plans was completed in 1998, but each plan is updated at five- year intervals. It should be noted that the results of the monitoring efforts are not intended to provide precise conclusions about pollutant budgets for specific watersheds. Since the assessment methodology is geared toward general conclusions, it is important not to manipulate the data to support policy decisions beyond the accuracy of the data. Two primary methods of water quality testing were performed in the City of Washington. The details of this methodology are described below so that the information on the results of this testing can be better understood. The methods utilized were Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring and the Ambient Monitoring System. DWQ also observes water bodies for the existence of algal blooms, which are an indication of poor water quality. Benthic macroinvertebrates are organisms, primarily aquatic insect larvae, which live in and on the bottoms of rivers and streams. The use of macroinvertebrate data has proven to be a reliable water quality monitoring tool because most macroinvertebrates are immobile and sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Benthic communities also respond to, and show the effects of, a wide array of potential pollutant mixtures. The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine (saltwater) water quality monitoring stations (about 420 statewide) strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data (or parameters). Water quality parameters are arranged by freshwater or saltwater water body classification and corresponding water quality standards. Under this arrangement, Class C waters (refer to page 85-86 for a description of water quality classifications) are assigned minimum monthly parameters with additional parameters assigned to waters with classifications such as trout waters and water supplies. The ambient monitoring stations in and adjacent to the City's planning area are delineated on Map 12 (page 88). Prolific growths of phytoplankton, often due to high concentrations of nutrients, sometimes result in "blooms" in which one or more species of alga may discolor the water or form visible mats on the water's surface. Blooms may be unsightly and deleterious to water quality causing fish kills, anoxia, and taste and odor problems. City of Washington 101 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 2. Existing Land Use in the City of Washington Based on a windshield survey conducted by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., between October 2004, and February 2005, each parcel of land in the City was classified in a land use category established in the City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan as described in Section II of the City's 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update. A summary of these current (March 2005) land uses is found in Table 38 below and on Map 14. Table 38. Existing Land Use in the City of Washington, March 2005 (in acres) Existing Land Use City Limits % ETJ % TOTAL % Commercial/Mixed Use 507 11.8% 384 2.9% 891 5.0% High Density Residential 162 3.8% 66 0.5% 228 1.3% Industrial (HI, LI, Airport) 826 19.2% 78 0.6% 904 5.1% Low Density Residential 10 0.2% 1,427 10.6% 1,437 8.1% Medium Density Residential 1,244 28.8% 924 6.9% 2,168 12.2% Public/Institutional (O131) 517 12.0% 76 0.6% 593 3.3% Park/Open Space 58 1.3% 0 0.0% 58 0.3% Vacant 989 22.9% 10,496 78.0% 11,485 64.7% TOTAL 4,313 100.0% 13,451 100.0% 17,764 100.0% Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. (Acreages are rounded to nearest whole number, excludes rights -of way and water bodies). As Table 38 reflects, the majority of land in the City's planning jurisdiction (64.3%) is vacant and subject to new development. Within the City limits, however, over 75% of the land is currently developed, suggesting that redevelopment (i.e., demolition of current use and replacement) may become cost effective for uses near the City's historic downtown. City of Washington 102 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 3. Land Use as Related to Water Quality by Subbasin (Refer to land use compatibility policies and implementing actions, pages 187 to 196, and water quality policies and implementing actions, pages 204 to 208.) Table 39 below provides a depiction of land uses within the City of Washington by subbasin. Map 14 graphically depicts the data provided in Table 39. Table 39. Land Use by Subbasin, City of Washington and ETJ, 2005 SB 03-03-06 SB 03-03-07 SB 03-03-05 % from % from % from Parcels Acres Total Parcels Acres Total Parcels Acres Total Commercial 113 436.00 6.5% High Density 33 51.54 0.8% Residential Industrial 25 706.54 10.5% Low Density 127 264.93 3.9% Residential Medium Density 685 539.90 8.0% Residential Public/ 25 208.16 3.1% Institutional Park/Open 1 0.23 0.003% Space Vacant 748 4,518.03 67.2% Washington 0 0.00 0.0% Park TOTAL 1,757 6,725.33 100.0% Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. a. Subbasin 03-03-05 662 454.46 4.4% 1 0.008 0.002% 152 176.62 1.7% 0 0.000 0.00% 35 194.29 1.9% 1 3.548 1.06% 270 1,165.53 11.3% 11 6.862 2.05% 4,281 1,418.19 13.7% 5 1.499 0.45% 202 381.96 3.7% 2 2.116 0.63% 37 58.05 0.6% 0 0.000 0.00% 1,653 6,360.12 61.5% 16 320.62 95.81% 353 128.33 1.2% 0 0.000 0.00% 71645 10,337.55 100.0% 36 334.653 100.0% As noted in Section V(E)(3) of this Plan, this subbasin contains the City of Greenville and its neighboring Pitt County communities of Grimesland and Winterville. Only a very small portion (approximately 334 acres) of the western edge of the City of Washington's ETJ is within this subbasin (see Table 39 above). The land that is under the City's control in this subbasin is primarily vacant or low/medium density residential. City of Washington 103 Core Land Use Plan "�91R �" .\�i> 1 T_, 15S..a"'...• Lam_ iry�~ '41W Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The Cities of Greenville and Winterville are required to develop NPDES Phase II -compliant stormwater management programs (see Section V(G)(15) below for a description of this program), which should help improve water quality in the basin, as stormwater runoff and permitted wastewater treatment plant discharges from these areas appear to be a significant contributor to downstream water quality problems in the subbasin. Data from four ambient monitoring sites, five benthic macroinvertebrate community samples, and four fish community samples were collected as part of the development of the 2004 BWP. All of these monitoring sites were upstream of the City's jurisdiction. During the most recent BWP update, it was determined that 13.1 miles of the Tar River were impaired in the fish consumption category. Almost 7% of waters monitored for aquatic life were impaired under the fish consumption category within basins south and east of 1-85. The City's ability to affect the water quality in this subbasin, however, is very limited, due to the fact that only a very small portion of its current and projected jurisdiction is in this area. The area that is in the subbasin is not thought to be subject to significant development pressures during the 20-year planning period of this Plan. b. Subbasin 03-03-06 The northern portion of the City and all of its ETJ area north of the City limits are within subbasin 03-03-06, commonly known as the Tranter's Creek subbasin. The majority of the City's industrial land uses are found in this subbasin, but the vast majority of the land under the City's zoning control (4,518 acres or 67% of the total within this subbasin) is currently vacant. Despite the relatively dispersed land uses in this area, however, the current and future development under the City of Washington's zoning control reflects the largest concentration of urban development in this subbasin for the foreseeable future, as the low growth communities of Gold Point, Everetts, and Robersonville are the only other incorporated areas within this subbasin. Because of the modest urbanization in this subbasin and the relatively small number of animal operations (4), all waters in this subbasin were rated as "supporting" by DWQ in the 2004 BMP for all uses except for fish consumption because of a regional advisory regarding mercury concentrations. It should be noted, however, that five baseline benthic macroinvertebrate samples were taken City of Washington 105 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions in 2002, ambient water quality was monitored at a station located at SR1403 in Tranter's Creek in the City's ETJ, and the waterway was determined to be "moderately stressed" due to elevated phosphorous levels and a "depressed biological community" (Source: BWP). The BWP indicates that it is unclear whether or not these conditions are circumstantial based on a combination of drought conditions and hurricane impacts, due to discharges from the Robersonville WWTP, from land use activities, or some combination of these three. In any case, DWQ will monitor this situation, but land development and stormwater management "best management practices" are encouraged to avoid further degradation of this and downstream water bodies. C. Subbasin 03-03-07 Over 10,337 acres under the City's zoning control (i.e., City and ETJ), including the majority of the City and all ETJ areas south of the Tar/Pamlico River, are located within this subbasin. Most significantly, the City's WWTP discharges up to 3.2 million gallons of treated effluent into this subbasin each day. An ambient water monitoring station can be found at the US 17 bridge over the Tar/Pamlico River, and two benthic mac roinvertebrate samples and two fish community samples were taken downstream of the City during the development of the 2004 BWP. Between 1998 and 2004, water quality in the waters of the Pamlico River adjacent to and immediately downstream of the City of Washington declined. DWQ downgraded the use support rating of this stretch of the Pamlico River from "Supporting" aquatic life and related uses to "Impaired". This move was made primarily due to the presence of high levels of nutrients and chlorophyll o (a compound that contributes to algal growth) in the Pamlico River near Washington and increasing algal blooms that block out sunlight from the river and kills fish and other aquatic life. It should be noted that stormwater runoff and sewage discharges by the City of Washington are by no means solely responsible for these conditions. DWQdoes, however, believe that they have contributed to them. For this reason, DWQ enacted the Tar -Pamlico stormwater rule, which is described in detail in Section V(G)(15) below. City of Washington 106 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions G. Analysis of Existing Community Facilities/Services (Refer to the infrastructure carrying capacity policies and implementing actions, pages 196 to 199, and local areas of concern policies and implementing actions, pages 208 to 215.) 1. Water Supply As mentioned earlier in this Plan, the water supply source for the City of Washington is groundwater from the Castle Hayne Aquifer. The well field is capable of production of up to 5.45 million gallons per day (mgd) from eight wells pumping on an alternating four wells on/four wells off schedule for 12 hours each schedule. The City's permitted water supply capacity is 6.2 MGD. The depths of wells and potential production yields are presented in Table 40. Table 40. City of Washington Groundwater Sources, 2005 Well Yield or Max. Prod. Name or Number of Well Well Depth (Feet) (Pumping Capacity - MGD) Slatestone Well 182 Monitoring well/not for water supply 1 196 1.363 2 252 1.363 3 278 1.363 4 222 1.363 5 213 1.363 6 202 1.363 7 261 1.363 8 214 1.363 Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina. The City lies entirely within the State's Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area. Development of the new well field required extensive interaction with the Groundwater Section of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The DEM requires a permit for withdrawals in the Capacity Use Area of more than 100,000 gpd. Numerous reports were prepared for DEM which documented the effects of withdrawal of 3.2 to 4.5 mgd from the Castle Hayne Aquifer System. The average annual daily water use for the City of Washington in 2004 was 3.00 mgd, or 55% of system capacity (Source: Allen Lewis, City of Washington Public Works). City of Washington 107 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The City of Washington has established a Wellhead Protection Plan to ensure that potential contaminants will not reach the wells listed above. As part of the program, it has identified vulnerable areas around its wells called "Wellhead Protection Areas." Chemicals and other pollutants spilled or dumped in these areas can be drawn into the wells, possibly contaminating the community's drinking water supply. Residents and businesses in these areas must be very careful with chemicals and other potential pollutants. Many things done in daily life can pollute surface and groundwaters. Sources of groundwater pollution include: (1) used oil, paint thinner, gasoline and other chemicals poured on the ground; (2) leaking storage tanks (above ground and underground); (3) overuse of pesticides and fertilizers on lawns, golf courses, and agricultural fields; (4) chemical spills at businesses, farms, and along highways; (5) illegal dumps and poorly managed landfills; (6) failing septic tanks; (7) leaking sewer tines; (8) improperly abandoned wells; and (9) unlined waste pits, ponds, and lagoons. The Wellhead Protection Plan requires the City to monitor the quality of the City's water supply and to mitigate any potential contamination. The City has an established wellhead protection planning team. This team conducts an annual review of potential contaminant sources and maps such sites. Protective actions include, but are not limited to, acquiring land to protect well sites and turning off wells that are threatened. In addition, education and public awareness are key components of the City's Wellhead Protection Program. The water system's largest user is Beaufort County. The City of Washington has an agreement to sell up to 1.6 mgd of water to Beaufort County. Specifically, water is supplied by the city to four of the county's seven water districts. These districts include: District I - Washington Township, District II - Long Acre West, District III - Long Acre East, and District IV - Bath Township. Use by the National Spinning Plant in Washington has decreased significantly due to cutbacks in production at that facility. The City's Water Distribution Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for delivering water services to customers in the City of Washington and outlying areas of Beaufort County. It is also responsible for maintaining and repairing the water distribution system as well as constructing water mains, installing new water connections, and maintaining hydrants. Map 15 depicts the City's water system and water treatment plant. City of Washington 108 Core Land Use Plan --- Pitt County i _- MAP 15 City of Washington Land Use Plan Exis tinq Water and Sewer Lines Legend O City Limits O ETJ Beaufort County Pitt County - Washington Park Planning Area Airport Bridges Roads Major Roads Railroads Water Treatment Plant Q Sewer Treatment Plant • - Existing Water Lines Existing Sewer Lines Hydrology The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1 inch equals 3,900 feet 0 0.5 1 2 r-x ol�� Consulting Planners, Inc. Page 109 J Miles 3 Section V Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 2. Sewer The City of Washington has one wastewater treatment plant, discharging to the Tar River immediately south of Kennedy Creek. The average annual daily discharge is 1.70 mgd which is 49% of the plant's permitted capacity of 3.45 mgd. The City's Wastewater Collection Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for delivering sewer services to customers in the City of Washington and outlying areas of Beaufort County. It is also responsible for collecting wastewater and transporting it to the wastewater treatment plant, constructing sewer lines, maintaining and repairing the collection system, and installing new connections to the system. The City of Washington's plant operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, NC0081191, which was applied for in April 2004. Map 15 depicts the City's sewerage system and provides the location of the wastewater treatment plant. The City of Washington has an agreement with the Town of Chocowinity and the Weyerhaeuser Corporation to provide a combined 145,000 gallons per day (gpd) of its treatment capacity (4.5% of total capacity) to the Cypress Landing development serving approximately 800 homes. At the present time, there are no package treatment plants in use within the City of Washington. The city opposes the construction of package treatment plants within its corporate area and as a result, none are expected to be constructed during the 20-year planning period. However, in the ETJ, in special cases where the use of private systems is the only available option, the City of Washington may permit the use of private systems only if the associated development meets the criteria provided in the policy statement section of this plan. 3. Solid Waste Disposal The City of Washington provides both residential and commercial solid waste collection. Door to door residential disposable refuse collection is provided once per week, with recycling collection also provided once per week. Commercial users are provided the option of utilizing City of Washington service or contracting with a private provider. All City of Washington -provided commercial collection is by dumpster. The City of Washington -collected waste is transported to a transfer station which is located on Flanders Filter Road in western Beaufort County. The City of Washington is a member of the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority. The Solid Waste Authority has a 28-year landfill City of Washington 110 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions contract with East Carolina Environmental in Bertie County for use of the regional landfill. The City of Washington generates approximately 2.6 cubic yards of waste per person per year, including both residential and commercial waste. The City of Washington also operates a land clearing and inert debris landfill (LCID) which is located off Minuteman Lane north of 15`h Street near the Warren Field airport. The City of Washington's sanitation division is in the Public Works Department. The sanitation division has 11 full-time employees. 4. Schools The Beaufort County School System serving the City of Washington is composed of five facilities which are summarized in Table 41. Map 16 depicts the public schools serving Washington. Table 41. Beaufort County Schools serving the City of Washington, 2005 School Grades Teachers Enrollment Sq. Ft. Capacity Eastern Elementary K - 1 51 586 58,313 At capacity J.C. Tayloe Elementary 2 Et 3 41 542 51,373 At capacity J. Small Elementary 4 Et 5 40 500 68,796 At capacity P.S. Jones Middle School 6 - 8 61 850 122,019 Beyond capacity Washington High School 9 - 12 77 1,051 171,549 At capacity Total 270 3,529 472,050 Source: Beaufort County Schools Administration. P.S. Jones Middle and John Small Elementary schools are scheduled to be closed in the Spring of 2006 and new schools opened at a site on North Market Street extension approximately one mile north of Warren Field. Reuse of the existing sites has not been determined as of this writing (March 2005). Total enrollment has decreased from 3,997 in 1989-1990 to 3,811 in 1996-1997, and to 3,529 in 2004-2005. This is a decrease of 12% since 1990. In addition to the county's schools, there are two private schools serving the Washington area. These schools include the Emmanuel Christian School on Highland Drive and the Greater Vision School on West Eight Street. Other schools outside the area that draw Washington students are Terra Ceia Christian, Pungo Christian Academy (Belhaven), St. Peters (Greenville), the Oakwood School (Greenville), and Parrott Academy (Kinston). City of Washington 111 Core Land Use Plan MAP 16 City of Washington Land Use Plan Community Facilities Legend O City Limits Major Roads O ETJ Roads Beaufort County Railroads - Washington Park Planning Area Hydrology Pitt County Community Facilities Airport Bridges Community Facilities 17. Old Band Field 1. City Hall 18. Seventh Street Center 2. Fire Department 19. Ninth Street Field 3. County Manager's Office 20. Veteran's Park 4. Police Department 21. Civic Center 5. Beaufort County Courthouse 22. Third & Pierce 6. P.S. Jones Middle School 23. Bridge Steel Field 7. Post Office 24.Bridge Street Center 8. Health Department 25. Beebe Park 9. Eastern Elementary School 26. Todd Maxwell Complex 10. John Small Elementary School 27. Wildlife Ramp 11. Washington High School 28. Stewarts Parkway 12. National Guard Armory 29. Castle Island 13. Boat Launch 30. J.C. Tayloe Elementary School 14. Havens Garden 31.North Carolina Estuarium 15. Bug House Park 32. John Haven Moss Mill 16. Kugler Field 33. Susiegray McConnell Sports Complex The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Y-F ol�� Consulting Planners, Inc. Page 112 Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 5. Transportation The City of Washington's Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 2000. This plan documents the findings of a study by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to update the 1979 Washington -Washington Park Thoroughfare Plan. Preparation of the study was initiated in March, 1997, in response to a request from local officials to evaluate the increased congestion on US 17 and US 264 in the Central Business District. The study culminated in the mutual adoption of an updated thoroughfare plan. The following provides the major and minor thoroughfares that are identified: a. Major Thoroughfares Major thoroughfares are designed to provide for the expeditious movement of high volumes of traffic within and through urban areas. This system of thoroughfares includes interstates, other freeways, expressways and parkways, as well as major streets. Listed below are the major thoroughfares, as designated in the 2004 Washington Thoroughfare Plan. US 264 US 17 NC 33 NC 32 SR 1507 - Slatestone Road SR 1501 - Highland Drive b. Minor Thoroughfares SR 1422 - Market Street SR 1403 - Clarks Neck Road SR 1306 - Fifteenth Street Proposed Radial Connector Proposed US 264 Bypass Proposed US 17 Bypass Minor thoroughfares function as collectors for traffic from local access streets to major thoroughfares. Minor thoroughfares supplement the major thoroughfare system by facilitating minor through traffic movements and by providing access to abutting property. The minor thoroughfares in the Washington planning area are listed below. SR 1509 - Springs Road SR 1166 - Wichards Beach Road SR 1313 - N. Asbury Church Road SR 1123 - Old Mounts Creek Road SR 1311 - S. Asbury Church Road Proposed Springs Road Connector SR 1303 - Brick Kiln Road Proposed Brick Kiln Road Connector SR 1300 - River Road City of Washington 113 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions A site plan and environmental assessment for the U.S. 17 Washington Bypass project has been completed, an alignment selected and construction should begin by Fall of 2006 (see Map 17). This project will be discussed in greater detail in the Future Land Use section of this plan. In general, however, this new roadway will exert significant development pressure on the new highway corridor, particularly around the proposed exit at US Highway 264. The thoroughfare plan provides an analysis of existing street capacity. An indication of the adequacy of the existing street system is a comparison of traffic volumes versus the ability of the streets to move traffic freely at a desirable speed. In an urban area, a street's ability to move traffic is generally controlled by the spacing of major intersections, access control, width of pavement, and the traffic control devices (such as signals) utilized. Capacity is the maximum number of vehicles which has a "reasonable expectation" of passing over a given section of a roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. The relationship of traffic volumes to the capacity of the roadway determines the level of service (LOS) provided. Six levels of service identify the range of possible conditions. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Appendix III shows the levels of congestion associated with the various levels of service. LOS D is considered the "practical capacity" of a facility, or that at which the public begins to express dissatisfaction. The roads near or at capacity are delineated on Map 18 (see page 118). The thoroughfare plan includes the following traffic capacity analysis: • US 17 - several sections of US 17 are currently operating near or over capacity. By the year 2030, if no improvements are made to the existing system, the majority of the roadway will be over capacity. • US 264 - US 264 from SR 1406 (Tranter Creek Estate Road) to SR 1403 (Clarks Neck Road) is currently operating near or over capacity. Approximately 20,300 vehicles per day are using this section of roadway. By the year 2030, if no improvements are made to the existing system, the majority of US 264 will be near or over capacity. City of Washington 114 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • NC 32 - NC 32 from Simmons Street to Runyon Creek is currently near or over capacity. The capacity on this section is 10,400 vehicles per day, with approximately 11,000 vehicles per day using the section of roadway. By the year 2030, if no improvements are made to the existing system, the NC 32 corridor from Simmons Street to SR 1303 (Brick Kiln Road) will be near or over capacity. Also, the section of NC 32 from SR 1309 (Christian Service Camp Road) to SR 1300 (River Road) will be over capacity in the year 2030. • NC 33 - NC 33 from US 17 to SR 1136 (Gray Road) is currently near or over capacity. The capacity on this section is 11,600 vehicles per day, with approximately 10,100 vehicles per day using the section of roadway. By the year 2030, if no improvements are made to the existing system, the entire NC 33 corridor will be over capacity. Slatestone Road (SR 1507) - SR 1507 from SR 1501 (Highland Drive) to the planning area boundary has a capacity of 9,000 vehicles per day. In 1997, the average daily traffic volume was 3,000 vehicles per day. By the year 2030, volumes are expected to increase to 8,000 vehicles per day, rendering this section of roadway near capacity. • Highland Drive (SR 1501) - SR 1501 from Fifteenth Street to Avon Avenue is currently near capacity. The capacity on this section is 10,400 vehicles per day, with approximately 9,100 vehicles per day using this section of roadway. By the year 2030, if no improvements are made to the existing system, SR 1501 from Fifteenth Street to SR 1507 (Slatestone Road) will be over capacity. Market Street (SR 1422) - SR 1422 from Third Street to Fifth Street (US 264) is currently operating near or over capacity. The capacity on this section is 10,500 vehicles per day, with approximately 10,000 vehicles per day using the section of roadway. If no improvements are made to the roadway, this section will be over capacity by the year 2030. SR 1422 from Fifteenth Street to the City limits has a capacity of 10,500 vehicles per day. In 1997, the average daily traffic volume was 5,200 vehicles per day. By the year 2030, volumes are expected to increase to 10,600 vehicles per day, rendering this section of roadway over capacity. City of Washington 116 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • Clarks Neck Road (SR 1403) - SR 1403 from US 264 to the City limits is currently over capacity. The capacity on this section is 9,200 vehicles per day with an average daily traffic volume of 10,000 vehicles per day. By the year 2030, if no improvements are made to the existing system, the entire SR 1403 corridor will be over capacity from US 264 to the Beaufort/Pitt County line. • N. Asbury Church Road (SR 1313) - SR 1313 from SR 1311 (S. Asbury Church Road) to SR 1501 (Old Bath Highway) has a capacity of 7,600 vehicles per day. In 1997, the average daily traffic volume was 2,800 vehicles per day. By the year 2030, volumes are expected to increase to 6,200 vehicles per day, rendering this section of roadway near capacity. • Old Blounts Creek Road (SR 1123) - SR 1123 from NC 33 to SR 1125 (Hill Road) has a capacity of 9,200 vehicles per day. In 1997, the average daily traffic volume was 2,900 vehicles per day. By the year 2030, volumes are expected to increase to 11,200 vehicles per day, rendering a section of the roadway over capacity. • Fifteenth Street - Fifteenth Street from Minuteman Lane to SR 1422 (Market Street) is currently operating near or over capacity. The capacity on this section is 21,700 vehicles per day, with approximately 23,300 vehicles per day using the section of roadway. By the year 2030, if no improvements are made to the existing system, the entire Fifteenth Street corridor will be over capacity. • Third Street - Third Street from Bonner Street to Brown Street is currently near capacity. The capacity is 10, 500 vehicles per day, with approximately 9,900 vehicles per day using this section of roadway. In the future years, Third Street from Market Street to NC 32 is expected to be over capacity and the volumes are expected to increase to 13,700 vehicles per day. The absence of adequate highway improvements in the City could negatively impact economic growth in both industry and tourism. Map 18 provides some of the City of Washington's average daily traffic counts and the roads that are at or near capacity. The highest traffic counts occur on US 17 and US 264. City of Washington 117 Core Land Use Plan MAP 18 City of Washington Land Use Plan NC Department of Transportation Annual Averaqe Dailv Traffic Count 2003 Legend O City Limits O ETJ _ Washington Park Planning Area rq Beaufort County Pitt County Airport Bridges • Annual Average Daily Traffic Count NC DOT Roads Major Roads Railroads Hydrology Road Capacity Near Capacity Over Capacity The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1,4 1 inch equals 4,000 feet 0 0.5 1 2 rjrcol� Consulting Planners, Inc. Page 118 J Miles 3 Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The City of Washington currently has one designated bicycle route: the Mountains to Sea, NC Bike Route 2. Because of this designation, this facility may be subjected to more bicycle traffic than other facilities of similar design. Mountains to Sea (NC Bike Route 2). SR 1403 (Clarks Neck Road): from Pitt County to US 264 US 264: from SR 1403 to US 17 (Bridge Street) US 17: from US 264 (5`h Street) to Main Street Main Street: from Bridge Street to Stewart Parkway Stewart Parkway: entire street Main Street: from Stewart Parkway to 2"d Street 2"d Street: from Bridge Street to SR 1352 (Hudnell Street) NC 32: From SR 1352 to SR 1331 In addition to the highway improvements, significant improvements have been made to Warren Field, including terminal apron and taxiway improvements, as part of a 20-year capital improvement and land acquisition program intended to extend runway 5-23 from its current 5,000 linear feet to 6,000 linear feet, and to improve airport communication and accessibility. The North Western Railway crosses the Pamlico River and extends through the southeastern portion of Washington's planning area. There is no significant rail traffic within Washington's planning area, and there are no passenger rail service or other improvements planned. 6. Recreation (Refer to public access policies and implementing actions, page 183, and general health and human services needs policies and implementing actions, page 213.) In 1992, the City of Washington prepared the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which was updated/amended in 1999. The plan includes an analysis of park and recreation needs, an inventory and evaluation of existing areas and facilities, and a plan and recommendations for meeting the immediate, intermediate, and long-range needs of programs and facilities for both active and passive recreation. Based on the plan's analysis, Table 42 provides a summary of the City of Washington's recreational facilities. These facilities are depicted on Map 16. City of Washington 119 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 42. City of Washington Recreation Facilities and Properties, 2005 Ownership (In Acres) Area City Schools 1. City -Wide Areas Todd Maxwell Complex Kugler Field Seventh Street Center Susiegray McConnell Sports Complex Eastern Elementary John Cotten Tayloe Field Ninth Street Field P.S. Jones Middle Old Band Field 2. Community -Serving Areas Bridge Street Center 3. Neighborhood Areas Oakdale Bug House Park 4. Open Space Veterans Park and Fragrance Garden Wildlife Ramp Havens Garden Beebe Park 5. Undeveloped Lands Third Street Castle Island Airport Property Eastern Elementary School Jack's Creek 6. Special Use Areas Stewart Parkway Civic Center 7. Ownership Summary City Owned School Owned" 8. Principal Use Summary Active Recreation Passive Recreation/Open Space Undeveloped Special Use Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Totals 'School owned lands are net acres available for recreation. -Excludes new high school lands. Source: City of Washington Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City of Washington 120 3.5 4.0 8.0 14.0 29.5 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 1.4 6.5 3.0 13.9 1.5 1.5 4.0 6.0 13.0 10.0 2.0 12.0 75.9 "44.5 37.0 13.9 13.0 12.0 75.9 15.0 12.0 2.5 4.0 1.0 34.5 34.5 10.0 44.5 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions In addition, the City of Washington is blessed with extensive shoreline assets. These include both natural and manmade features and are summarized as follows: • Pamlico/Tar River • The hardwood swamps on the south side of the Pamlico/Tar River and the Tar River National Heritage Priority Area • US 17 bridge and causeway • Stewart Parkway and recreation area • John Haven Moss Mill • Washington Civic Center • North Carolina Estuarium • Pamlico River Islands (Castle Island) • Havens Gardens • City of Washington Historic District • Tranters Creek NC wildlife boat ramp • Washington Central Business District • City of Washington Greenway System • Carolina Winds Yacht Club • City of Washington Steward Parkway Bulkhead Boat Dock Map 16 provides the locations of the community facilities. 7. Electric System The City of Washington's electrical system receives power from Carolina Power and Light (CPEtL) at the Chocowinity 230 kV Delivery Point (POD). From this POD, the City of Washington owns and operates a 6.65-mile radial 230 kV transmission line, which crosses the Pamlico River to its destination at the City of Washington's Main Substation. The Main Substation steps down 230 kV to 34.5 kV. The substation contains two three-phase 45/84 MVA transformers and is owned by the City of Washington. The 230 kV to 34.5 kV transformers are designated as T1 and T2 in Table 43 and are loaded to 55.8% and 96.4% of their base capacity rating, respectively. The City of Washington owns and maintains 33 miles of 34.5 kV transmission line. The 34.5 kV transmission system consists of four radial circuits. The first transmission circuit is dedicated to serve Hamilton Beach, a large commercial load. The second transmission circuit serves the Wharton Station Substation and large commercial loads: Stanadyne, Flanders Filters, Bonny Products, Cox Direct, and Pamlico Technical Molding. The third transmission circuit feeds the Water's Mill and Slatestone Substations. The City of Washington 121 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions fourth transmission circuit feeds the Forest Hills and Whitepost Substations. Currently, the 34.5 kV transmission system experiences no thermal capacity or voltage drop problems. However, the 34.5 kV line from the Main Substation to Forest Hills is 73.0% loaded. The City of Washington owns six substations that step down 34.5 kV to 12.47/7.2 kV. These include the Main, Water's Mill, Forest Hills, Whitepost, Slatestone Road, and Wharton Station Substations. The large commercial customer substations step down 34.5 kV to 480/277 volts to serve large commercial loads. Table 43 shows the primary and secondary voltage rating and the existing transformer capacity at each substation. Table 43. City of Washington, Transformer Capacity Versus Peak Load, 2005 Transformer Capacity Present System Percent Loading Substation (OA/FA MVA) Peak Load (kW) (OA/FA) 230 kV to 34.5 kV Main T1 45/84 25.1 55.8/29.9 Main T2 45/84 43.4 96.4/51.7 TOTAL 90/168 68.5 76.1/40.8 34.5 kV to 12.5 kV Main T3 15/28 17.2 114.7/61.4 Main T4 15/28 16.5 110.0/58.9 Water's Mill 7.5/10.5 2.9 38.7/27.6 Forest Hills 20/28 19.3 96.5/68.9 Whitepost 10/14 4.7 47.0/33.6 Slatestone 10/14 2.6 26.0/18.6 Wharton Station 11.2/14 7.4 66.1/52.9 TOTAL 88.7/136.5 70.6 71.3/46.0 34.5 kV to 480V Flanders Filters 2.5/3.5 1.09 43.6/31.1 Hamilton Beach 5/7 2.66 53.2/38.0 Bonny Products 0.75/1 0.41 54.7/41.0 Stanadyne 5/7 2.93 58.6/41.9 Cox Direct 1.5/2.2 0.62 41.3/28.2 Pamlico Technical Molding 0.75/1 0.44 58.7/44.0 TOTAL 15.5/21.7 8.15 53.1/37.8 Source: City of Washington Electric Utilities, System Planning Report, Long Range Plan. City of Washington 122 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The main substation transformer T3 is currently loaded to 114.7% of its base capacity rating at peak loading conditions, and transformer T4 is loaded at 110%. Currently, no other substation transformer is experiencing capacity problems. Service reliability is an important factor in measuring the quality of service provided to the consumer. The City of Washington currently receives service from one CP>:tL delivery point on a radial 230 kV transmission line. Each of the City of Washington's 34.5 kV transmission lines is radial. The radial transmission system, in combination with a single, radial delivery point, greatly increases the City of Washington's exposure in the event of a power supply or transmission system outage. For example, a power supply outage will interrupt electrical service to the entire City of Washington for the duration of the outage. Should a power supply outage occur in the Pamlico River Crossing, the repair time will be significant. Additionally, outages on the 34.5 kV transmission system can create severe problems for the City of Washington. The radial system does not allow for the re -feed of affected areas, and limited intersubstation tie lines minimize the area that can be re -fed from the distribution system. The addition of a new point -of -delivery and the creation of 34.5 kV transmission tie lines would significantly enhance system reliability. The city is currently pursuing routes to create transmission tie lines for the existing 34.5 kV feeders. In addition, in the event of an outage at the city's POD or a 230 kV transmission system failure, the City of Washington can make arrangements with North Carolina Power to connect to an existing 115 kV transmission line which currently is accessible inside the city's main substation. This could provide temporary power for the city in the event of an extended outage from CP£tL. Currently, the distribution system lacks reserve substation transformer capacity to handle emergency load shifts. Additionally, the thermal capacity of some distribution feeders prohibits effective load shifts. In the event of a major outage, such as a substation transformer failure, it is desirable to transfer loads to adjacent substations. With the current replacement of aged feeders and the future installation of new feeders within the intersubstation distribution system, the service reliability of the city's electric system is continuing to improve. Deregulation of the electric industry in North Carolina has been considered by the NC Legislature for several of the past five years. Industry deregulation may have an impact on the supply of electricity to the City of Washington and should be carefully monitored. The electric power industry is the last public utility sector in this country to undergo deregulation, also called restructuring, competition, and retail wheeling. In City of Washington 123 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions theory, in a deregulated environment, customers would be able to purchase electricity from any supplier. Suppliers could sell to any customer at rates determined by the market and not controlled by regulation. In addition to paying for electric supply, customers also would pay for having that electricity transmitted to their home or business. Charges that are part of the total rate package a customer now pays would be broken down into their component parts: electric power generation, transmission through the electric grid, and distribution to the individual customer's location. 8. Police The City of Washington Police Department (WPD) includes 48 full-time personnel, 11 of which are civilian employees in communication and support services with the remainder sworn positions (i.e., uniformed officers). The department maintains 19 patrol cars and one van. The facility of the Washington Police Department was built in 1975 and is located at 201 West Third Street. The WPD is divided into Administrative, Uniformed Patrol, Investigative, and Special Operations divisions. The Administrative Division is responsible for budgetary needs, equipment/ supplies, maintenance of facility and equipment, payroll, training, policy Et procedures, and personnel matters. This division is commanded by the Chief of Police and supplemented by an Administrative Captain and one secretary. The Uniformed Patrol Division is responsible for protection of life and property, suppression of criminal activity, enforcement of the law as well as apprehension and prosecution of offenders, investigation of crimes, investigation of calls for service, enhancement of community relations, and preservation of the peace. This Division is commanded by two Police Division Commanders (Platoon Lieutenants) who are each responsible for two shifts. This Division also is comprised of two School Resource Officers and a Municipal Code Enforcement Officer. The Criminal Investigations Division is responsible for providing assistance to the Patrol Division by conducting criminal investigations of serious crimes, of specific felonies and patterns of misdemeanors, and of crimes requiring extensive follow-up investigations or specialized skills. This Division is commanded by a Police Division Commander (Lieutenant) who supervises three police detectives and two narcotics investigators. The Special Operations Division is responsible for providing Enhanced Emergency 911 communications to the citizens of Washington and the Washington Police Department. This division also provides staff assistance by maintaining a central record -keeping City of Washington 124 Core Land Use Plan Section V Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions facility, exercising control of property and evidence, and assisting other functions with clerical skill. This Division is commanded by the Special Operations Commander and is staffed with six full-time telecommunicators, one Records/Evidence Custodian, and one part-time Data Entry Clerk. The City of Washington is a member of the Beaufort -Washington Drug Task Force. Historically, the highest crime areas have been the Washington Square Mall, the public housing communities, and the West Fourth Street area. 9. Fire/Rescue/Emergency Services The City of Washington has an ISO fire rating of five on a scale of one to nine, with one being the best rating. The city's only fire station is almost centrally located at Fifth and Market Streets. The City of Washington Fire/Rescue/EMS department personnel includes 21 full- time firefighters (18 are state -certified firefighters, 5 are Level Two fire instructors, and 8 are Level Three fire inspectors). The department has six Hazmat technicians and 17 certified at Hazmat Operations Level, with six technicians serving on the regional response team as well. In addition to those duties, the department also has a Certified Public Fire Educator Level Two and another at Level One. All personnel are state - certified EMT intermediates able to give advanced life support with heart medications and defibrillation in the field. The department is organized into four divisions: Operations, Fire Prevention Code Enforcement, Public Fire and Life Safety Education, and Training and Volunteer Support. Major firefighting equipment owned by the Department includes: 3 Engines, two licensed as ALS Engines 2 Advanced Life Support EMS Units 1 75-foot Aerial Platform 1 Light Rescue Truck 1 Hazmat/Equipment Truck 4 Command Support Vehicles 1 14-foot Rescue Boat City of Washington 125 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The Department's employees are supplemented by 20 volunteer firefighters in various stages of state certification. The department holds 25 to 30 hours per month in certified fire training with additional EMS continuing education. 10. Administration/Personnel The City of Washington operates a Manager -Council form of government and has 241 budgeted full-time positions (or equivalents). There are twelve departments which include: Office of City Manager, Communications (Formerly Public Affairs), Planning and Development, Finance, Human Resources, Library, Police, Fire, Travel/Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Electric. An Executive Director's position for Downtown Washington on the Waterfront (DWOW) has been funded by the City as of FY2004. Table 44 provides the 2005 staffing for each City department. Table 44. Staffing by Department, City of Washington, February, 2005 Budgeted Current P-T Equiv. Current Department Full -Time Current Vacant Part -Time To F-T Temporary Office of the City Manager 3 3 Public Affairs 1 1 DWOW 1 1 Planning and Development 6 6 Finance: Director's Office 1 1 Accounting 5 5 Collections li Credits 4 4 Information Systems 3 3 Purchasing 3 3 Fire/Rescue/EMS 29 28 1 Police 48 45 3 4 1.150 Human Resources 3 3 Travel / Tourism 1 1 3 1.400 Library 5 5 5 2.350 1 Parks and Recreation: Director's Office 2 2 1 0.625 Maintenance 6 6 6 4.250 Programs/Athletics 1 1 2 0.350 Civic Center 1 1 4 0.725 Rec. Centers 1 1 5 1.100 Aquatics 2 2 16 6.500 Docks 0 0 6 2.100 Senior Center 1 1 3 0.650 (Continued on next page) City of Washington 126 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Budgeted Current P-T Equiv. Current Department Full -Time Current Vacant Part -Time To F-T Temporary Public Works: Director's Office 4 4 Streets 10 10 Sanitation 11 10 1 1 Drainage 6 6 Water Resources 20 20 Water and Sewer 9 9 General Services 12 12 Electric: Director's Office 3 3 TAD 21 20 1 1 0.375 Meter Services 5 5 0.450 1 Substation 3 3 Load Management 5 4 1 2 1.500 Customer Services 7 6 1 1 1 Source: City of Washington, Human Resources Department. 11. Streets The City's Public Works Department, Streets Division provides the following programs: street maintenance, sidewalk maintenance, and street cleaning services for City -owned streets. The street maintenance program is responsible for pavement repairs, street shoulder repairs, curb and gutter repairs, and street marking on 49 miles of paved City streets and 3.47 miles of unpaved streets. The sidewalk maintenance program provides on -going maintenance and replacement of damaged sidewalks. The street cleaning program sweeps all City streets at regular intervals. In fiscal year 2004, the City received $319,483.32 in North Carolina Powell Bill funds to assist it with street maintenance and repair. 12. Telephone Service Telephone service in the City is provided by Sprint and TriCounty Communications. 13. Internet Service There are five local internet service providers for dial -up and high speed (via DSL) internet service in operation as of March, 2005, as follows: • Inter -net of Beaufort Hyde • Cox High Speed • Sprint DSL City of Washington 127 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • Starband Satellite Internet (Harris Electronics) • TriCounty Communications 14. Cell Phone Service Cellular phone service is provided in the City by ARtel, Sprint, US Cellular, and SunCom. 15. Stormwater Management (Refer to land use compatibility policies and implementing actions, pages 187 to 196, and water quality policies and implementing actions, pages 204 to 208.) a. Introduction Stormwater discharges are generated by run-off from land and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops during rainfall and snow events. They often contain pollutants in quantities that can adversely affect water quality and create flooding problems. When roads, parking lots, sidewalks, homes, and offices replace the natural and permeable landscape, rainfall that would once soak into vegetated ground is now available for Stormwater runoff. As surfaces become more and more impermeable, water simply moves across them. These impermeable surfaces connect to form a stormwater "super highway." One of the effects of this water super highway is that more and more stormwater reaches streams because there is less opportunity for it to infiltrate the ground. Peak flows also increase, transporting runoff from large areas rapidly. Velocities in streams increase causing more erosion potential, and lastly, base flow is lower during dry weather because of a lack of infiltration. Using a traditional analysis, such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) stormwater model, TR 55, or the United States Corps of Engineers' (USCE) many versions of HEC, it can be shown that peak flows alone can increase by as much as four times from pre -post development conditions. Flooding is the result of this urbanization. b. Erosion and Sedimentation Erosion and sedimentation have long been recognized as water quality concerns. The North Carolina legislature passed laws to curb sedimentation in 1973; however, sedimentation remains the number one pollutant in NC waters. In the 1990s, the focus of the Piedmont and Eastern NC watersheds turned towards City of Washington 128 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions excess nutrients in surface waters. The excess was due to extensive farming operations in the area. Fertilizers contain nutrients for plants to grow, but if excess fertilizer is inadvertently applied to pavement, these nutrients enter the waters during runoff periods causing harm to water quality. Even proper amounts of applied fertilizer can allow nutrients to enter streams in other ways, such as atmospheric deposition, wildlife and pet waste, and septic system malfunctions. There are numerous ways to reduce pollutant loading. Proper application of fertilizer and proper maintenance of septic systems can reduce loading. Structural devices can also help curb this problem. These structural devices, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs), can be constructed to treat runoff, thereby reducing the amount of pollutant that enters the waterways. These BMPs include wet ponds, stormwater wetlands, infiltration trenches, wells, sand filters, bioretention rain gardens, rubble spreaders, riparian buffers, and reinforcing grassy swells. C. EPA Regulations The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun implementation of Phase II of the Stormwater Management Plan. These policies apply to municipalities with populations greater than 10,000 and/or with densities of 1,000 per square mile. For municipalities that meet these parameters, submittal of a stormwater management plan is required. Phase II regulations also apply to entities designated under the 1990 census as a Small MS4 (Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System). MS4's are defined as a publicly -owned conveyance or system of conveyances designed or used for collecting and conveying stormwater. MS4's are not combined with sewer and are not part of a publicly - owned treatment facility. Municipally -owned MS4's can include counties, cities, airports, federal properties, hospitals, schools, etc. Small community MS4's are regulated if they discharge into impaired or sensitive US waters. In addition, counties classified as a Tier 4 or Tier 5 county are regulated. At this time, the City of Washington is not required to meet the new EPA Phase II Stormwater Management Program regulations, but expects to be required to meet all Phase II requirements in the near future (i.e., 5 to 7 year planning period for this Plan). The EPA has developed guidelines for implementing the Phase II Stormwater Management Program. The stormwater pollution problem has two main components: the increased volume and rate of runoff from impervious surfaces and the concentration of pollutants in the runoff. Both components are City of Washington 129 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions directly related to new developmental and urbanizing areas. Both components also cause changes in the hydrology and water quality that result in a variety of problems, such as habitat modification, increased flooding, decreased aquatic biological diversity, and increased sedimentation and erosion. Effective management of stormwater runoff offers a multitude of possible benefits. Benefits include protection of wetlands and aquatic eco-systems, improved quality of receding water bodies, conservation of water resources, protection of public health through flood control, and improved operation and hydraulic characteristics of streams receiving run-off; all of which can cause higher peak flow rates that increase frequency and duration of bank full and sub -bank full flows. Increased occurrences in downstream flooding can also be reduced by lowering base flood levels, such as with traditional flood control methods that rely on the detention of the peak flows. They are generally not targeted to the reduction of flooding and in many cases have exacerbated the problems associated with changes in hydrology and hydraulics. The EPA recommends an approach that integrates control of stormwater peak flows and the protection of natural channels to sustain physical and chemical properties of aquatic life. The EPA has outlined six steps for the development of BMP's for a stormwater management plan. The six steps are as follows: (1) Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts (2) Public Involvement and Participation (3) Elicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (4) Construction Site and Stormwater Runoff Control (5) Post -Construction Stormwater Management, and New Development or Redevelopment (6) Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations d. Construction Activities Stormwater runoff from construction activities can have a significant impact on water quality, contributing sediment and other pollutants exposed at construction sites. The NPDES Stormwater Program requires operators of both large and small construction sites to obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under a NPDES construction stormwater permit. In 1990, the Phase I Stormwater Management Program regulations addressed large construction operations that disturbed five or more acres of land. The NPDES program also addresses small City of Washington 130 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions construction activities - those that disturb less than five acres of land - which were included in the Phase II final rule. Construction activities that disturb over one acre of land are required to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan specifically designed for the construction site. The development implementations of the plan follow the basic phases listed below: (1) Site Planning and Design Development Phase (2) Assessment Phase (3) Control Selection/Design Phase (4) Certification/Verification/Approval Phase (5) Implementation/Construction Phase (6) Final Stabilization/Termination Phase e. North Carolina Shoreline Buffering In August 2000, the State of North Carolina developed a 30 foot buffering rule for all new development in the 20 coastal counties governed by the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA). This rule applies to all navigable waters, excluding the ocean, which has previously established setback requirements. The development of this buffer does not restrict the construction of water dependent structures, such as docks and boat ramps. The benefits of the buffering include the following: (1) Flood Control - by reducing the velocity and providing a collection area for stormwater runoff and precipitation. Buffers encourage water infiltration into the ground, rather than flooding low-lying areas. (2) Groundwater Recharge - buffers are also beneficial to recharging the ground water supply and promoting ground water flow. (3) Soil Erosion Prevention - vegetated buffers stabilize the soil and reduce sedimentation. (4) Conservation of Coastal Riparian Wildlife Habitats - these natural areas provide breeding, nesting, and habitat, and protect wildlife from predication. Vegetated buffers help increase the diversity of wildlife while providing site for foraging and corridors for dispersal. City of Washington 131 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions f. Stormwater Management/Drainage as Related to the City of Washington Washington experiences stormwater/drainage problems throughout the City. These problems result from low elevation and depressed areas which do not have any natural drainage and from inadequately sized stormwater conveyances, resulting in flooding from heavy rainfall and/or hurricane storm surges. Simply fixing the problems of flood reduction is expensive, much less reduction of the contaminants found in stormwater. A 1999 study conducted by Jarvis Engineering of Washington documented over $12 million in stormwater management -related capital improvement needs in the Jack's Creek drainage basin alone, not to mention the other drainage basins in the city, such as Runyon and Cherry Run creeks. Therefore, in July 2002, the City of Washington created a Stormwater Utility pursuant to the authority granted it by the North Carolina General Assembly at NCGS 160A-314. The purpose of this utility is to oversee construction of capital drainage and related facilities and to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of stormwater drainage infrastructure owned and maintained by the City. The City of Washington became just the seventh in the State to fund its Stormwater Utility through use of a Stormwater Service Charge, applied to all developed properties in the City. For residences, the monthly fee ranges from $2 to $4 a month, and for nonresidential property, including businesses and institutions, the monthly fee ranges from $10 to $100 a month. The first major drainage project undertaken with funds from the City's Stormwater Utility is rebuilding Park Drive at Jack's Creek to speed up drainage of hurricane storm tide flooding. This project involves placing box culverts equipped with floodgates beneath Park Drive and to increase the size of the culvert under East Main Street at Jack's Creek. These modifications will allow hurricane storm surge flooding to drain from the City fairly soon after the river level returns to normal. This project is near completion and is being completed in conjunction with Federal and State grant funds. The areas of particular drainage/stormwater management concern include: Jacks Creek, Runyon Creek, and the Cherry Run drainage basin. Although the City does not currently fall under the requirements of the NPDES Phase II program discussed above, funds from the Stormwater Service City of Washington 132 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Charge are being used to develop the capacity within the City to implement all six BMPs required under the Phase II program. The City does fall under the Tar - Pamlico Stormwater Rule, which has very similar requirements to the NPDES Phase II program. Adopted in April 2001, the Tar -Pamlico Stormwater Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0258) requires 11 local governments in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, including the City, to prepare, adopt, and implement programs to address the issue of nutrient control within their respective jurisdictions. In February 2003, the State's Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved a model local program developed by staff and stakeholders, and the City adopted a compliant program in November 2004. The City's program establishes broad objectives for limiting nutrient runoff from developed areas based on overall nutrient strategy goals of a 30% reduction in nitrogen loading relative to a 1991 baseline and holding phosphorus loading to a baseline value. EMC identified the following set of elements that local governments (including the City) were to include in their programs: A. New Development Review/Approval Local governments are to establish permitting programs that require all new development activities to meet the following: • 4.0 pounds per acre per year (lb/ac/yr) nitrogen export. • 0.4 lb/ac/yr phosphorus export. • Proposals that exceed these performance standards may partially offset their load increases by treating existing developed areas offsite that drain to the same classified stream. • At minimum, post -development peak flows leaving the site may not exceed pre -development for the 1-year, 24-hour storm event. • Local governments have the option of using regional or jurisdiction - wide approaches to help meet nutrient loading and attenuation requirements under certain circumstances. B. Illegal Discharges Local governments are to identify and remove illegal discharges. C. Retrofit Locations Local governments are to identify sites and opportunities for retrofitting existing development to reduce total nitrogen and phosphorus loads. City of Washington 133 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions D. Public Education Local governments are to develop and implement public and developer education programs for the Tar -Pamlico basin. This program is being implemented by the City's Public Works Department. It should be noted that the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's review of scientific studies has resulted in a determination that where local governments simply defer to state and federal rules to address water quality, impaired water quality may result. This is based on the following conclusions: • 10% impervious or greater areas can be linked to local stream degradation. • Biological diversity has been shown to drop when area impervious surface increases beyond 10-15%. • Stream stability affected when impervious surface approaches 10% in an area. • Estuaries generally degrade after 10% impervious surface area occurs. • Sensitive fish species loss increases after about 12%. H. Land Suitability Analysis (Refer to infrastructure carrying capacity policies and implementing actions, pages 196 to 202, and natural hazard policies and implementing actions, pages 202 to 204.) A thorough analysis of all impediments to development, as well as existing community facilities, has been completed in Sections V(E) and V(G) of this Plan. These same sections also analyzed factors that attract development, such as the presence of transportation, water and waste disposal capabilities. All of these variables factor into suitability for development for a specific piece of property. In order to assess what effect the various man-made and environmental constraints will have on development throughout the City of Washington, an overlay analysis was performed. This overlay analysis is a GIS-based process geared toward evaluating the suitability of land for development. The procedure is very similar to the practice developed by Ian McHarg, the Scottish urban designer, in which geospatial data layers are referenced to each other in an effort to determine what portions of a land mass appear to be the most favorable sites for a specific land use. City of Washington 134 Core Land Use Plan The overall process utilized Arcview GIS software with the Spatial Analyst extension along with data layers provided by the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA). The analysis takes into consideration a number of factors, including natural systems constraints, compatibility with existing land uses and development patterns, existing land use policies, and the availability of community facilities. The end product of this analysis is a land suitability map that shows underutilized land that is suited or not suited for development (see Map 19). This map can be used as a foundation for the discussion and formation of city-wide land use policy, and should be compared to the future land use map (see the City's 2006 Comprehensive Plan). Land suitability analysis involves the application of criteria to the landscape to assess where land is most and least suitable for development of structures and infrastructure. A computer application is not essential for this analysis, but greatly simplifies the process. There are eight key steps to completing the overlay analysis: (1) Define criteria for the analysis (2) Define data needed (3) Determine what GIS analysis operations should be performed (4) Prepare the data (5) Create a model (6) Run the model (7) Analyze results (8) Refine model as needed All of these steps have been completed and, as noted above, the end product is displayed on Map 19. There were no additions or adjustments to the default layer sets and weighting factors provided by the Division of Coastal Management to the city for the existing land suitability analysis map. Prior to producing the map, data was compiled and each data layer in conjunction with criteria was assigned a weight. The city was then divided into one -acre squares. Each of these one -acre squares of land was given a score based on how that respective piece of property related to each data layer. The score for each data layer was multiplied against that given layer's weight. The scores for each layer were added together to determine a suitability rating for that one -acre square of property. The suitability rating falls into four primary categories: least suitable, low suitability, medium suitability, and high suitability. City of Washington 135 Core Land Use Plan r 91 6�i'�r Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions The following table summarizes all data layers used, including the criteria and weight assigned to each layer. Table 45. Land Suitability Analysis Criteria Criteria and Rating Least Low Medium High Assigned Layer Name Suitable Suitability Suitability Suitability Weight 0 -2 1 +2 Coastal Wetlands Exclusion" Inside Outside Exceptional Et Substantial Exclusion" Inside Outside Non -Coastal Wetlands Estuarine Waters Exclusion' Inside Outside Protected Lands Exclusion' Inside Outside Storm Surge Areas Weighted Inside Outside 2 Soils (Septic Limitations) Weighted Severe Moderate Slight 2 Flood Zones Weighted Inside Outside 2 HQW/ORW Watersheds Weighted Inside Outside 1 Natural Heritage Areas Weighted <500' >500' 1 Hazardous Substance Disposal Weighted <500' >500' 1 Sites NPDES Sites Weighted <500' >500' 1 Wastewater Treatment Plants Weighted <500' >500' 1 Discharge Points Weighted <500' >500' 1 Land Application Sites Weighted -- <500' >500' 1 -- Developed Land Weighted >1 mi .5 - 1 mi <.5 mi 1 Roads Weighted >1 mi .5 - 1 mi <.5 mi 2 Water Pipes Weighted >.5 mi .25 - .5 mi <.25 mi 3 Sewer Pipes Weighted >.5 mi .25 - .5 mi <.25 mi 3 'Data layers that are slated as exclusion have a suitability of 0 or 1, meaning that if a specific one -acre piece of property falls within one of these areas, it is automatically considered least suitable for development. Source: NCCGIA and CAMA. Overall, land in the City of Washington is predominantly suitable for development. Table 46 provides a summary of land suitability acreage based on the results of the overlay analysis. The majority of the land within the city determined to have a high suitability rating is located within the City limits, white much of the land south of the Tar/Pamlico river is unsuitable due to the presence of severe environmental constraints, such as wetlands. City of Washington 137 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions Table 46. Land Suitability Analysis for the City of Washington and ETJ, 2005 City and ETJ % from Acres Total Corporate Limits % from Acres Total Least 3,358 19.3% 176 Low 3,445 19.8% 64 Moderate 5,747 33.1% 1,594 High 4,818 27.7% 2,251 TOTAL 17,368 100.0% 4,085 Source: NCCGIA and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. ETJ % from Acres Total 4.3% 3,182 24.0% 1.6% 3,381 25.5% 39.0% 4,153 31.3% 55.1% 2,567 19.3% 100.0% 13,283 100.0% 1. Current Plans, Policies and Regulations The City of Washington has a wide array of land use -related plans and ordinances. The following plans and ordinances apply within both the City of Washington's corporate limit area and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) unless otherwise noted. This section provides a summary of the related plans, ordinances, and land use controls. 1. Zoning Ordinance The City of Washington zoning ordinance has been prepared to be consistent with N.C.G.S. 160A, the enabling legislation for the preparation of zoning ordinances for municipalities and enacted by Chapter 27 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The ordinance was originally adopted in 1955. The zoning ordinance was prepared to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction are developed in an efficient and economically sound manner which will best promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people. The ordinance provides for 16 separate zoning districts which may be divided into residential, office and institutional, business, industrial, and airport districts. The ordinance also designates the Director of Planning and Development as the official responsible for enforcement of the ordinance and creates a Zoning Board of Adjustment to hear appeals of zoning determinations and enforcement actions. In addition, the ordinance includes additional design and setback requirements for development proposed in the City and ETJ floodplain areas and the City's historic district. Finally, the ordinance City of Washington 138 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions requires that mobile home parks, telecommunication towers and antennae, and Planned Unit and Multi -Family Development meet certain design criteria. Since the 1996 CAMA Land Use Plan Update, the City's zoning ordinance has undergone only minor revisions. In 2004, multi -family residential land uses and organic health food stores and warehouses were allowed to be sited in the Office and Institutional (0 1* 1) zoning category by amendment of Section 27-43 of the City's Code of Ordinances. 2. Subdivision Regulations The City of Washington subdivision regulations are consistent with N.C.G.S. 160A, which is the enabling legislation for the adoption of subdivision regulations for municipalities and is enacted in the City and its ETJ by Chapter 17 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The purpose of this subdivision ordinance is to establish procedures and standards for the development and division of land within the corporate limits and ETJ of the City of Washington in order to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The ordinance was adopted in 1968 and was last substantially revised in 1996 when curb and guttering requirements were relaxed to allow a more natural stormwater management design that allowed pollutants to settle out prior to entering drainageways. 3. North Carolina State Building Code The City of Washington has adopted and enforces the North Carolina State Building Code as enacted through Chapter 4 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The City's Chief of Inspections under the supervision of the City's Director of Planning and Development is designated as the enforcement officer. 4. Floodplain Development Ordinance The City of Washington participates in the National Flood Insurance Program and complies with all related regulatory requirements, as enacted by Chapter 27-102 of the City's Code of Ordinances, as part of the City of Washington's zoning ordinance. Development proposals and subdivision plats are reviewed to ensure consistency with the flood insurance program. This ordinance was revised in the year 2000 to mirror the "model" ordinance recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at that time. City of Washington 139 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 5. Minimum Housing Code Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 160A-441, the City of Washington has adopted a minimum housing code, enacted through Article V of Chapter 4 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The code regulates housing that has been found to be unfit for human habitation due to dilapidation; defects increasing the hazards of fire, accident, and other calamities; lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities; and other conditions which may render a dwelling unit unfit for occupancy. 6. Warren Field Airport Layout Plan Report The Airport Layout Plan for Warren Field Airport was prepared to provide guidance for airport development and to specifically plan for a future precision approach, runway extension, terminal area expansion, and land acquisition and release related to proposed improvements. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) was prepared in accordance with FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) Advisory Circular 150/5300 [changes 1 through 4], Airport Design. The Airport Layout Plan, comprising airport drawings and reports, provides the community with an approved development plan that can be implemented during the next five- and ten-year planning periods (approval provided by NCDOT Division of Aviation as delegated by FAA through the Block Grant Program). The ALP also serves as a reference for local decision -making on land use proposals and budget and resource planning. The ALP Report explains the reasoning for proposed improvements and describes the important features of the airport drawings. 7. Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Washington, April 1992/1999 This plan consists of an analysis of park and recreation needs; an inventory and evaluation of existing areas and facilities; and recommendations for meeting the immediate, intermediate, and long-range needs for programs and facilities for both active and passive recreation. The plan recognizes the roles to be played by voluntary agencies, the schools, the City of Washington, and private suppliers of recreation in meeting these needs. This plan was updated in 1999 to include the concept plan for a Jack's Creek greenway to incorporate many floodprone properties purchased by the City pursuant to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). City of Washington 140 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and EmerQina Conditions 8. Water Master Plan, City of Washington, NC, January 1991 This study provides a guide for the Mayor and Council to address the existing and future needs of the water system in the City of Washington. It was prepared after numerous discussions with the Mayor, Water Committee, and Manager, and presented current problems, potential demands on the system, and goals and objectives over the next 20 years. The plan also provided priorities for establishing a policy for providing water service. 9. US 17 Improvements, Washington and Chocowinity Vicinity, Beaufort County and Pitt County, NC, from South of SR1127 to North of SR1418, 2002 This plan was prepared by the Raleigh -based engineering firm of Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, and assessed the environmental and economic impact of the development of a US 17 Bypass from the Chocowinity area, through the eastern part of the City, and meeting back up with US 17 north of Whispering Pines Road. 10. Solid Waste Management Plan, Beaufort County and Municipalities, July 1997 This plan was prepared in accordance with N.C. General Statute 130A-309.09A (b) for the purpose of meeting local solid waste needs and protecting public health and the environment. This comprehensive solid waste management plan, and the plan updates that will follow every three years, provides for the management of solid waste and its reduction for the next 10 years. The planning area includes Beaufort County and the following municipalities: Aurora, Belhaven, Chocowinity, Pantego, and Washington. The Towns of Bath and Washington Park, which are located in Beaufort County, will not be part of the Beaufort County plan. They will be responsible for producing their own plans. The plan cites the following five goals: • To provide everyone in the community with waste disposal capacity, waste collection services, and waste reduction opportunities. To increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the solid waste program. City of Washington 141 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions • To meet the established local waste reduction goals. • To decrease improper waste disposal. • To protect public health and the environment. 11. Stormwater Policy, June 2002 The City of Washington owns and manages a public drainage system throughout the City. In order to finance ongoing maintenance, improvements to the existing system, and new construction and/or modifications to meet new state and federal regulations regarding stormwater runoff into surface waters, the City enacted a Stormwater Utility through its June 2002 stormwater policy. In adopting this policy, the City joined several other North Carolina cities in implementing a Stormwater service charge based on the amount of impervious surfaces found on each land parcel to city residents, businesses, and institutions to help pay for improvements to the city -owned components of the public drainage system. 12. Downtown Washington Riverside Renaissance Plan, 1997 The Riverside Renaissance project, part of Washington's citizen -driven Downtown Washington Master Plan, strengthens the connection between the waterfront and the business district and makes the area more inviting for pedestrians and boaters. The Plan called for bulkhead renovations, a course of red brick pavers, blue railings and lighting and t-style boat slips at Stewart Parkway, along with stormwater management improvements in the area to reduce the pollution flowing from the City into the Tar/Pamlico River. The improvements envisioned in this Plan were completed in 2002, primarily through grants from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Division of Coastal Management. 13. Master Plan/Economic Repositioning Program for Downtown Washington, 2005 The non-profit Downtown Washington on the Waterfront, Inc., (DWOW) organization has spearheaded this effort to meet DWOW's mission to "renew, restore, rebuild, and revitalize the downtown business district, improve economic conditions, lessen the burden of government, and combat community deterioration." (Source: DWOW) This plan, being developed on behalf of DWOW by Strategic Planning Group, Inc., and WK Dickson Engineering, contains both an economic analysis of the feasibility of different City of Washington 142 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions redevelopment options for downtown and numerous design concepts (i.e., "Concept Plans") that should guide redevelopment efforts in the downtown area. The study is in draft format as of this writing (March 2005). 14. Historic Preservation Ordinance Section 27-162 of the City's Zoning Ordinance creates a local Historic Preservation Commission that oversees historic preservation design guidelines for the City's Historic District (see Map 20). The Commission must issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to a property owner wishing to undertake any major exterior work to a structure in the City's historic district or for any new construction planned for the district. 15. Beaufort County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, January 2005 Federal and State law passed in the year 2000 required that local governments wishing to receive Federal disaster recovery assistance after November 1, 2004, must complete local hazard mitigation plans (HMP) and submit them to the N.C. Division of Emergency Management (NCDEM) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This Plan, undertaken in conjunction with Beaufort County and the other municipalities in the County, fulfills this requirements by identifying policies, programs, and procedures that can be used to reduce the risks and impacts of natural hazards over the long term (refer to Appendix VII). 16. Miracle Mile Concept Plan, Beaufort County Committee of 100, May 2002 The Beaufort County Miracle Mile Project Committee is a non-profit group dedicated to improving/beautifying the US 17 Highway Corridor between Chocowinity and Washington (i.e., the "Miracle Mile"). With the help of Allison Platt and Associates, the Committee developed a concept plan for the "Miracle Mile" which emphasized recreational access and aesthetic unity along the corridor. 17. Comprehensive Plan, 1999 This addendum to the 1996 CAMA Land Use Plan was intended to provide a sound, factual basis for zoning in the City of Washington and its ETJ. This Plan is currently being updated. City of Washington 143 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions 18. Tar River Nature Park, Concept Plan, July 2003 City -sponsored plan to look at the feasibility of developing a passive park along the banks of the Tar River on an approximately 300-acre tract just to the east of US Highway 17 south of the Tar River in the City's ETJ. 19. City of Washington 1998 Shoreline Access Plan In Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the City of Washington received a planning and management grant from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management. The state grant was for $6,700 which was matched by $3,300 in City of Washington funds. Thus, the total project cost was $10,000. The purpose of the City of Washington 1998 Shoreline Access Plan was to assist the City in the preparation of a comprehensive waterfront planning and management program. The study primarily focused on improving shoreline access. The project objectives included the following: • Develop a shoreline access plan which is consistent with the city's FY1997- 1998 CAMA Land Use Plan. • Develop a shoreline access plan which supports 15A NCAC 7M.0300. • Identify sites which provide for public access and adequate parking so as to achieve maximum public use. • Provide pedestrian access. If, however, the preponderance of a proposal is pedestrian oriented, boating and fishing facilities may be included, provided pedestrian access is the primary objective. 20. City of Washington Land Use Plan Update, 1996 The 1996 City of Washington land use plan was prepared to satisfy the requirements of 15A NCAC 7B for the preparation of a CAMA land use plan. The plan was certified by the Coastal Resources Commission on January 29, 1999. Policies which regulate development within areas of environmental concern are included. This Plan is currently being updated. The 15A NCAC 7H CAMA land use plan guidelines require that the 1996 CAMA plan be assessed with respect to its (1) consistency with existing land use and development. City of Washington 145 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions ordinances, (2) adoption by the plan's implementation measures by the City of Washington, and (3) effectiveness of the plan's policies in creating desired land use patterns and protection natural systems. The 1996 land use plan specified the following revisions to the City's zoning and/or subdivision ordinances: • Revise the zoning ordinance to oppose disposal of toxic wastes within the City's planning jurisdiction; • Review the zoning/subdivision ordinances to reduce the areas covered by impervious surfaces; • Revise the zoning/subdivision ordinances to oppose the development of sound and estuarine islands; • Revise the zoning subdivision ordinances to respond to sea level rise. The City of Washington did not accomplish any of these revisions to its zoning/subdivision ordinances. In addition, the 1996 land use plan stated the need for local ordinances to regulate off -road vehicles and mooring fields. These ordinances were not adopted. With the exception of off -road vehicles, these issues continue to be a concern and are addressed in the 2006 plan. In support of the 1996 CAMA Land Use Plan, the City of Washington did take significant actions to address stormwater drainage. These included: • Preparation of the Jack's Creek Stormwater Management Plan; • Preparation of the City of Washington Stormwater Control Ordinance; and • Preparation of the City of Washington Stormwater Utility Ordinance. The City of Washington 1996 plan supported the following objectives: • Preservation/protection of AECs; • Preservation of the Central Business District and Historic District; • Conservation of natural areas; • _ Effective housing rehabilitation; • Development of Warren Field; • Construction of the US 17 Bypass/adoption of anew thoroughfare plan; • Expansion of the City's infrastructure systems. The City believe it has been successful in supporting/implementing these objectives. City of Washington 146 Core Land Use Plan Section V - Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions When the 1996 CAMA Land Use Plan was prepared, the 15A NCAC 7B land use plan guidelines that were in effect were not specific in requiring "comprehensive" planning. The guidelines focused on AECs and did not result in plans that were useful in the day-to- day decision making process. Thus, the 1996 land use plan was limited in its effectiveness to provide "comprehensive planning guidance. In addition, the policies addressing' amendments to local land use regulatory ordinances were not specific enough to provide direction. There were no internal conflicts found within the 1996 plan. City of Washington 147 � I Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future Section VI. Plan for the Future A. Future Land Demands/Emerging Conditions 1. Introduction One of the primary purposes of this land use plan is to project the demand for various types of land uses and infrastructure in the future, so that the City can provide a sufficient regulatory environment (e.g., zoning compatible with future land use needs) and sufficient infrastructure to accommodate future growth in a responsible and sustainable fashion. This section of the plan projects future demands for land use and infrastructure based on future growth projections as well as predicted demographic and economic changes.. (NOTE: Existing conditions are Aiscussed.in Section V, page 22.) The policy matrix and associated notes, pages 237 to 241, relate/link the policy statements to pertinent sections of this plan. 2. Residential Land Use r (Refer to analysis of existing land use, page 100, and land use compatibility policies and implementing actions, pages 187 to 196). Despite a modest increase in population, the City of Washington and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) have experienced significant growth in residential development since the last CAMA Land Use Plan update in 1996. Within the City limits, the City experienced an increase of 526 housing units between 1990 and 2000, despite a population increase of only 459 persons. This fact can be partially explained by the following nationwide phenomena: Homeowners are increasingly demanding more space in their homes and more land for their homes. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average home size in the United States is now 2,200 square feet, up from 1,400 square feet in 1970. • Consistently low interest rates for homes since 2001 have encouraged construction of secondary and investment properties. According to the National Association of Realtors, 36% of all homes purchased in the United City of Washington 148 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future States in 2004 were second or investment homes, an increase of 16.3% over 2003. • Sixty-nine percent of households owned their, homes in 2004, up from approximately 64% in 1970. For the first time ever, in 2004 a majority of minority households owned their homes. The availability of mortgage products that lead to homeownership encourages home construction and purchase. In addition to these nationwide trends, the increasing vacancy rate in the City, especially in certain older neighborhoods with high redevelopment costs and low current demand, as well as the declining number of persons per household in the City (currently 2.3, well below State and National averages) also contributes to increasing housing demand despite modest population growth (see Section V(B) for additional information on housing conditions). From January 1, 2005, through May 2006, Since 2000, the City has issued permits for 75 units in the City limits and ETJ (planning area) combined (NOTE: Due to computer failure, building permit records prior to 1/1 /2005 are lost). Assuming approximately 0.25 acres per housing unit, on average, this means that 13.2 acres are converted to residential use per year. The vast majority of this new residential development has been and will continue to be built on raw (i.e., vacant/undeveloped) land, but an increasing percentage will be redevelopment of existing commercial/light industrial property to residential use in the City's historic core, especially near the Tar/Pamlico River. Recent permit activity has been concentrated in the west and northwestern areas of the City, in moderate -income subdivisions such as Maple Branch, Iron Creek, and Northgate that allow ready access to US 264 and the City of Greenville to the west, as well as to the commercial/retail hub at 15`h Street Extension and US Highway 17. Whereas the national and local housing trends described above are predicted to continue during the 20-year planning period, the following trends regarding housing demand are suggested: • Due to the anticipated wave of retirees and persons seeking second/ investment homes in the City, demand for higher density condominium, townhouse, and patio home developments will increase, particularly in the downtown area, areas in the City's planning area south of the Tar/Pamlico City of Washington 149 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future River (e.g., northand south of Whichard's Beach Road), and in neighborhoods near commercial hubs, especially in the vicinity of the intersection of the new US 17 bypass with US 17 north of Whispering Pines Road • Demand for lower/moderate density units will continue or increase near US Highway 264 we of 15`h Street Extension as demand for affordable housing with ready access to the Greenville area and proximity to commercial/retail amenities increases. • Demand for moderate -to -upper income, lower/moderate density units will emerge on Market Street Extension north of the Smallwood Subdivision as the availability of sewer service is extended up Market Street Extension to the new elementary/middle school sites just north of the City's planning area. • Demand for low -to -moderate income, lower/moderate density units will continue in the area west of 15' Street Extension, generally between US Highway 264 and US 17. • Demand for redevelopment of the neighborhoods adjacent to the current P.S. Jones/John Small School site may make this site appropriate for mixed use/medium-to-high density residential use. Due to limitations in demand and/or infrastructure availability, significant changes in other areas of the City currently in residential use or zoned for residential use are not anticipated. 3. Commercial Land Use (Refer to analysis of existing land use, page 100, and land use compatibility policies and implementing actions, pages 187 to 196) As noted on numerous occasions elsewhere in this Plan, the City of Washington is a regional center for retail/commercial as well as office/institutional land uses. As with many areas of the nation and the State, commercial development has occurred in a linear or strip fashion, particularly along US Highway 17, US Highway 264, John Small Avenue and along River Road. In all four of these linear commercial strips, conflicts between City of Washington 1 150 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future adjacent non-commercial developments have occurred, as commercial development has encroached on residential or industrial districts. This development pattern is also not cost-effective for local government, since it often requires the extension of services such as roadways, water and sewer pipes and fire/police protection outside of areas currently well -served by these essential services. Finally, this type of development pattern contributes significantly to traffic congestion and is viewed by most as highly unsightly, detracting from the charm and character of the City. On the other hand, a development pattern focused in relatively concentrated areas near major intersections and existing public infrastructure and services has the following advantages to the "linear" type of development: • Concentrates the visual impact of commercial development • Maximizes the access to new development • Has the greatest potential market for pass -through traffic Minimizes encroachments on residential neighborhoods and other incompatible land uses Currently, zoning designations appropriate for commercial uses are found almost exclusively along major highways oriented in a linear fashion, exacerbating the linear development pattern found above. Furthermore, there are only approximately 250 acres of vacant land currently zoned for commercial development in the City and ETJ, much of which is located in areas that do not currently appear to be subject to the market forces necessary to attract commercial development. In order to maintain its place as a regional hub of retail, other commercial, office and professional activity, the City should consider focusing its commercial land uses in nodes based on three broad categories, as follows: a. Regional Commercial Nodes The purpose and intent of this node is to provide for those retail and wholesale sales and services necessary to meet the needs of several communities, as well as intrastate or interstate visitors and commerce, and to allow a moderate amount of processing of products. This node shall cluster in depth at intersections of federal, state or county arterial or collector roads. City of Washington 151 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Demand for regional commercial nodes exists (or will exist during the planning period) at the following locations: • US 17 Bypass and US 17/ 15`h Street Extension • US 17 Bypass and US 264 • Whichard's Beach Road and US 17 • Northern extent (ETJ) of the US 17 Bypass. NOTE: Refer to Future Land Use Map, page 217. b. Neighborhood Commercial Nodes This node is intended to provide for everyday convenience shopping intended to serve residential neighborhoods, consistent with the environmental requirements of such neighborhoods. Convenience shopping facilities are those which provide space for retail and service businesses serving the immediate neighborhood. Regulations would insure that any aspects of commercial land use possibly conflicting with residential neighborhoods would be minimized. Demand for neighborhood commercial nodes exists (or will exist during the planning period) at the following locations: • Market Street Extension North of Smallwood Subdivision • Between Wootentown Road and John Small Avenue at Eastern ETJ Limit • Brick Kiln Road/North Shores Road Area • Hospital Area • Central Business District US 264 West of US 17 Bypass C. Office and Institutional Nodes This node would be intended to provide for a limited range of general purpose office uses of low to moderate intensity to encourage compatibility with adjacent residential development. Other permitted uses include cultural facilities, broadcasting studios, schools, parks, and other compatible uses such as churches, bed and breakfast inns, small animal hospitals or clinics, community centers, and dwelling located above the ground floor. City of Washington 152 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future . Demand for Office/Institutional nodes exists (or will exist during the planning period) at the following locations:. Hospital Area • US 17 Bypass at US 264 and/or US 17 • Central Business District • US 17 between Tar/Pamlico River and 71h Street • Northern extent (ETJ) of the US 17 Bypass. NOTE: Refer to Future Land Use Map, page 217. 4. Industrial Land Use. (Refer to analysis of existing land use, page 100, and land use compatibility policies and implementing actions, pages 187 to 196) The City, with the assistance of the Beaufort County Economic Development Commission, has done an excellent job of recruiting and retaining industrial development to the City..There are currently, however, approximately 904 acres in the City and ETJ in Industrial usage, and an additional 540 acres in Industrial zoning classifications, including over 120 acres at the Beaufort County Industrial Park site annexed into the City in 2002.` These existing 540 acres should be more than sufficient to meet demand for industrial land uses for the 20-year planning period, especially considering the overall nationwide decline in manufacturing employment. 5. Land Demand Forecast The following table provides a forecast of land use demand. These forecasts are intended to provide anticipated land use acreages through the extent of the planning period (2025). The acreage forecasts are based on both anticipated development trends as outlined in this section and as indicated on the Future Land Use Map (page 217). These acreage estimates take into account a variety of factors including: funded and proposed transportation improvements, anticipated redevelopment trends, growth trends, infrastructure availability, and the results of the land suitability analysis produced through the development of this plan. In reviewing these forecasts, several factors should be taken into account. The following factors or anticipated trends are based on the discussion of various land use types preceding this section. Additionally, these points factor in policies related to infrastructure expansion that will be discussed in the next section of the plan (Future Infrastructure/Community Facilities Needs). City of Washington 153 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Residential growth is expected to primarily occur within the city's existing sewer service area (see Map 15). Access to central water service is not expected to be an impediment to development, due to the availability of Beaufort County/City of Washington water service located. throughout a majority of the planning area. • Modest residential growth is expected in portions of the City's planning area that do not currently have sewer service; however, the City does not plan to extend service to these areas. It is anticipated that development in these areas will consist of large lot subdivisions that rely on septic tank systems for wastewater treatment. • As the in -migration of retirees increases throughout the planning period, high/medium density residential development is expected to increase. The City should see an increase in high density residential development within portions of the Future Land Use Map designated as Mixed Use. • A majority of the commercial growth throughout the planning period will occur in either portions of the City that exist as commercial centers, or within commercial nodes as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Additionally, it is anticipated that commercial as well as high density residential redevelopment will occur in portions of the central business district designated as Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Map. It should be noted that office and institutional buffers have been provided in areas where commercial expansion is anticipated. This is intended to minimize the impact on adjacent residential areas. • The Future Land Use Map shows a sharp increase in office and institutional land use acreage during the planning period. This increase is intended to provide buffer between existing/proposed commercial areas and adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Industrial growth within the City is expected to occur either through infill or redevelopment of existing industrial sites. There is a significant increase in industrial acreage on the Future Land Use Map; however, this is primarily the result of acquiring additional acreage around the existing airport property. Acquisition of this property will not only allow for potential expansion, but will minimize the impact of the airport on surrounding development. City of Washington 154 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • It should be noted that all future development along the banks of the Tar - Pamlico River will be subject to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules. These rules are discussed on pages 99-100. These rules enforce specific restrictions for development immediately adjacent to these water bodies in addition to whatever CAMA regulations apply. • Seasonal population and housing is not expected to have a substantial impact on development trends with the City of Washington Planning Area. • For the sake of infrastructure and land use demand forecast, the City will anticipate the development of one new industrial facility per five years of the total planning period (2025). This will result in four additional industrial facilities by the year 2025. It has also been noted that existing industrial facilities wilt continue to be utilized; however, the industrial/manufacturing use of these facilities may shift during the planning period. The following table provides anticipated acreage increases in relation to the districts outlined on the Future Land Use Map. This table does not assume buildout of the City's planning area as defined within this land use plan update. It is not anticipated that this will occur during the planning period (2025). Map 21A represents approximate locations for the forecast land uses and it is acknowledged that the acreages on Map 21A exceed the acreages forecast in Table 47. However, the City qualifies for an exception to the CAMA guidelines which require the Future Land Use Map not to exceed the projected needs plus 50% due to it being a slow -growth community in a Tier I County. This allows for greater flexibility to provide for growth and economic development. Table 47. City of Washington Land Demand Forecast Future Land Demand Forecast Existing Additional Average Land Use % Growth Housing Units Per (2005) 2010 2015 2020 2025 05-25 Units (2025) Acre' Vacant 11,543 11,151 10,362 9,802 9,164 -20.6% N/A N/A Commercial/Mixed Use (5% growth rate)** Light Et Heavy Industrial/ Airport (20% growth rate)* High Density Residential (5% growth rate)** 891 936 982 1,031 1,083 21.6% N/A N/A 904 228 1,085 1,652 1,982 2,379 163.2% N/A N/A 239 251 264 277 21.6% 342 (Continued on next page) 7.0 City of Washington 1155 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Future Land Demand Forecast Existing Additional Average Land Use % Growth Housing Units Per (2005) 2010 2015 2020 2025 05-25 Units(2025) Acre' . Medium Density Residential 2,168 2,222 2,278 2,335 2,393 10.4% 872 4.0 (2.5% growth rate) Low Density Residential 1,437 1,509 1,584 1,664 1,747 21.6% 310 1.0 (5% growth rate) Office and Institutional 593 623 654 686 721 21.6% N/A N/A (5% growth rate) Total 17,764 17,764 17,764 17,764 17,764 'The increased acreage for the Industrial zone includes the acquisition and preservation of acreage surrounding the existing airport facility. ` **It should be noted that it is also anticipated that there will be an increase in commercial and high density residential land use in the form of redevelopment within areas designated as Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Map (page 217). Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. B. Future Infrastructure/Community Facilities Needs 1. Transportation (Refer to infrastructure/transportation policies and implementing actions, pages 196 to 202.) Thoroughfare planning enables a transportation system to be progressively developed to adequately meet the transportation needs of a community as land development and traffic volumes increase. Planning for future transportation needs prevents unnecessary costs and impacts to the physical, social, and economic environment. The purpose of this study is to reexamine the present and future transportation needs of the Washington planning area in order to develop a revised thoroughfare plan. The recommendations proposed herein are based on existing roadway conditions and projected growth for the urban area over a 30-year planning period. Since actual growth rates and patterns may differ from those anticipated, it may become necessary to accelerate or retard the implementation of recommendations onto revise the proposals. It is, therefore, desirable to have the thoroughfare plan updated regularly in order to revise growth projections and amend the thoroughfare plan as necessary. Further, a more detailed analysis will be conducted prior to. construction of any project to determine the specific location and design requirements. City of Washington 156 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future The City of.Washington Future Land Use Map is delineated on Map 21. Based on the 2000 Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Washington, September 2000, the following transportation improvements are essential to accomplishing growth through 2030. Major Thoroughfares • US 264 Bypass - Construction on new location of a two-lane facility from US 264 west of SR 1406 (Tranter Creek Road) to US 264 at SR 1317 (River Acres Road). This facility should be constructed on four -lane right-of-way in anticipation of future widening. This alternate route would reduce traffic on the existing US 264 by moving local and through traffic out of the Central Business District. • US 17 Bypass (TIP Projects R-2510, R-2511, R-2513) - Construction of a multi -lane facility on new location which would bypass the City of Washington and the Town of Chocowinity. This route would reduce traffic on US 264 and US 17 by moving local and through traffic out of the Central Business District. • NC 33 - Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility from.the proposed US 17 Bypass to the eastern planning boundary. This improvement would increase the capacity of the roadway with minimal damage to adjacent development. • NC 32 (TIP Project R-1014) - Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility from SR 1300 (Christian Service Camp Road) to SR 1300 (River Road). This improvement would increase the capacity of the roadway with minimal damage to adjacent development. • Replace Bridge#103 (TIP Project B-4019) and improve horizontal alignment of the roadway from Runyon Creek Bridge to Walnut Street in the Town of Washington Park. These improvements would increase safety and reduce flooding along the roadway with minimal adverse effects. • Radial Connector - Construction on new location of a two-lane connector from SR 1504 (Avon Avenue) connecting to SR 1501 (Highland Drive), SR 1422 (Market Street), US 17, and US 264. This facility would be constructed on multi -lane right-of-way in anticipation of future widening. It would provide an alternate for US 264 and Fifteenth Street, thus reducing traffic on both roadways. City of Washington 157 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future This new radial connector incorporates Avon Avenue into its alignment. Avon Avenue should be widened to two 12-foot lanes from US 264 to SR 1601 (Highland Drive). Right-of-way should be reserved fora multi -lane facility. SR 1507 (Slatestone Road) - Widen roadway from a two-lane facility to a three -lane facility from SR 1501 (Old Bath Highway) to SR 1518 (Corsica Road/CBH Lodge Road). This improvement will help with the morning and afternoon traffic trying to access the high school and alleviate traffic congestion due to back-ups created by left turns into the high school parking lot. Widen- roadway to two. 12-foot lanes from SR 151.8 (Corsica Road/CBH Lodge Road),to SR 1520 (Terrapin Track Road). This will improve safety conditions and increase the capacity of the roadway. • SR 1501 (Highland Drive, TIP Project U-2723) - Widen roadway to a multi- lane facility from SR 1306 (W. Fifteenth Street) to SR 1507 (Slatestone Road). A multi -lane section is recommended because of the existing commercial development and capacity deficiencies. This improvement would provide access to adjacent land use without interruption to traffic flow due to turning vehicles. • SR 1403 (Clarks Neck Road) - Widen from a two-lane facility to a four -lane facility from US 24 (Pactolus Road) to the Beaufort/Pitt county line. A four -lane section is recommended because of the existing commercial development and capacity deficiencies. This improvement would provide access to adjacent land use without interruption to traffic flow due to turning vehicles. Minor Thoroughfares • Springs Road Extension - Construction on new location of a two-lane connector from US 17 to US 264. This improvement would provide a continuous route from US 264 to SR 1422 (Market Street), thus reducing traffic on US 264 and Fifteenth Street. City of Washington 158 1 1Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Brick Kiln Road Extension - Construction on new location of a two-lane connector from US 264 to SR 1501 (Highland Drive). This facility would provide an alternate route for accessing the high school located on SR 1507 (Slatestone Road). It would also reduce traffic on US 264 by moving local traffic out of the Central Business District. • SR 1313 (N. Asbury Church Road) - Widen roadway to two 12-foot lanes from SR 1311 (S. Asbury Church Road) to US 264. This improvement will improve safety conditions and increase the capacity of the roadway. • SR 1303 (Brick Kiln Road) - Widen roadway to two 12-foot lanes from US 264 to NC 32. This improvement will improve safety conditions and increase the capacity of the roadway. • SR 1123 (Old Blounts Creek Road) - Widen roadway to two 12-foot lanes from NC 33 to SR 1125 (Hill Road). This will improve safety conditions and increase the capacity of the roadway. NOTE: The existing US 17 bridge will be maintained following construction of the US 17 Bypass. This is essential to Washington's safety and economic vitality. The following table gives recommendations for the most suitable funding sources and methods of implementation for the major project proposals of the City of Washington Thoroughfare Plan. Table 48. Funding Sources and Recommended Methods of Implementation for Selected Transportation Improvements Funding Sources Methods of Implementation Project Local Funds TIP Funds Indust. Access Small Urban Ware Plan Subdiv. Ord. Zoning Ord. Future Street Lines Develop. Review US 264 Bypass X X X X US17 Bypass X X X X NC 32 Widening X X X NC 32 Safety Impr. X X NC 33 Widening X x X SR 1509 Ext. X X X X X SR 1507 Widening X X X SR 1501 Widening X X X City of Washington 159 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Funding Sources Methods of Implementation Project Local Funds TIP Funds Indust. Access Small Urban T-fare Plan Subdiv. Ord. Zoning Ord. Future Street Lines Develop. Review SR 1403 Widening X x X SR 1303 Ext. X X X X Radial Connector X X X X X SR 1123 Inter- section Impr. X X Source: Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Washington, September 2000. The following table lists construction priorities and cost estimates for selected transportation improvements. Construction priorities will vary, depending on what criteria are considered and what weight is attached to the various criteria. Most people agree that improvements to the major thoroughfare system and major traffic routes are more important than minor thoroughfares when traffic volumes are lower. Table 49. Construction Priorities and Cost Estimates Project Construction Cost Right -of -Way Cost Total Cost US 264 Bypass $31,577,000 $1,390,000 $32,967,000 US 17 Bypass* $170,364,000 $16,290,000 $186,654,000 NC 32 Widening' $4,060,000 $2,921,000 $6,981,000 NC 33 Widening $5,141,000 $563,000 $5,704,000 SR 1509 Ext. $2,310,000 . $188,000 $2,498,000 SR 1507 Widening $1,691,000 $777,000 $2,468,000 SR 1501 Widening' $3,653,000 $1,957,000 $5,611,000 SR 1403 Widening $1,722,000 $406,000 $2,128,000 SR 1303 Ext. $3,208,000 $136,000 $3,344,000 Radial Connector $7,268,000 $1,019,000 $9,287,000 *Cost estimates taken from the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program. US 17, NC 32 and SR 1501 designated as projects R-2510, R-1014 and U-2723, respectively. Source: Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Washington, September 2000. The Five -Year Transportation Improvements Plan for Beaufort County supports the Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Washington (see Appendix IV). City of Washington 160 - Land Ilse Plan fY -,4.i, i^^: Rx-'riR-r!'TS'::, 'n [,. T. .: ':. ,... �.:�'^W el"` .�T!",'^`e; ....: Mre��[.1'. F!mw•.sc-an•s y.....'�$.y-✓':a.'++'V�G;rn.RR'.FN;r]T.i,-._:'.+'c+Wa*v�3?xT"..n"' ^eF9T Section VI - Plan for the Future The City of Washington currently has one designated bicycle route: the Mountains to Sea, NC Bike Route 2 (see page 119, existing transportation discussion). Due to the shared, or multi -modal, use of this facility, it is recommended that substandard sections be widened to a standard cross section for bicycles as funding permits. These improvements will enhance safety and the functional design of the facility. When considering the widening of bicycle routes, the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation should be consulted. The division will recommend the most appropriate cross section for the widening, in addition to providing assistance in identifying the need for improvements based on present and future bicycle traffic. An ongoing transportation need, also identified by the 1996 CAMA LUP, is the need for a pedestrian friendly environment within the Central Business District (CBD), while providing adequate parking for visitors arriving by car and adequate traffic flow for commercial/retail businesses in the area. The Downtown Washington on the Waterfront (DWOW) organization, with assistance from WK Dickson Engineering, is in the process of finalizing design concepts for the CBD that suggest the following pedestrian related improvements: • Making some roadways one-way or closing them altogether to vehicular traffic • Improvements/addition of sidewalks, bike paths, alleyways, and pedestrian arcades • Installation of street furniture and/or trees • Installation of brick or special pavement patterns .on roadways and/or sidewalks • Installation of safety and security features • Dedication of certain areas for open air mixed use activities, such as entertainment, outdoor restaurant seating, outdoor art, etc. Upon completion of the DWOW/WK Dickson Design Concept Plan and the City-wide Pedestrian Master Plan (currently under development by the City's Parks and Recreation Department), and full public review of these Plans, the City should examine existing ordinances, policies, and regulations and determine how they can be modified or improved to assist with ensuring that the CBD is safe and accessible for pedestrians. The most significant future transportation need is the US 17 Bypass around Washington, which is in the final planning/engineering stages and is scheduled to begin construction in FY2006 or FY2007. This planned bypass will reduce traffic congestion on City of Washington 161 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future US 17 between the Tar -Pamlico River and the intersection with the new US 17 Bypass (see Map 17), which will encourage redevelopment of this stretch of US 17 through the City for office/institutional/specialty retail uses that do not require large traffic loads for viability. Such redevelopment, in turn, will encourage reinvestment in adjacent residential neighborhoods. 2. Education (Refer to general health and human services needs policies and implementing actions, page 213 to 215.) As noted earlier in this Plan, P.S. Jones Middle School and John Small Elementary School are being abandoned and new schools are being built on a site on Market Street Extension, approximately one mile north of Warren Field, outside of the City's current ETJ boundary. These new schools are scheduled to open in the Fall of 2006. These sites are depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Additionally, Washington Montessori School is opening up a new campus on Old Bath Highway, approximately one mile east of its current site at Avon Center. Several schools within Beaufort County are at or over capacity. The school system has a long range facilities plan that addresses these shortfalls. The plan calls for new schools and additions to be located on existing school sites. Following is a Capacity Summary and Plan for those Beaufort County Schools serving residents of the City of Washington. • John Small Elementary. Needs a new school for grades K-5 to accommodate 492 students. It is expected to cost $9,064,128 for the school and $874,144 for furniture and equipment for a total of $9,938,272. NOTE: John Small Elementary School will be moved to the same location as the new PS Jones Middle School on Market Street. • PS Jones Middle. A new school, located on Market Street, is under construction that will accommodate 898 students. • Eastern Elementary. Currently utilizes two mobile units. Needs addition/ renovation that will allow for 203 Pre-K students and 601 students in grades K-5. The additions are expected to cost $2,767,654, renovations $897,750, and furniture and equipment $232,285 for a total of $3,897,689. City of Washington 162 Core Land Use Plan i Section VI - Plan for the Future • John C. Tayloe Elementary. Currently utilizes two mobile units. Needs addition to accommodate.122 students in grades K-5. The additions are expected to cost $3,201,759 with $278,775 in furniture and equipment for a total of $3,480,534. • Washington High School. Currently utilizes two mobile units. Needs addition/renovations to accommodate 1,115 students. The additions are expected to cost $1,713,600, the renovations $798,000, and the furniture and equipment $143,820 for a total of $2,655,420. 3. Recreation (Refer to public access policies and implementing actions, page 183 to 187, and general health and human services needs policies and implementing actions, page 213 to 218.) The City of Washington enjoys an outstanding parks and recreation program that includes over 100 acres of ball fields, tennis courts, basketball goals, passive parks, public docks, and a swimming pool (see Section V(G) of this Plan for more details). The City meets or exceeds facility standards for all of the above -listed facilities and parks, with the exception of neighborhood parks. National standards for small (i.e., 3 to 5 acre) neighborhood parks call for one neighborhood park for every 1,000 to 2,000 residents, meaning the City should have at least five (5) neighborhood parks. The City currently has only two neighborhood parks (Oakdale and Bug House Park). This issue is of particular concern since the City provides many recreation/parks needs for the County, which does not have an active parks/recreation program. The City should consider a park dedication ordinance that requires that a reasonable, modest quantity of useable land (or a fee -in -lieu) be a condition of subdivision acceptance and/or annexation. The City has not updated its Parks and Recreation Master Plan since 1999, and according to Philip Mobley, Director of Parks and Recreation of the City, the re -writing of this Plan is a top priority. According to Mr. Mobley, four key items are likely to be identified as priorities in the upcoming Master Planning process: a. Development of Neighborhood Parks As mentioned above, the western portion of the City and its planning area ( ETJ), west of 15' Street Extension is in particular need of a neighborhood park, since there are no City recreation or park facilities in this area. City of Washington 163 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future b. Improvement/Expansion of Waterfront and Dock Facilities Making 'the City's waterfront more pedestrian and boater friendly has been an increasingly important goal. The Citycurrently maintains two public Y P �- boat launches (Mason's Landing and City Boat Dock); 36.boat slips =. along Stewart Parkway, and the , recently redesigned Stewart Parkway which includes a wetland park and an elevated, lighted boardwalk through a wetland area ... Figure 5: Boardwalk near NC Estuarium at Pamlico River (Photo east of . the North Carolina courtesy of the NC Clean Water Mgmt. Trust Fund) Estuarium (see picture). The City wishes to expand waterfront access, particularly the number of boat slips available, to make the waterfront more accessible and attractive, primarily through the use of moveable and expandable "T" docks. C. Improvement/Expansion of the City's Greenway Along Jack's Creek The City owns numerous floodprone parcels along Jack's Creek from approximately 6' Street to River Road, that were purchased with Federal Emergency Management Agency funds and that cannot be developed or resold. In February 2005, the City Council approved a Greenway Plan that encouraged the development of a recreational greenway that runs along the entire length of Jack's Creek from 6th Street to the Pamlico River and that eventually will tie in with the existing waterfront boardwalk near the NC Estuarium. The City has recently applied for a $300,000 grant from the State Tobacco Trust Fund to begin implementation of approximately 4,000 linear feet of this Greenway and related improvements. If completed, the Jack's Creek Greenway will also connect four existing City parks (Havens, Bug House, 7`h Street and Veteran's): City of Washington 164 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Plan for the Future d. City of Washington Shoreline Access Plan The City of Washington 1998 Shoreline Access Plan identifies the following priority access sites (these potential projects are discussed in detail in the 1998 Shoreline Access Plan): • Development of the Moss Planing Mill Property • Causeway property, south end of the US 17 bridge on west side of US Highway 17 • Castle Island • Greenway System • Canoe Trail Access Point at Tranters Creek/US 264 West and Runyons Creek/US 264 East. 4. Water System (Refer to infrastructure carrying capacity policies and implementing actions, pages 196 to 199.) As noted in Section V(G) of this Plan, the City of Washington has eight wells that pump up to 5.45 million gallons per day (mgpd) from the Castle Hayne Aquifer (CHA). This same amount can also be treated by the City's water treatment plant. The City is currently permitted to withdraw 5.45 million gallons per day from the CHA by the Groundwater Section of the Department of Environment and Natural Resource (DENR) under the provisions of the State's Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area law (see Section V(E) of this Plan for details). As of June 2005, the City's average annual daily water usage was 2.75 mgpd, including a total of 1.6 mgpd that is sold to Beaufort County for potable water service to Cypress Landing and other areas south and east of the City (see Section V(G) of this Plan for details). Although residential and commercial growth have progressed recently, and are anticipated to do so throughout the 20-year planning period, total water usage has grown only very modestly. This is largely due to major cutbacks in water usage at the National Spinning Plant facility in Washington, and other heavy manufacturing employers who have cut back or suspended operations in recent years. Most modern industrial concerns use significantly less water than the factories/plants they are replacing. City of Washington 165 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Water lines recently run out Market Street past Springs Road to the City's northern ETJ limit will spur primarily residential development and some minor increases in demand for potable water. According to Allen Lewis of the City's Public Works Department, however, there are no additional, City -financed, planned water line/system expansions during the 20- year planning timeframe, unless they are financed solely (or substantially) by developers. The only likely locale of such "developer -financed" water system expansion is on Whichards Beach Road,'east of Fountain Powerboats. It should be noted, however, that this area does not fall within the City's established planning area. This development would also be almost exclusively residential in nature, based on current market demand and zoning. As noted above, the City of Washington has a water plant capacity of 5.45 mgpd, and is currently utilizing 2.75 mgpd (50%) of this capacity. The following provides a forecast of anticipated water system capacity demand based on the land demand forecast outlined on pages 153 to 156 of the plan. The land demand forecasts have been based on a variety of factors, and serve as a solid basis for forecasting whether water system upgrades will be required during the planning period. These estimates have been -based on two primary factors: average lot size by land use category based on the existing land use map, and average water usage rates per land use category based on the city's current local water supply plan. This plan was adopted in 2002, and will be updated once again in FY2006. Subsequent to submittal of the plan there is typically an extensive review period prior to approval. At this time, the 2006 data is not available. Table 50. City of Washington Water System Carrying Capacity Forecast Existing Average Additional Increased Average Total Average Daily Land Use Category Daily Water Structures Daily Water Capacity Water System Usage (MGD)" (2025) Demand (MGD)'• Demand (MGD)" Residential 0.634 1,525 0.253 0.887 Commercial 0.279 79 0.030 0.309 Office li Institutional 0.147 72 0.057 0.204 Industrial 0.192 4 0.070 0.262 Sales to Other Systems' 1.016 N/A N/A 1.016 System Process Water 0.233 N/A N/A 0.233 Unaccounted for Water 0.252 N/A N/A 0.252 Total 2.753 1,680 0.410 3.253 'The City of Washington currently has a contract with Beaufort County through the year 2038 to provide average annual usage of 1.016 MGD of water capacity. "Per land use category. Source: City of Washington 2002 Local Water Supply Plan. City of Washington 166 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future According to estimates based on the land demand forecast (see page 155), it is anticipated that at the planning period horizon (2025) the future development will impose an increased demand of 0.410 MGD on the City's water system.. The system currently has a capacity of 5.45 MGD, and should not require any system upgrades to deal with this increased demand. This increased demand will still leave approximately 40% of the system's capacity available for additional growth. The,City will continue to monitor this situation in conjunction with submittal of their Local Water Supply Plan which is submitted at five year intervals. S. Sewer System (Refer to infrastructure carrying capacity policies and implementing actions, pages 196 to 199.) NOTE: All future infrastructure sewer service areas are depicted on Appendix V. The future service area includes the city's entire planning area. The City's sewer treatment plant currently has a permitted capacity of 3.65 mgpd, and an average daily discharge of 1.70 mgpd. Because of inflow and infiltration, however, peak discharge approaches permitted capacity during heavy rainfall events and lengthy wet periods. Due to this fact, the City is undertaking a three-part upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Plant which will provide safeguards against mechanical failure and increase treatment capacity. Phase I of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade is completed. This $3,809,968 project included installing an additional clarifier, two filters, a return -activated sludge pump station, modifying existing filters, and establishing wastewater reuse to irrigate adjacent ball fields. This project is being paid for with a $200,000 grant from the NC Rural Economic Development Center, $3 million in state Clean Water Bond grants, and an additional $600,000 in City and other money. Phase II -A of the plant upgrade is also completed. This approximately $4.375 million project included installing an oxidation ditch and return -activated sludge pump. This project was paid for with a $1.5 million grant from the US Economic Development Administration, a $400,000 grant from the NC Rural Economic Development Center, a $122,000 grant from the Industrial Development Fund, and $2,353,000 in state revolving fund construction grants and loans. A third project, Phase II-B, is planned. As of 2002, the estimated cost of these improvements was 2.4 million dollars. This project will be completed as funding becomes available over the next two to three years. That phase will install a filter feed pump City of Washington 167 Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future station at the head of the plant as well as an ultraviolet light disinfection facility. At the conclusion of Phase II-B, total treatment capacity will be 5.1 mgpd, up from the current 3.65 mgpd, which should be enough to meet needs of homes, businesses, and industries in the Washington area throughout the 20-year planning period. This statement is supported by the fact that historically sewer flow equals 95% (American Water Works Association) of potable water plant capacity. Based on the water system demand forecast through 2025, this will result in a total anticipated wastewater treatment capacity demand of 3.090 MGD through 2025. The current system should handle this increase; however, once the Phase II-B improvements are complete, the City should have capacity available well beyond the planning period. Because of budget limitations, only developer -financed expansions to the City's sewer system are likely over the 20-year planning period. Cost will depend upon sewer line locations, technological development, timing, and inflation. A new sewer trunk line was recently installed on Market Street Extension from Springs Road to north of Cherry Road to serve the new Beaufort County School sites in that area. This line will likely generate new demand during the planning period. As noted in the water system section, there is strong demand for sewer service in the Whichard's Beach area, particularly east of the Fountain Powerboat facility. This demand makes it likely that some developer - financed sewer expansion will occur in this area during the planning period. 6. Stormwater Management/Drainage (Refer to land use compatibility stormwater control policies and implementing actions, pages 195 to 196, and water quality policies and implementing actions, pages 205 to 208.) As part of its requirements to implement the provisions of the Tar -Pamlico Stormwater Rule, as adopted by the City in November 2004 the City's Stormwater Division will be required to conduct the following activities beginning in 2005: • Implement site development regulations to ensure reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous loads for new development. • Develop a program to identify and eliminate illegal discharges to storm sewers. • Identify locations currently discharging significant loads of nitrogen and phosphorus and implement retrofitting opportunities. • Implement a public education campaign. City of Washington 168 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Plan for the Future Although grant funds, such as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Wetland Restoration Program, are available to assist in the implementation of the above, it is likely that the City will need additional trained and qualified staff and consulting assistance to implement the requirements of the Tar -Pamlico Stormwater Rule over the 20- year planning period. These requirements, in turn, are likely to require additional revenue from the City's Stormwater Utility fund and/or General Fund. In addition to the aforementioned water quality concerns addressed by the Tar - Pamlico Stormwater Rule, the City has numerous ongoing and unmet Stormwater drainage needs to help alleviate frequent flooding of streets and yards, as well as low level flooding of houses in the Jack's Creek, Runyon Creek, and Cherry Run drainage basins, despite the recent completion of significant drainage outfall improvements at Jack's Creek. A 2001 study identified an additional $12 million in drainage improvement needs in the Jack's Creek drainage basin alone, for example. The solutions to these drainage needs should consider improving water quality. 7. Solid Waste (Refer to local areas of concern/general health and human services needs policies and implementing actions, pages 213 to 215.) The City recently contracted recycling services to David's Trash Service of Bath, North Carolina, which is expected to remain in place throughout the planning period. The City has a contract, through the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority, to dispose of solid waste at the East Carolina Environmental Landfill in Bertie.County, valid through the year 2030. This landfill is expected to have sufficient capacity to meet all of the City's solid waste disposal needs through the planning period. 8. Law Enforcement (Refer to local areas of concern/general health and human services needs policies and implementing actions, pages 213 to 215.) The City's Police Department has two major needs for the 20-year planning period: • Upgraded Headquarters Facility/9-1-1 Center: The City's current Police Headquarters and 9-1-1 facility is 30 years old in 2005 and inadequate for both the staff and communication needs of the Department. City of Washington 169 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Upgraded Vehicle Fleet: Seven of the City's 19 patrol vehicles have over 120,000 miles on them and are thus .costly to repair and potentially unreliable. The City currently has 33 sworn officers to serve a population of approximately 10,000 persons. This ratio of 3.3 sworn officers per 1,000 population exceeds the national average of 2.5 sworn officers per 1,000 population, but is very close to the national average of 3.2 sworn officers per 1,000 population for Towns and Cities under 10,000 population (Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2002). The current staffing level is also well justified based on the increasing geographic spread of the City to the north and west and the relatively high incidence of crimes in the City. 9. Fire/Rescue Services (Refer to local areas of concern/general health and human services needs policies and implementing actions, pages 213 to 215.) The primary future need for the City's Fire/Emergency Rescue Department has been a new satellite Fire Station in the western portion of the City. The fact that the City's fire station on Market Street near downtown Washington is over five miles from some areas in the north, west, and northwest areas of the City causes insurance rates in these areas to be very high, especially for commercial and industrial businesses. The City Council just recently approved, as part of its FY06 budget, the construction of a fire/EMS substation in the western portion of the City. This new substation should be open near the Northgate subdivision in mid -to -late 2006 and will employ 6 additional firefighting personnel, bringing the total number of firefighters in the City to 27, or 2.7 per 1,000 population, which should be adequate throughout the planning period (e.g., through 2012). C. Land Use/Development Goals and Implementing Actions This section of the plan is intended to guide the development and use of land within the City of Washington. The future land use map and policies are intended to support the City's and CAMA's goals. Specifically, this section includes City goals, land use development policies, and the future land use map. The future land use map and the specified development goals are based in part on the City of Washington community. concerns (identified on page 20 of this plan) and the future needs/demands (identified in Section VI(A) of this plan). City of Washington 170 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future D. . Policies/Implementing Actions 1. Introduction It is intended that the policies included in this plan are consistent with the goals of CAMA. This plan will address the CRC management topics for land use plans and comply with all state and federal rules and regulations. The following will serve as a guideline to assist in assuring that this land use plan will guide the development and use of land in a manner that is consistent with the management goal(s), planning objective(s), and land use plan requirements of this plan. These policies/implementing actions will be applied throughout the City's planning jurisdiction. All policies/implementing actions shall be used for consistency review by appropriate state and federal agencies. Resource conservation and impact analysis issues are addressed throughout the policies and implementing actions included in this plan. However, the following conservation related policies and implementing actions are emphasized: • Public Access, page 183. • Conservation, page 193. • Stormwater Control, page 195. • Natural Hazard Areas, page 202. • Water Quality, page 204. • Cultural, Historical, and Scenic Areas, page 208. Specifically, in implementing this plan, the City Planning Board and City Council will continually do the following: • . Consult the Land Use Plan during the deliberation of all re -zoning requests. • Consider the following in deliberation of all zoning petitions: • The policies and implementing actions of this plan and all applicable CAMA regulations in their decisions regarding land use and development (including 15A NCAC 7H). • All uses that are allowed in a zoning district must be considered._ A decision to re -zone or not to re -zone a parcel or parcels of property cannot be based on consideration of only one use or a partial list of the uses allowed within a zoning district. City of Washington 171 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future I • Zoning decisions will not be based on aesthetic considerations. • Requests for zoning changes will not be approved if the requested change will result in spot zoning. Spot zoning .is a form of discriminatory zoning whose sole purpose is to serve the private interests of one or more landowners instead of furthering the welfare of the entire community as part of an overall zoning plan. Spot zoning is based on the arbitrary and inappropriate nature of a re -zoning change rather than, as is commonly believed, on the size of the area being re -zoned. • The concept of uniformity should be supported in all zoning deliberations. Uniformity is a basic premise of zoning which holds that all land in similar circumstances should be zoned alike; any different circumstances should be carefully balanced with a demonstrated need for such different treatment. • Zoning regulations should, be made in accordance with the City's Land Use Plan and designed to secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of Land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, Isewerage, open space, and other public requirements. The regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the City's planning jurisdiction. • Specifically, the Planning Board and City Council should ask the following questions: • Does the City need more land in the zone class requested? City of Washington • Is there other property in the City that might be more appropriate for this use? .172 Core Land Use Plan r Section A - Plan for the Future • Is the request in accordance with the City's land use plan? • Will the request have a serious impact on overall traffic circulation, sewer and water services, and other utilities? • Will the request have an impact on other City services, including police protection and fire protection? • Is there a good possibility that the request, as proposed, will result in lessening the enjoyment or use of adjacent properties? Will the request, as proposed, cause serious noise, odors, light, activity, or unusual disturbances? • Does the request raise serious legal questions such as spot zoning, hardship, violation of precedents, or need for this type of use? • Does the request adversely impact any CAMA AEC's or other environmentally sensitive areas including water quality? It is intended that this plan will serve as the basic tool to guide development/growth in the City subject to the following: • The City Land Development Ordinances, when applicable, should be revised from time to time to be consistent, as reasonably possible, with the recommendations of this plan and the evolving nature of the City's growth and development policy. • Land development regulations should be designed: to ensure safe and efficient transportation; to secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, and other public requirements. City of Washington 173 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • The City will coordinate all development proposals that are subject to CAMA regulations with appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. 2. Smart Growth The following "guidelines" will be utilized to implement the future land use map. The need for smart growth is a critical issue in the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction. The issues, which include traffic, housing, infrastructure, schools, and other community facilities needs, are discussed throughout this plan. Coordinated development that will minimize conflicts in land uses, support compatible land uses, and reduce the impact on infrastructure must be achieved. The policies that are included in this plan are intended to support the smart growth concept. However, "smart growth" is a guideline and not an absolute directive. Smart growth is development that serves the economy, community, and the environment. It provides a framework for communities to make informed decisions about how and where they grow. Smart growth makes it possible for communities to grow in ways that support economic development and jobs; create strong neighborhoods with a range of housing, commercial, and transportation options; and achieve healthy communities that provide families with a clean environment. In doing so, smart growth can assist in providing solutions to the concerns facing Washington about the impacts of. development patterns characteristic in recent years. NOTE: Implementation of Smart Growth principles and practices will require amendment of the city's zoning and subdivision ordinances. Refer to 1.6., page 189. Smart growth is based on the following ten principles: 1. Mix land uses 2. Take advantage of compact building design 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices 4. Create walkable neighborhoods 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas 7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices .9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective City of Washington 174 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future 10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions Perhaps most critical to successfully achieving smart growth is realizing that no one policy or approach will transform a community. The policies and examples described here should be used in combination with each other to better achieve a healthy community. The following examples are some of the development concepts associated with smart growth as provided by Randall Arendt': • Preserve Washington's open space and agricultural areas, historically significant structures, landmarks, and other features which reflect its heritage. Figure 6: Simple site planning techniques for protecting the scenic character of rural roads Maintain wooded buffer along road. include maintaining (or Consider special features (stone walls, large trees) establishin a wooded no -cut when shaping lots and clearings. buffer e along front tot tine and - angling driveways so that at lawns , houses, e and garages are not directly visible from the road. Combined with deep front r setbacks for construction such approaches could be come desig n requirements in a scenic roads 7. overlay zone. Where such . _ principles rinci les remain guidelines rather than a enforceable standards to Bards si gconventional clearing .... .. :.a. patterns can be expected to tea' cutting houselots to roadf edge is not recommended. continue, as illustrated in the bottom half of this sketch. I Randall Arendt is vice president, conservation planning, with the Natural Lands Trust at Hildacy Farm in Media, PA. Previously director of planning and research at the Center for Rural Massachusetts in the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning in Amherst, he is an elected member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. A member of Phi Beta Kappa, he holds a B.A. degree, magna cum laude, from Wesleyan University and a M.Phil. Degree in Urban Design and Regional Planning from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, where he was a St. Andrew's Scholar. He has lectured in thirty-three states and five Canadian provinces, and has designed open space subdivisions in ten states. City of Washington 175 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Discourage strip commercial development on major collector roads that allow each lot to have direct vehicular access to the highway. Figure 7: Connecting rear parking lots allows customers to drive to many other shops in the corridor without re-entering the highway and interrupting traffic flow. Such arrangements can be required for new development, expansion of existing buildings, and redevelopment. M Figure 8: Two alternatives for arranging commercial development along a rural highway: strip versus nodes. Within the node, stores are located toward the front of their lots, with interconnected rear parking provision. Q ffl. rd•rdopnrMdulwW . • Q Pukk mowa b.b..na wr. ano dd► PsIdnp.aaww In kM of bAd%. Buldhp dew M ohM. Pad ft w,wrd at back Non e•mrdd W.*t Prwwwd °pon opw., W.W VA derq On MM& H.Ph... rd Ne.d.id. S,Br—I Prohrrod Nodd Pnttsrn City of Washington 176 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Reduce traffic congestion and safety problems. Figure 9: Conventional development with poor connectivity: travel requires use of the collector streets, causing congestion and discouraging pedestrians and cyclist (top). Smart growth with interconnected street system, allowing a variety of transportation options and shorter trips. (bottom). Mail1 Apartment: Hogan ® e e e o e o z40... °°°° Undesirable Desirable • Preserve large wetland areas (> one acre) in a natural state to protect their environmental value. Figure 10: Conventional two -acre lot subdivision with homes located on sensitive but buildable land, compared with ,improved layouts protecting those resource areas, as encouraged by new regulations adopted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. City of Washington 177 Sm aieve area ®Easemad ordead restriction Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Figure 11: Reducing lot size can sometimes help subdivision designers locate all homes on the better soils contained within a development site. On the left, some of the thirteen 2.5-acre lots would have septic systems on marginal soils, barely meeting minimum legal requirements, because these lots contain nothing better. By decreasing lots to one acre in size, all thirteen can be laid out to contain deeper, drier soils (with all wetlands in the open space preservation area, a treed island at the end of the street, and a future street and/or trail connection to adjoining properties). Sometimes such arrangements require a few "flag lots" with a relatively narrow strip of land providing driveway access, a very useful design approach that should generally be allowed, subject to certain safeguards to prevent abuses (such as the infamous "rat-tail" subdivisions with numerous lots having long, snake -like appendages connecting the lots to a distant public road -all to avoid the cost of providing internal streets). As Six on marginal soil Better soils ane-acre lots All on better soil In order to support the smart growth concepts, the city's zoning and subdivision ordinances should be revised (see implementing actions). These ordinances should be combined into a Unified Development Ordinance that will support the following strategies: Strategy Obstacle Solution/Consider ` Efficient Use of Land Resources Small -lot in -fill development Excessive lot area'dimensions Revise setback requirements; minimum lot sizes In -fill development on large Inflexible subdivision and lot Average lot size for whole lots area requirements development, allow flexibility to preserve natural features Coordinated development . Coordinated development not Specific development plans; addressed master plans Better use of deep lots Excessive frontage and Midblock lanes; interior block multiple access requirements cluster development, flag lots Less land for streets Excessive street design Adopt "skinny" street standards standards City of Washington 178 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Strategy Obstacle Solution/Consider More efficient use of parking Excessive parking Reduce minimum parking areas requirements ratios; set parking ratio maximums; acknowledge on - street parking; encourage shared parking Full Use of Urban Services Achieving planned densities Attached units Attached units Underbuilding; no support for Minimum density standards density goats . Lot sizes not in proportion to unit sizes Lot -area dimension requirements (excessive side setbacks) Reduce lot -size requirements; allow single- family attached in at[ residential zones Revise setback requirements Accessory units Excessive minimum unit size; Increase flexibility for density maximums too low accessory units. Mixed Use Mixed -use buildings Mixed -use neighborhoods Single -use zoning; separation of uses Single -use zoning; separation of uses Healthy commercial districts Separation of uses; proximity Allow home occupations and live/work units; density bonus for mixed -use commercial/residential buildings Limited commercial in residential zones; allow multi -family residential in. commercial zones; limited retail in industrial zones Community shopping centers with street connectivity; main street districts Transportation Options Multi -modal streets Street design standards over- Revise street standards; emphasize autos promote "skinny" streets Transit, bikes, and pedestrian Physical barriers or out -of- Cul-de-sac and block -length connectivity direction travel maximums; internal connectivity standards; sidewalk requirements Detailed, Human -Scale Design Compatibly designed Too abrupt transitions Density transitioning; buildings between zones midblock zoning district lines; building height limits City of Washington 179 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Strategy Obstacle _ - Solution/Consider Compatibly designed No design guidelines for new Incorporate compatibility buildings buildings guidelines for new in -fill construction Pedestrian -friendly Street standards emphasize Building orientation; parking streetscapes (commercial) cars; design discourages lot placement; allow shared walking access; etc. Pedestrian -friendly Street.standards emphasize Require sidewalks; limit streetscapes (residential) cars; design discourages setbacks; garage placement; walking lighting; utility placement; etc. 3. Policies Regarding Land Use and Development in AEC's Except for the policies addressing the development of sound and estuarine islands (page 194) and the establishment of mooring fields (page 205), the City accepts state and federal law regarding land uses and development in AEC's. By reference, all applicable state and federal regulations are incorporated into this document. All policies and implementing actions are to be utilized by the State of North Carolina for consistency review. Note the following: • No policy is subordinate to another. • All management topics have equal status. • The future land use map may show some areas in a developed category which may also include sensitive habitats or natural areas. The intent is that development should be designed/permitted to protect these areas through utilization of concepts such as cluster development.' Development/project approval will be based on project design which avoids substantial loss of important habitat areas. ' Cluster Development: The grouping of buildings in order to conserve land resources and provide for innovation in the design of the project. This term should include nonresidential development as well as single-family residential subdivisions and multi -family developments that do not involve the subdivision of land. City of Washington 180 Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future However, the City of Washington does not consider the following issues to be relevant at this time: • Outstanding Resource Waters • Maritime Forests • Shellfishing Waters • Dredging E. Land Use Plan Management Topics 1. Introduction The purposes of the CRC management topics are to ensure that CAMA Land Use Plans support the goals of CAMA, to define the CRC's expectations for the land use planning process, and to give the CRC a substantive basis for review and certification of CAMA Land Use Plans. Each of the following management topics (Public Access, Land Use Compatibility, Infrastructure Carrying Capacity, Natural Hazard Areas, Water Quality, and Local Areas of Concern) include three components: a management goal, a statement of the CRC's planning objective, and requirements for the CAMA Land Use Plans. The policies and implementing actions frequently utilize the following words: should, continue, encourage, enhance, identify, implement, maintain, prevent, promote,. protect, provide, strengthen, support, work. The intent of these words is defined below. Policy/Implementing Action - Definitions of Common Terms 1. Should: An officially adopted course or method of action intended to be followed to implement the community goals. Though not mandatory as "shall," it is still an obligatory course of action unless clear reasons can be identified that an exception is warranted. City staff and Planning Board involved at all levels from planning to implementation. 2. Continue: Follow past and present procedures to maintain desired goal, usually with City staff involved at all levels from planning to implementation. 3. Encourage: Foster the desired goal through City policies. Could involve City financial assistance. City of Washington 181 Core Land Use Plan Section VI Plan for the Future 4. Enhance: Improve current goal to a desired state through the use of policies and City staff at all levels of planning. This could include financial support. 5. Identify: Catalog and confirm resource or desired item(s) through the use of City staff and actions. 6. Implement: Actions to guide the accomplishment of the Plan recommendations. 7. Maintain: Keep in good condition the desired state of affairs through the use of City policies and staff. Financial assistance should be provided if needed. 8. Prevent: Stop described event through the use of appropriate City policies, staff actions, Planning Board actions, and City finances, if needed. 9. Promote: Advance the desired state through the use of City policies and Planning Board's and staff activity at all levels of planning. This may include financial support. 10. Protect: Guard against a deterioration of the desired state through the use of City policies, staff, and, if needed, financial assistance. 11. Provide: Take the lead role in supplying the needed financial and staff support to achieve the desired goal. The City is typically involved in all aspects from planning to implementation to maintenance. 12. StrenQthen: Improve and reinforce the desired goal through the use of City policies, staff, and, if necessary, financial assistance. 13. Support: Supply the needed staff support, policies, and financial assistance at all levels to achieve the desired goal 14. Work: Cooperate and act in a manner through the use of City staff, actions, and policies to'create the desired goal City of Washington 182 Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future 2. Impact of CAMA Land Use Plan Policies on Management Topics The management topics rely heavily on the land suitability analysis (Section V(H), page 134). The policies apply to the entire City of Washington planning jurisdiction. The local concerns which should be addressed in this plan are identified on page 20. These concerns and issues were utilized to develop the goals and objectives which are included in this plan. Most of the policies and implementing actions are continuing activities. In most situations, specific timelines are not applicable. Refer to page 235 for a list of those policies/implementing actions which have a specific schedule. Please note: Policies and Implementing Actions are numbered consecutively throughout .this document with the letter "P denoting a policy and the letter "I" denoting an implementing action. No negative impacts are anticipated by the implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies which are included in this plan. The reader should refer to the Tools for Managing Development section, page 233. 3. Public Access a. Management Goal The City of Washington's primary public access management goal is to provide pedestrian access. If, however, the preponderance of a proposal is pedestrian oriented, boating and fishing facilities may be included provided pedestrian access is the primary objective. b. Planning Objective The city will pursue implementation of a shoreline access plan which supports 15A NCAC 7M.0300. C. Land Use Plan Requirements The following are the City of Washington's policies/implementing actions for waterfront access. Schedules for all policies are continuing activities. City of Washington 183 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Policies: P.1 The City of Washington will support the access concepts included in its March, 1998 Shoreline Access Plan. P.2 The City will consider the following guidance in determining public access. The recommended frequency is as follows:, • Local Access Sites - one per block. Local access sites are defined to include those public access points which offer minimal or no facilities. They are primarily used by pedestrians who reside within a few hundred yards of the site. Generally, these accessways are a minimum of ten feet in width and provide only a dune crossover or pier, if needed, litter receptacles, and public access signs. Vehicle parking is generally not available at these access sites. However, bicycle racks may be provided. • Neighborhood Access Sites - one per 50 dwelling units. Neighborhood access sites are defined,as those public access areas offering parking, usually for five to 25 vehicles, a dune crossover or pier, litter receptacles, and public access signs. Such accessways are typically 40-60 ' feet in width and are primarily used by individuals within the immediate subdivision or vicinity of the site. Restroom facilities may be installed. • Regional Access Sites - one per local government jurisdiction. Regional access sites are of such size and offer such facilities that they serve the public from throughout an island or community including day visitors. These sites normally provide parking for 25- 80 vehicles, restrooms, a dune crossover, pier, foot showers, litter receptacles, and public access signs. Where possible, one-half acre of open space in addition to all required setback areas should be provided for buffering, day use, nature study, or similar purposes. • Multi -Regional Access Sites - one per coastal county. Parking facilities for these projects shall be based on seasonal population estimates. Multi -regional access sites are generally larger than regional accessways but smaller than state parks. Such facilities City of Washington 184 \-UI U La11U U�v r tai I Section VI - Plan for the Future may be undertaken and constructed with the involvement and support of state and local government agencies. Multi -regional accessways provide parking for a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 200 cars, restrooms with indoor showers and changing rooms, and concession stands. Where possible, two acres of open space in addition to all required setback areas should be provided for buffering, day use, nature study, or similar purposes. A multi - regional access site may be developed in cooperation with Beaufort County. P.3 The City of Washington supports providing shoreline access for persons with disabilities. This policy supports the City of Washington 1996 Analysis of Municipal Facilities which was prepared to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, and the 1998 City of Washington Shoreline Access Plan. P.4 The City of Washington will give priority to the protection of the following shoreline assets. • Pamlico/Tar River • The hardwood swamps on the south side of the Pamlico/Tar River and the Tar River National Heritage Priority Area. • US 17 bridge and causeway. Stewart Parkway and recreation area. • Washington Civic Center. • North Carolina Estuarium. • Pamlico River Islands (Castle Island). • Havens Gardens. • City of Washington Historic District. • Tranters Creek NC wildlife boat ramp. • Washington Central Business District. • City of Washington greenway system. • Carolina Winds Yacht Club.• • City of Washington Stewart Parkway Bulkhead Boat Dock. P.5 The City of Washington supports state/federal funding of piers for crabbing and fishing. City of Washington 185 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future P.6 The City of Washington supports the following site selection criteria for the development of shoreline access sites: • Selection of site(s) which is/are supportive of protection of AEC system. • Selection of site(s) which may be available through voluntary/ negotiated acquisition. • Selection of site(s) which will be supportive of economic development. • Selection of site(s) which are generally at least one acre in size (two acres regional site) or larger. • Selection of site(s) which support 15A NCAC 7M.0300. • Selection of site(s) which support development of the city's comprehensive recreation system. • Selection of site(s) which support continued central business district waterfront development. • Selection of site(s) which have both local and regional transportation accessibility. • Selection of site(s) which provide multiple shoreline access opportunities. • Site(s) may be located within the City of Washington and/or its extraterritorial jurisdiction area. P.7 . The City of Washington will consider the development of shoreline access sites as supportive of the city's economic development efforts. Implementing Actions: 1.1 In concert with the city's adopted Shoreline Access Plan, the city will place priority on developing/improving the following shoreline access sites (refer to page 17 of the City of Washington Shoreline Access Plan, March 1998): • Development of the Moss Planing Mill property. • Causeway property, south end of US 17 bridge on west side of Highway US 17. • Castle Island. • Greenway System. City of Washington 186 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Canoe Trail Access Point at Tranters Creek/US 264 West. and Runyons Creek/US 264 West. Schedule: Contingent upon the availability of local and non -local funds. Therefore, implementation is identified as a continuing activity. Funding will be pursued each fiscal year. 1.2 The City of Washington will update its Shoreline Access Plan. This update will include an assessment of public beach access, such as Whichards Beach. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. 1.3 The City of Washington will pursue funding under the North Carolina CAMA Shoreline Access Funding Program (15A NCAC 7M, Section .0300, Shoreline Access Policies). Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.4 The City of Washington will pursue private sources of funding for the development of shoreline access facilities., including the donation of land. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.5 The City will develop a tourism brochure which will emphasize the availability and quality of the City's shoreline access sites. This effort should emphasize eco-tourism. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. 4. Land Use Compatibility a. Management Goal The City of Washington's goal is to minimize incompatibilities in land use to include emphasis on the principals of smart growth (page 174), minimizing adverse environmental impacts, protecting investments in infrastructure, and consideration of the City's land suitability analysis map (page 136). b. Planning Objectives (i) The City of Washington will adopt policies which balance growth demands with protection of the environment including consideration of the land suitability map (page 136). City of Washington 187 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future (ii) The City of Washington policies should be utilized to assist in making decisions for consistency findings, zoning and subdivision changes, and approval of public and private projects. C. Land Use Plan Requirements The following are Washington's policies/implementing actions for land use compatibility. Policies - Residential: P.8 The City of Washington supports maintaining an inventory of standard housing. P.9 The City of Washington supports state and federal programs which assist with housing rehabilitation. P.10 The City of Washington supports the protection of existing residentially used and zoned areas from infringement by incompatible land uses. P.11 The City of Washington supports wooded buffers in residential areas along thoroughfares. P.12 The City of Washington supports enforcement of its minimum housing code to ensure compliance with the minimum standards. . P.13 The City of Washington supports revisions to the North Carolina State Statutes which would allow the local imposition of impact fees or special Legislation to allow them in Washington's planning jurisdiction. Impact fees would be levied against land developers to establish a revenue source to support the additional demand for services generated by the people occupying the proposed developments such as roads, schools; water and sewer infrastructure, water quality protection, and recreational facilities. P.14 The City of Washington supports the enforcement of existing regulations of the District Health Department regarding sanitary conditions. City of Washington 188 - Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future P.15 The City of Washington supports utilizing Office/Institutional/Multi-family development as a buffer between light industrial and commercial development and adjacent residential land uses. P.16 The City of Washington supports regulating residential growth to coincide with the provision of public facilities and services. P.17 The City should discourage development in areas designated for light - density residential use - with the exception of low -density residential/agriculture land uses (see Map 21). Because of its current land use patterns, rezoning and amendments to the future land use map should be carefully balanced with a demonstrated need for such proposed development that will be the overall best management policy for Washington's future land development. P.18 The City of Washington supports quality development reflecting the spectrum of housing needs, from low -end (affordable) residences to high - end (luxury) residences. P.19 The City of Washington supports planning efforts to minimize the impact of the construction of the US 17 Bypass on adjacent residentially used and zoned areas. Implementing Actions - Residential: 1.6 The City of Washington will revise its zoning and subdivision ordinances to incorporate smart growth principals (see page 174) as well as floor area ratio requirements. Comment. The following defines floor area ratio - floor area ratio is determined by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot by the area of that lot. City of Washington 189 F 0.3 FA2-4 (-20 FA2-4 FZOOtZ. A2EA ZATIO Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future The floor. area ratio (FAR) was developed as a more refined and adaptable measure of intensity than building coverage. It expresses in one measure, . instead of several, the mathematical relation between volume of building and unit of land. However, FAR cannot replace more traditional bulk controls entirely. Often, it is not a sufficient height control nor does it regulate the placement of the building on the site. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.7 The City will consider revisions to the zoning ordinance for non-residential sites to ensure adequate buffering and landscaping to separate residential and incompatible non-residential uses, and adequate regulation of off -site lighting, hours of operation, and vehicular driveway locations. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.8 The City of Washington will revise its subdivision ordinance to require an interior road system that will provide vehicular access to. abutting thoroughfares and reduce the number of driveway entrances. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.9 The City of Washington will update its minimum housing code to ensure that structures are fit for human habitation. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008- 2009. 1.10 The City of Washington will pursue Community Development, North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, and United States Department of Agriculture funds from state and federal sources for rehabilitation or redevelopment of substandard housing. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.11 The City of Washington will discourage strip development' through enforcement of its zoning ordinance. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.12 The City of Washington will revise its subdivision ordinance to require the interconnectivity of residential subdivisions. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007- 2008. City of Washington 190 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future 1.13 All residential rezoning and subdivision approvals will consider the land use suitability map (page 136) and the future land use map (page 217). Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.14 Through enforcement of its zoning .ordinance and implementation of housing improvement programs, the City should stabilize and improve neighborhoods adjacent to its historic district. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. Policies - Commercial/Industrial: P.20 Industrial development which can comply with the use standards specified by 15A NCAC 7H, the City of Washington zoning ordinance, and state/federal regulations may be located within conservation classified areas. P.21 The City of Washington will aggressively encourage the development of industry. P.22 The City of Washington, in cooperation with Beaufort County, will continue to support an active industrial recruitment program giving preference to low pollution, light manufacturing industries and those which do not, require large commitments of water and/or sewer. P.23 The City of Washington opposes the establishment of private solid waste landfill sites within its planning jurisdiction. P.24 The City of Washington supports industrial development which will be located adjacent to and/or with direct access to major thoroughfares. P.25 The City of Washington supports the development of industrial sites that are accessible to City or County water and sewer services. P.26 Industries which are noxious by reason of the emission of smoke, dust, glare, noise, odor, and vibrations, and those which deal primarily in hazardous products such as explosives, should not be located in Washington's planning jurisdiction. City of Washington 191 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Plan for the Future P.27 The City supports commercial development at the intersections of major roads (i.e., in a nodal fashion) and in the Central Business District consistent with the City's future land use map (page 217). P.28 The City of Washington deems industrial and commercial development within fragile areas and areas with low land suitability acceptable only if the following'conditions are met: If consistent with 15A NCAC 7H - • CAMA minor or major permits can be obtained. • Applicable zoning and subdivision provisions are met in zoned areas. • Applicable stormwater control regulations are complied with. • Within coastal wetlands, estuarine waters; and public trust waters, no industrial or commercial use will be permitted unless such use is water dependent. This policy applies to both new industrial and commercial development and to expansion of existing facilities. Implementing Actions - Commercial/Industrial: 1.15 The City of Washington will utilize.its zoning and subdivision ordinances, the CAMA permitting program, and state/local stormwater control regulations to regulate new industrial and commercial development and the expansion of commercial and industrial development. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.16 The City of Washington will review all local land use regulatory ordinances to ensure compliance with policies P.20 through P.28. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.17 The City of Washington will review and update its comprehensive plan every five years to ensure conformity with the CAMA Land Use Plan and responsiveness to current conditions. Emphasis will be. placed on strategic planning. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2010-2011. City of Washington 192 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Plan for the Future 1.18 The City of Washington will support the Downtown Redevelopment program. This is discussed further in the Downtown Revitalization policies and implementing actions (see P.92 through P.95 and 1.62 through 1.64, pages 211 through 213). Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.19 The City of Washington will support the pursuit of industrial and commercial development in concert with the following actions: • Encourage the placement of new heavy industrial development to have minimum adverse effect on the city's ecosystem. • Support protection of the Central Business District in the consideration of all zoning requests. • Re -zone additional parcels for industrial and commercial use along existing growth corridors with adequate infrastructure existing or planned and, when the need is demonstrated, provide a consistent growth policy with amendments to the future land development map when revision is needed. Schedule: Continuing Activities. Policies - Conservation: P.29 Except for policy P.74 and implementing actions 1.24 and 1.25, residential, commercial, and industrial development which meets 15A NCAC 7H use standards will be allowed in estuarine shoreline, estuarine water, and public trust areas. Policy P.74 and implementing actions 1.24 and 1.25 are more restrictive than 15A NCAC 7H because the city desires greater control/protection. P.30 The City of Washington supports larger lots, decreased impervious surface . areas, and cluster development in conservation classified areas and areas with low land suitability (see future land use map, Map 21) through enforcement of the city's subdivision and zoning ordinances. P.31 The hardwood swamps along the Tar/Pamlico River should be preserved. P.32 The City of Washington supports continuing preservation/protection of its flood hazard areas. City of Washington 193 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future P.33 The City of Washington shall support the preservation of prime agricultural lands within its planning jurisdiction. (Note: There are no prime commercial forest lands within Washington's planning jurisdiction.) P.34 As stated elsewhere in this plan, with the exception of policy P.74 and implementing actions 1.24 and 1.25, the City of Washington supports the enforcement of 15A NCAC 7H in areas of environmental concern. P.35 Washington will support management of off -road vehicles in conservation areas. Implementine Actions - Conservation: 1.20 The City of Washington will revise its zoning and subdivision ordinances to require the designation of conservation areas on all preliminary and final plats, including sound and estuarine islands. The city will prohibit construction on sound and estuarine islands that is not recreation/conservation related. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. .1.21 The City of Washington will revise its subdivision ordinance to incorporate acknowledgment of best agriculture practices. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.22 Washington will support larger lots with controls/ limitations for impervious surfaced areas and cluster development as mitigative action in conservation classified areas (see future land use map, Map 21) and areas with low land suitability through enforcement of its zoning ordinance. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.23 The City of Washington will update the cluster development provisions of its zoning and subdivision ordinances to improve preservation of conservation areas. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.24 The City of Washington will revise its zoning ordinance to prohibit the construction of signs, except regulatory signs, in public trust waters as defined by 15A NCAC 7H. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.25 The City of Washington will adopt an ordinance to regulate off -road vehicle usage in conservation areas. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. City of Washington 194 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Policies - Stormwater Control: P.36 The City of Washington will continue to support its stormwater control ordinance which includes enforcement of a stormwater utility ordinance. P.37 The City of Washington supports reducing soil erosion, runoff, and sedimentation to minimize the adverse effects on surface and subsurface water quality. P.38 The City of Washington supports agricultural best management practices (see implementation action 1.21). P.39 The City of Washington will encourage the use of constructed wetlands to receive stormwater runoff: PAO The City of Washington will continue to support the state's stormwater disposal policy 15A NCAC 2H.001-.003. Implementing Actions - Stormwater Control: 1.26 The City of Washington will revise its zoning, subdivision, and stormwater control ordinances to reduce the areas covered during development by impervious surfaces. This will reduce stormwater runoff. Changes may include, but not 'necessarilybe limited to: • Stabilized but not paved parking lots. • Paving with "grass stones" (paving blocks which have open areas to allow passage of water). • Strip paving of streets. • Reducing impervious surface areas. • Encouraging the use of constructed wetlands to receive stormwater runoff. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. 1.27 The City of Washington will consider adopting a landscaping ordinance to require.that a buffer of trees/vegetation be left between rights -of -way and any clear cut areas to be consistent with applicable state and federal regulations. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. City of Washington 195 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future 1.28 ' The City of Washington will cooperate with the NCDOT, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, and other state agencies in mitigating the impact of stormwater runoff on all conservation classified areas. The city will support the Division of Water Quality stormwater runoff retention permitting process through its zoning permit system by verifying compliance prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.29 The City of Washington will attempt to apply for grant funds, and utilize Powell Bill funds, to improve stormwater drainage systems associated with existing rights -of -way. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.30 The City of Washington will support existing state regulations relating to stormwater runoff resulting from development (stormwater Disposal Policy .15A NCAC 2H.001-.1003) through enforcement of the city's subdivision ordinance. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 5. Infrastructure Carrying Capacity a. Management Goal The City of Washington provides public infrastructure systems which are located and managed to provide adequate service and protect AECs and conservation areas. To achieve this, some utility lines may have to extend through some environmentally sensitive areas,. especially wetlands. b. Planning Objective The City of Washington will establish level of service policies and criteria for infrastructure consistent with the projections of future land use need's (15A NCAC 7B (c)(3)(D)). C. Land Use Plan Requirements Refer to Map 15 for the delineation of the water and sewer service areas and pages 165-168 for discussion of future water and sewer service needs. All infrastructure policies/implementing actions are intended to be supportive of and consistent with the existing and future service areas. The following are Washington's policies for infrastructure carrying capacity. City of Washington 196 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Policies: P.41 The City of Washington supports strict regulation of wastewater treatment package plants. P.42 . The City of Washington supports the development of central sewer and water service throughout its incorporated area and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. P.43 The City of Washington will support the discharge of effluent into constructed wetland areas. P.44 The City of Washington will support all efforts to secure available state and federal funding for the construction and/or expansion of public and private sewer systems and water systems. The City does not intend to expend local funds on infrastructure expansion throughout the planning period. P.45 Washington supports directing more intensive land uses to areas of its planning jurisdiction which have existing infrastructure. P.46 The City of Washington supports the developer -financed extension of water and sewer services from the existing systems and encourages the use of central systems for new development whether residential, commercial, industrial, or public facilities in use. P.47 Based on the future demands sections for the water and sewer systems, City of Washington financed expansion of water and sewer service lines is not expected during the 20-year planning period (see pages 165 to 168). P.48 The City will amend its regulations as necessary to encourage or require the provision of privately funded central water and sewer service to lots or parcels proposed in new developments. . P.49 The City of Washington supports providing water and sewer service to industrial areas when resources (in the form of grant funding and/or private revenue sources) are sufficient in order to encourage industrial development. City of Washington 197 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Plan for the Future P.50 Within the city's planning jurisdiction, central sewer system service will be encouraged and use of package treatment plants discouraged. Implementing Actions: 1.31 The City of Washington will amend the future land use. map, when needed, to reflect the city's water and sewer extension projects as they occur. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.32 The City of Washington will revise water and sewer extension policies as necessary to ensure that public/private cooperation in the provision of infrastructure to serve new development is -encouraged. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.33 The City of Washington does not support the use of private package sewage treatment plants within the City limits. However, in the ETJ, in special cases where the use of private systems is the only available option, the City of Washington may permit the use of private systems only if the associated development meets the following criteria: • The said development is consistent with the City of Washington's policies and ordinances. • The system meets or exceeds the state and federal permitting requirements. • The project will have no adverse impacts beyond its boundaries. • The perpetual operation and maintenance of the system is guaranteed without obligation to the City of Washington in any way. • A specific contingency plan is required specifying how ongoing private operation and maintenance of the plant will be provided, and detailing provisions for assumption of the plant into a public system should the private operation fail or management of the system not meet the conditions of the state permit. The City will rely on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for enforcement/regulation. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. City of Washington 198 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future 1.34 Any request for the approval of a private package treatment facility should be accompanied by environmental assessments or, if required, environmental impact statements and documentation of assurances that all applicable state and federal health requirements will be satisfied. Prior 'to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a report will be prepared which examines the possibilities for wastewater disposal alternatives. This report will follow the prescribed format outlined in the Division of Water Quality's Guidance for Evaluation of Wastewater Disposal Alternatives: Proposed Discharge. When an EIS is determined necessary, it should be prepared in accordance with 15 NCAC 1 D.0201. This action will be monitored by the City through the subdivision review process and closely coordinated with the NC Division of Water Quality. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.35 The City of Washington will consider water and sewer extension plans identified on pages 165 to 168 in the consideration of all rezoning and subdivision approval requests. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.36 The City will continue to implement/support its Wellhead Protection Plan and annual monitoring of potential contaminant sources. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 6. Transportation a. Management Goal The City of Washington supports development of a safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and economically feasible land and water based transportation system which will support Washington's economic and cultural development. b. Planning Objective The City of Washington will improve the transportation system including service to vehicular, pedestrian, and boating traffic. City of Washington 199 Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future C. Land Use Plan Requirements The following are the City of Washington's policies/implementing actions for transportation. Policies: P.51 The City of Washington supports implementation of the 2007-2013 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (see Appendix IV for identification of improvements). P.52 The City of Washington supports subdivision development which utilizes the NCDOT Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Street Design Guidelines which promote walkable communities with moderate to high residential densities and a mixed use core. P.53 The City of Washington supports' state and federal funding for maintenance/dredging of existing federally -maintained channels. P.54 The City of Washington supports limited access from development along all roads to support safe ingress and egress. P.55 The City of Washington supports interconnected street. systems for residential.and non-residential development. P.56 The City of Washington supports vehicular, pedestrian, and boating transportation improvements which will improve access to the city's Central Business District. P.57 The City of Washington supports beautification/landscaping projects along all transportation corridors. P.58 The City of Washington supports September, 2000 Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Washington. P.59 The City of Washington supports detailed and continuous planning for construction of the US 17 bypass. City of Washington FTI Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future P.60 The City of Washington supports improvements to Warren Field to enhance the City's regional and national accessibility. P.61 The City of Washington supports the adoption of local land use control ordinances to mitigate the impact of the construction of the US 17 Bypass. Implementing Actions: 1.37 The City of Washington will focus on the land. use impacts of the construction of the US 17 bypass in the preparation of the 2006. Comprehensive Plan. This will include specific recommendations to mitigate any negative impacts and maximize the efficiency of the bypass. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2006-2007. 1.38 The City of Washington will work .with the NCDOT to accomplish implementation of the City's 2000 Thoroughfare Plan. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.39 In addition to the five-year TIP improvements (see Appendix IV), the City of Washington supports and places priority on the following improvements: • The widening of Highland Drive to five lanes from East 12th Street to Slatestone Road. • Relocation of Spring Road to the north. • Widening of Brick Kiln Road to four lanes. • Construction of a feeder road from US 264 to the Old Bath Highway. • Widening of River Road to four lanes from Christian Service Camp Road to Broad Creek Road. • Construction of a new rest area at the intersection of US 264 and US 17 bypass. • Improve US 264 and US 17 to enhance the City of Washington's regional accessibility. • Coordination with NCDOT to ensure adequate maintenance of streets. • Development of a pedestrian friendly environment within the Central Business District. These improvements will be accomplished through implementation of the City's subdivision ordinance and coordination with NCDOT. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. City of Washington 201 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future 1.40 The City of Washington will revise its subdivision/zoning ordinances to require/accomplish the following (must be done to mitigate the impact of the US 17 Bypass): • Require the utilization of frontage roads in non-residential development along federal and state highways. • Prohibit double frontage lots in residential subdivisions. • Require the construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the entrances to major commercial and residential developments. • Require traffic impact studies for developments generating more than 500 trips per day. • Encourage the development of joint or shared driveways in newly approved subdivisions. • Require the interconnectivity of subdivisions and developments. • Improve landscaping along major thoroughfares. • Improve building appearance. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 7. Natural Hazard Areas a. Management Goal The City of Washington will conserve/protect its AECs, floodplains, natural resources, fragile areas, and land with low suitability for use in order to support public health and safety. b. Planning Objective The City of Washington will minimize threats to life and property that are located in or adjacent to hazard areas, especially erosion, high winds, storm surge, flooding, and/or sea level rise. C. Land Use Plan Requirements: The following are the City of Washington's policies/implementing actions for Natural Hazard Areas. City of Washington 202 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Policies: P.62 The City of Washington will monitor sea level rise and respond to threats to property and important natural areas as threats are identified. P.63 . The City of Washington supports hazard mitigation planning. Refer to the Hazard Mitigation Plan section of this document (pg 242) and Appendix VI I. P.64 The City supports the enforcement of local controls and the efforts of state and federal agencies with regulatory authority to require development to be above the base flood elevation and comply with the NC State Building Code. P.65 The City of Washington supports the relocation of structures endangered by erosion or flooding if the relocated structure will be in compliance with all applicable policies and regulations. P.66 The City of Washington supports the land use densities within natural hazard areas which are identified on page 220. P.67 The City of Washington will allow development in conservation and natural hazard areas which is consistent with local zoning and meets, applicable state and federal regulations. P.68 The City of Washington supports the US Army Corp of Engineers' regulations, the applicable guidelines of the Coastal Area Management Act, and the use of local land use ordinances to regulate development in freshwater swamps, marshes, 404 wetlands, and AECs (15A NCAC 7H). Implementing Actions: 1.41 As necessary, the City of Washington will revise its zoning and flood hazard ordinances to respond to threats from sea level rise. Schedule: Continuing Activity as required. 1.42 The City of Washington will'enforce density controls in its zoning ordinance in redevelopment areas to control growth density. Schedule: Continuing Activity as required. City of Washington 203 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future 1.43 The City of Washington will use the future land use map as a guide to control density and development in Natural Hazard Areas. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.44 The City of Washington will continue to enforce its Floodplain Ordinance and participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. It will rely on the Division of Coastal Management to monitor and regulate development in areas susceptible to sea level rise and wetland loss. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.45 The City will enforce its subdivision regulations requiring elevation monuments to be set -so that floodplain elevations can be more easily set -so determined. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007--2008. 1.46 The City of Washington will monitor development proposals for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and will continue to enforce local land use ordinances to regulate development of freshwater swamps, marshes, and 404 wetlands. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.47 The City of Washington permits redevelopment of previously developed areas, provided all applicable policies, regulations, and ordinances are complied with. The city will encourage redevelopment as a means for correcting housing problems, upgrading commercial structures, and historic preservation (through rehabilitation and adaptive reuse). Redevelopment, including infrastructure, should be designed to withstand natural hazards. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 8. Water Quality a. Management Goal The City of Washington will strive to protect and improve water quality within its planning jurisdiction and cooperate with surrounding jurisdictions to improve regional water quality, especially in all AECs and natural 404 wetlands. City of Washington 204 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future b. Planning Objective The City of Washington will address the impacts of economic and demographic growth while protecting/restoring the quality of the city's and region's surface and ground waters. C. Land Use Plan Requirements The following provides the City of Washington's policies/implementing actions on water quality - Policies: P.69 The City of Washington supports the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Water Quality Management Plan and the Tar -Pamlico stormwater rule (see pastes 99-100 and 102-106). P.70 The City of Washington will support aquaculture activities which do not adversely affect surface or groundwater quality. P.71 The City of Washington will support the enforcement of current state, federal, and/or local agencies to improve water quality. P.72 The City of Washington supports regulation of inappropriate land uses near well fields. P.73 The City of Washington supports preservation/protection of the natural heritage area hardwood swamps located along the Tar River. P.74 The City of Washington will support the establishment of mooring fields and the preparation of a water use plan to govern mooring fields. P.75 The City of Washington supports the guidelines of the Coastal Area Management Act and the efforts and programs of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, and the Coastal Resources Commission to protect the coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines, and public trust waters in Washington's planning jurisdiction. City of Washington 205 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future P.76 The City of Washington supports commercial and recreational fishing in its waters and will cooperate with other local governments and state and federal agencies to control pollution of these waters to improve conditions so that commercial and recreational fishing will increase. P.77 The City of Washington opposes the disposal of any toxic wastes, as defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency's Listing of Hazardous Substances and Priority Pollutants (developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977), within its planning jurisdiction. P.78 The City of Washington will support the stormwater control policies included in this plan to protect surface water quality (see policies P.36 to P.40). P.79 The City of Washington supports.the regulation of underground storage tanks to protect groundwater resources.• • x P.80 The City of Washington supports management of problem pollutants, particularly biological oxygen demand and nutrients, in order to correct v, existing water quality problems and to ensure protection of those waters currently supporting their uses. P.81 The City of Washington opposes the location of floating homes within its jurisdiction. .Y Implementing Actions: 1.48 - Revise the zoning, subdivision, and stormwater control ordinances to more effectively control stormwater runoff (see Implementing action 1.26). Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. 1.49 The City of Washington will revise its zoning and subdivision ordinances as appropriate to address the following: • Development of aquaculture. • Land use development in the vicinity of wellfields. • Water use plan to regulate the establishment of mooring fields. City of Washington 206 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Reference/incorporate regulations of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, and the Coastal Resources Commission. Regulations addressing the disposal of toxic wastes (see policy P.77) • Regulation of underground storage tanks.. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.50 The City of Washington will enforce its zoning and subdivision regulations to aid in protecting sensitive shoreline areas. It will rely on state and federal agencies to assist in protecting environmentally sensitive areas, as well as other nursery and habitat areas. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.51 The City of Washington will continuously enforce, through the development and zoning permit process, all current regulations of the NC State Building Code and North Carolina Division of Health Services relating to building construction and septic tank installation/replacement in areas with soils restrictions. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.52 Preservation of wetlands is important to the protection/improvement of water quality in the City of Washington planning jurisdiction. The following witl be implemented: • Consider preservation of large wetland areas (> one acre) in a natural state to protect their environmental value. Schedule: Continuing Activity. • Coordinate all development review with the appropriate office of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service. Schedule: Continuing Activity. • Require that wetland areas be surveyed and delineated on all preliminary and final subdivision plats. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008, revise zoning and subdivision ordinances. • Encourage cluster development in order to protect sensitive natural areas. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008, revise zoning and subdivision ordinances. City of Washington 207 Core Land Use Plan Section VI Plan for the Future • Make wetlands acquisition a priority in future expansions of Washington's parks and recreation areas. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 9. Local Areas of Concern a. Management Goal The City of Washington will strive to integrate local concerns with the overall CAMA goals and objectives. b. Planning Objective Local concerns extend well beyond CAMA concerns and should reflect a broad range of land use related issues. c.. Land Use Plan Requirements The City of Washington will. support the following policies/implementing actions that address areas of local concern. Policies - Cultural, Historic, and Scenic Areas P.82 The City of Washington will preserve and protect its historic resources. P.83 The City of Washington will protect its waterfront/shoreline areas, historic district, and valuable scenic areas. P.84 The City of Washington will protect its cultural assets, especially educational facilities and those within the Central Business District. P.85 The City of Washington considers cultural, historical, and scenic areas as significant to the attraction of tourism. Uly or.wasmngLon 208 Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future Implementing Actions - Cultural. Historic, and Scenic Areas 1.53 The City of Washington will establish a specific. public facilities capital improvements plan for the improvement and expansion of cultural facilities. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. 1.54 The City of Washington shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/redevelopment and public works projects with the NC Division of Archives and' History to ensure that significant architectural details or buildings are identified and preserved. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.55 The City of Washington will seek funding to update its historical properties survey within its planning jurisdiction. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. 1.56 The City of Washington will emphasize the protection of scenic areas in the update of its shoreline access plan (see implementing action 1.2, page 187). Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Policies - Economic Development: P.86 The City of Washington will consider the need for establishing energy facilities on a case -by -case basis, judging the need for development against all identified possible adverse impacts and overall economic benefit. P.87 The City of Washington supports tourism, including eco-tourism, as an important asset to overall economic development. P.88 The City of Washington will pursue annexation to enhance its economic opportunities. P.89 The City of Washington encourages the use of central water and sewer systems for effective economic development of residential, commercial, and industrial developments. City of Washington 209 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Plan for the Future P.90 The City of Washington encourages the location of new economic .development in and around the existing urban area where public infrastructure exists or can be easily extended. P.91 The City of Washington supports the economic development efforts of the Washington -Beaufort County Chamber of Commerce. Implementing Actions - Economic Development: 1.57 The City of Washington will support the following in the pursuit of. industrial and commercial development: • Encourage placement of new heavy industrial development to have minimum adverse effect on the city's ecosystem and by encouraging areas of concentrations of such uses be considered first when suitable infrastructure is available consistent with the growth policy, of the future land development map. Schedule: Continuing Activity. • Encourage commercial development to locate in the Central Business District. Schedule: Continuing Activity. • Re -zone additional parcels for industrial and commercial use along existing growth corridors with adequate infrastructure existing or planned and, when the need is demonstrated, provide a consistent growth policy with amendments to the future land development map when revision is needed. This will accommodate the future demand for additional industrial and commercial development in suitable areas. Schedule: Continuing Activity. • Encourage industrial development in industrial parks by improving the provision of services such as water, sewer, and natural gas. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.58 The City of Washington will pursue funding through state and federal programs that are considered supportive of. local economic development efforts: City of Washington 210 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • The City of Washington is generally receptive to state and federal programs, particularly those which provide improvements to the city. The city will continue to fully support such programs, especially the NC Department of Transportation road and bridge improvement programs, which are very important to the city and its regional accessibility. Schedule: Continuing Activity. • Examples of other state and federal programs that are important and supported by Washington include: dredging and channel maintenance by the US Army Corps of Engineers; federal and state projects that provide efficient and safe boat access for sport fishing; public beach and coastal waterfront access grant funds; and community development block grants, housing for the elderly, moderate income housing, housing rehabilitation, and North Carolina Housing Finance Agency housing improvement programs. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.59 The City of Washington will continue to support the activities of the NC Division of Travel and Tourism; specifically, the monitoring of tourism - related industry; efforts to promote tourism -related commercial activity, and efforts to enhance and provide shoreline resources. Schedule: Continuing Activity. 1.60 The City of Washington will prepare updated tourism brochures that focus on the Central Business District, cultural facilities, scenic areas, eco- tourism, and regional accessibility. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and continuing as needed. 1.61 The City of Washington will implement its shoreline access plan as an important part of its overall economic development program (see page 187. Schedule: see 1.1 to 1.5, Shoreline Access Implementing Actions. Policies - Downtown Revitalization: P-92 The City of Washington supports implementation of the Downtown Washington Revitalization Strategy (see Appendix VI). City of Washington 211 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future. P.93 The City of Washington supports the following as crucial to downtown redevelopment: • No single asset is sufficiently strong to support Central Business District redevelopment. • The river is the City's single greatest asset. • A unified approach to marketing is required. • The riverfront area needs activity centers. • Linkages should be provided between the river and Main Street. P.94 Development in the Central Business District will be coordinated with the Historic District. P.95 The City of Washington will support the CBD pedestrian -related improvements that are specified on page 161. Implementing Actions - Downtown Revitalization: 1.62 The following summarizes restructuring action steps which must be implemented for revitalization of the Central Business District (note: not listed in priority order) - Establish a strong linkage to the Greenville market. • Promote more marina/boating space and supporting facilities/services. • Create activity centers at strategic points along the Riverfront. • Promote connectivity between the Riverfront Promenade and Main Street. • Improve the appearance of Main Street buildings, especially the facades. Promote additional restaurant and lodging choices. Promote downtown housing, both in amount and style. • Increase and manage parking spaces. Create. two-way streets. Improve service vehicle access. Expand activity showcasing visual and performing arts, crafts, culture, and historic attractions. Schedule: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and continuing. City of Washington 212 Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future 1.63 Rezoning actions within the Central Business District will be consistent with the recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Strategy. Schedule: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2006 and continuing. 1.64 The City of Washington will market -the Central Business District as "The Heart of the Inner Banks." Schedule: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2006 and continuing. Policies - Marinas/Shoreline Development: P-96 The City of Washington considers marina development as essential to its Downtown Revitalization efforts. P.97 The City of Washington will support marina development which does not detract from its scenic shoreline. Implementing Actions - Marinas/Shoreline Development: 1.65 The City of Washington will review its zoning ordinance to improve regulation of upland marinas, open water marinas, and dry stack storage facilities, consistent with 15A NCAC 7H. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007- 2008, revise zoning ordinance. 1.66 The City of Washington will rely on the standards set forth in 15A NCAC 7H to regulate bulkhead construction. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. Policies - General Health and Human Services Needs: P.98 The City of Washington opposes any low level military training flights, that are not in compliance with the minimum safe altitudes for aircraft operations as described in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 71. (NOTE: This policy is not enforceable, but is an expression of \ concern/position.) P.99 The City of Washington supports a comprehensive recreational program to provide a broad range of recreation facilities for its citizens. P.100 The City of Washington supports the water and sewer policies contained in this plan for the general health of its citizens (see Policies P.41 to P.50). City of Washington 213 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future P.101 The City of Washington supports the Beaufort County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (see Section VIII). P.102 The City of Washington supports the provision of superior educational facilities. P.103 The City of Washington supports the provision of superior health care facilities. P.104 The City of Washington will support local, state, and federal efforts to minimize the adverse impact of man-made hazards within its jurisdiction. P.105 The City of Washington will support regional disposal of solid waste. Implementing Actions - General Health and Human Services Needs: 1.67 The City of Washington will support/assist Beaufort County in seeking grants to subsidize public education and continuing education at the College level. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.68 Floodplain regulation is a concern in the City of Washington. To accomplish protection of public health and service needs, Washington will: • Continue to enforce the flood hazard reduction provisions of the City of Washington Land Development Ordinances. Schedule: Continuing Activity. • Revise the city's zoning ordinance to prohibit the installation of underground storage tanks in the 100-year floodplain. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. • Revise the city's zoning ordinance to require open space, recreational, agricultural, and other low -intensity uses within the floodplains. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. • Revise the city's zoning ordinance to prohibit the development of any industry within the 100-year floodplain that may pose a risk to public health and safety. Such industries may include but not be City of Washington 214 Core Land Use Plan Section A -Plan for the Future limited to: chemical refining and processing, petroleum refining and processing, hazardous material processing, or storage facilities. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 1.69 The City of Washington will continue to rely on the support of the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority for solid waste disposal. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.70 The City of Washington will allow the siting of recycling centers, transfer stations, and solid waste collection sites within all land classifications (see Future Land Use Map, Map 21) except for the Conservation classification. All siting shall be consistent with the city's zoning ordinance. Schedule: Continuing Activity in each Fiscal Year. 1.71 During the planning period, the City of Washington will develop a community services/facilities plan (as a stand-alone document, not as an expansion of this plan), which will define existing deficiencies in police protection, fire protection, local administrative buildings, public recreational facilities, public shoreline access, and public parks. This plan will not address school system needs. The plan will prioritize needs and make specific recommendations concerning financing and budgeting the high priority needs. This will be done in concert with the preparation of a Capital Improvements Plan. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2008-2009. 1.72 The City of Washington will revise its zoning ordinance to regulate the disposal of toxic wastes. Schedule: Fiscal Year 2007-2008. F. Future Land Use 1. Introduction The future land use maps (Maps 21 A and 21 B) depict application of the policies for growth and development and the desired future patterns of land use and land development through 2025. The future land use map must include the following: • Areas and locations planned for conservation or open space and a description of compatible land uses and activities. City of Washington 215 . Core Land Use Plan Section VI Plan for the Future • Areas and locations planned for future growth and development with descriptions of the following characteristics: • Predominant and supporting land uses'that are encouraged in each area; Overall density and development intensity planned for each area; and Infrastructure required to support planned development in each area. (Note: See Section VI Plan for the Future, page 148). • Land use which reflects existing and planned infrastructure. • Reflect the information depicted on the Composite Map of Environmental Conditions (Map 13) and Map of Land Suitability Analysis (Map 19). Specifically, the City of Washington Future Land Use Plan was drafted with consideration given to the following: • The policies and implementing actions included in this plan. • Development constraints. • Desire to concentrate commercial and industrial development. • Preservation of existing urban form. • Preservation of existing residential neighborhoods. • Existing plans for the development of public facilities. Limiting of potential land use conflicts. _ • Existing zoning patterns. • Key land use issues (see page 20-21). • Preservation of the Central Business District. • Prohibition of strip development. • Implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan. City of Washington 216 Core Land Use Plan .'s:_m bum, ,• .,. i. '. 0 �I fi Ih •= ' 1 „ err r "" � / .. / NOR pig Ri AT 4O a iff � �1 `/, n /111 ♦ I N _ r :.,. I ,�r.+V ry . ■�d�b I �/ ..iiI%1@m pmr.,• � /',�gun Sri a iu v , N �1 W •�.►� J,� > 11■11\III .. II/I/IIIII I71 ]i� III. 1 � J � d\• # �i - ��� Y r �1 111 IIIf�1111111 Ji14 lir LIN -9 W, MAI. I ' �Ii1 11■ 1 �� Legend Railroads Future Land Use Bridges + Commercial Roads Office and Institutional Major Roads Light Industrial - Washington Park Planning Area + Mixed Use Historic District High Density Residential O City Limits Medium Density Residential 10 Least Suitable Overlay Low Density Residential Hydrology i Conservation 0 750 1,500 MAP 21 B City of Washington Land Use Plan Future Land Use Downtown Area I I Feet 3,000 4,500 The City of Washington planning area includes all areas within the corporate limits of the city and its ETJ. The preparation of this map was financed In part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ol�� Consulting Planners, Inc. Page 218 Section VI - Plan for the Future 2. Land Use Acreages Tables 51, 52, and 53 summarizes the acreages for the future land uses depicted on Map 21. These acreages reflect the desirable distribution of land uses as depicted on the map. The build -out of all land outlined within the City of Washington's corporate limits and ETJ will occur well beyond 2025. Estimates of growth for each land use category are provided within Table 47 (page 155); however, the estimates do not reach build -out as outlined in the tables below. Within Table 47, several of the future land use categories with similar characteristics have been combined. In order to clarify this for the reader, the following summarizes the distinctions between the two tables: HI, LI, Et Airport = Industrial; Mixed Use Et Commercial = Commercial. Aside from the districts listed above, there is a direct correlation between Tables 51, 52, and 53 with Table 47. The land demand forecasts in Table 47 do not reach build -out of any district outlined on the Future Land Use Map. Based on these forecast, development within the City of Washington is expected to be steady through 2025; however, build -out of vacant acreage within the corporate limits and ETJ is not anticipated. Forecast for infrastructure demand and the proposed approach for addressing this demand can be found in the following sections of the plan: water system (page 165) and sewer system (page 167). This discussion includes all cost associated with these improvements, which has been established as of the drafting of this plan. i Table 51. City of Washington Future Land Use Map Acreages Corporate Limits ETJ Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Airport 691.1 16.0% 617.3 4.6% 1,308.4 7.4% Commercial 289.3 6.7% 202.6 1.5% 491.9 2.8% Conservation 264.5 6.1% 2,719.4 20.2% 2,983.9 16.8% HDR 196.7 4.6% 145.2 1.1% 341.9 1.9% HI 212.1 4.9% 343.0 2.5% 555.1 3.1% LDR 9.4 0.2% 7,333.2 54.5% 7,342.6 41.3% LI 416.3 9.7% 245.2 1.8% 661.5 3.7% MDR 11414.8 32.8% 1,404.7 10.4% 2,819.5 15.9% Mixed Use 57.3 1.3% 0.0 0.0% 57.3 0.3% OEH 761.6 17.7% 310.6 2.3% 1,072.2 6.0% Washington Park 0.0 0.0% 130.1 1.0% 130.1 0.7% Total 41313.1 100.0% 13,451.3 100.0% 17,764.4 100.0% Least Suitable Overlay 351.0 8.1% 2,981.0 22.2% 3,332.0 18.8% City of Washington 219 Core Land Use Plan Table 52. City of Washington Future Land Use by Sewer Service Area Inside Service Area Section VI - Plan for the Future Outside Service Area Corporate Limits ETJ Corporate Limits ETJ % of % of % of % of Acres Total Acres Total Acres Total Acres Total Airport 691.1 16.7% 378.3 8.6% 0.0 0.0% 239.0 2.6% Commercial 284.3 6.9% 142.3 3.2% 5.0 2.8% 60.3 0.7% Conservation 173.1 4.2% 630.2 14.3% 91.3 51.8% 2,089.2 23.1% HDR 196.7 4.8% 102.2 2.3% 0.0 0.0% 43.1 0.5% HI 171.6 4.1% 325.5 7.4% 40.5 23.0% 17.4 0.2% LDR 9.4 0.2% 2,119.0 48.1% 0.0 0.0% 5,490.9 60.7% LI 416.3 10.1 % 196.0 4.4% 0.0 0.0% 49.2 0.5% MDR 1,376.2 33.3% 510.9 11.6% 38.8 22.0% 888.1 9.8% Mixed Use 57.1 1.4% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% ClEd 760.8 18.4% 2.0 0.0% 0.8 0.5% 37.6 0.4% Washington 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 130.1 1.4% Park Total 4,136.6 100.0% 4,406.4 100.0% I 176.4 100.0% 9,044.9 100.0% Table 53. City of Washington Zoning of Vacant Parcels Inside Sewer Service Area I No Sewer Service Corporate Limits ETJ Corporate Limits ETJ % of % of % of % of Acres Total Acres Total Acres Total Acres Total AP 535.5 7.5% 434.1 6.1% 0.0 0.0% 235.4 3.8% B 1 H 4.3 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% B2 66.0 0.9% 138.5 1.9% 0.0 0.0% 64.3 1.0% B3 36.8 2.3% 3.8 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% B4 1.7 0.02% 1.4 0.02% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% CP 0.0 0.0% 67.6 0.9% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 11 66.8 0.9% 135.0 1.9% 0.0 0.0% 171.2 2.7% 12 38.0 0.5% 149.2 2.1% 0.0 0.0% 39.0 0.6% 01 127.2 1.8% 5.9 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 2.0 0.03% R15S 85.9 1.2% 327.4 4.6% 3.0 3.3% 377.9 6.0% R9S 0.0 0.0% 15.4 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% R6S 215.2 3.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% RA20 274.2 3.8% 2,301.1 36.8% 86.7 96.7% 4,917.1 83.9% RHD 4.9 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% RMF 0.3 0.004% 19.7 0.3% 0.0 0.0% 118.4 1.9% RMH 70.7 1.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 2.1 0.03% PUD 53.3 0.7% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Total 1,580.8 22.1% 3,599.1 55.0% 89.7 100.0% 5,927.4 100.0% 'Acreage calculations based on all tax parcels with an assessed building value under $10,000. These properties were considered vacant for the purposes of this table. Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. (Tables 51-53). City of Washington 220 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future This Land Use Plan includes ten separate land use categories. Existing land uses have been categorized into these same categories. Included in these ten existing and future land use categories are the following: Airport Development, Commercial, Office/Institutional, Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, Mixed Use, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Conservation (see Maps 21A and 21B). Commercial nodes may include a variety of these ten land uses. Despite its depiction on the Future Land Use Map, the Town of Washington Park is not included in the city's planning jurisdiction and is not part of the city's Land Use Plan. The following sections will categorize/define the allowable uses of land under each category, as shown on the Future Land Use Map. a. Airport Development Category The Airport Development Category is the area around Warren Field, the City's regional airport owned jointly with Beaufort County. It is located on Airport Road, off Market Street, within the City limits and is open to general and corporate air traffic. The category is designed primarily to accommodate a compatible mix of airport facilities and agricultural uses, uses that will not be incompatible with future development and expansion of the airport. Besides airport facilities and commercial/industrial uses compatible with airport operations, only forestry, crop cultivation, and noncommercial parks/ recreation areas are allowed in this land use category. The City's Code of Ordinances creates additional restrictions on height, use, and intensity of development near the airport, primarily to maintain safe sight lines and radio communications between airplanes and the tower at Warren Field. These additional restrictions act as an "overlay zone," added on top of the City's primary zoning designations. The vast majority of area within this overlay zone is within the AP land use category. Allowable Density: Densities within this land use category are extremely low, averaging five (5) acres per use or less. Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage objective is 40% per parcel with a stormwater management plan including water quality consideration. This will require revision to the City's zoning ordinance. This requirement may be City of Washington 221 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future modified regarding the airport, depending on expansion of the airport during the planning period. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height will be determined by the Warren Field Height Control Ordinance. This ordinance creates a conical height control restriction. Building height must be determined by individual on -site height analyses to ensure safe aircraft operations. Permitted Uses: Uses will be limited to those which are essential to the airport's operation and commercial/industrial uses that are demonstrated not to be detrimental to safe airport operations. Uses Not Permitted: All uses that are detrimental to safe airport operation are prohibited. These include, but may not be limited to, those uses which create smoke, glare, radio interference, lighting distractions, and height obstructions. b. Commercial Commercial areas are those intended for the retail sale of goods and services, including professional services. This is a non-residential multiple use category that will provide a wide range of businesses to serve the needs of the community and region. The City of Washington 1999 Comprehensive Plan stated that, in the interest of trying to develop nodal (circular and concentrated) versus strip development, future commercial use would be promoted at the intersection of major thoroughfares and that these areas would serve as "community focus areas." Additionally, the 1999 Comprehensive Plan indicated that newly developing commercial areas in the City's ETJ should "be buffered from surrounding areas by office/institutional/multi -family and high density residential land uses." Allowable Density: Minimum lot density shall be 7,500 square feet. The density may be expected to be six (6) to eight (8) parcels per acre. Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage objective is 80% maximum per parcel. A stormwater management plan for all development whose impervious surface coverage exceeds 25% will be required. This system should be designed to handle the first 1-1/2 inches of rainfall on -site. This will require revision to the City's zoning ordinance. City of Washington 222 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Maximum Building Height: No building in this category is permitted to exceed 96 feet. Permitted Uses: Desirable land uses in this category include high volume/ traffic generating uses including retail and wholesale goods and services. Uses Not Permitted: Residential uses and other uses which are not related to retail and wholesale goods and services. C. Office/Institutional The Office/Institutional Future land use category has two primary purposes: • To provide a buffer between residential areas and commercial/ industrial areas; and • To provide office, institutional and multi -family land uses needing access to transportation corridors. The OEtl category is primarily designed to accommodate a compatible mix of business, professional, institutional, and single-family uses, in addition to providing a desirable buffer between commercial and low -density residential uses. Allowable Density: Minimum lot size shall be 7,500 square feet with a residential density of five (5) dwelling units per acre. Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage objective is 80% maximum per parcel. A stormwater management plan for all development whose impervious surface coverage exceeds 25% will be required. This system should be designed to handle the first 1-1/2 inches of rainfall on -site. This will require revision to the City's zoning ordinance. Maximum Building Height: No building in this category is permitted to exceed 96 feet. Permitted Uses: This district is intended to provide a buffer between established residential districts and commercial and industrial centers. Desirable land uses in this district include low impact/traffic generating uses as follows: City of Washington 223 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future office space, medical/veterinary offices, home occupations, churches*, civic buildings*, parks, municipal structures* and single-family homes. NOTE: Uses denoted by an asterisk (*) may be allowed where it is demonstrated there will not be a significant traffic impact. Uses Not Permitted: Primarily commercial and industrial development will be prohibited within this district. As stated, the primary intent of this district is to minimize traffic generation and noise associated with land uses generating either large volumes of consumer traffic and/or industrial traffic related to the shipping or delivery of goods and materials, and to be utilized as a buffer between incompatible uses. d. Heavy Industrial The Heavy Industrial land use category is intended to accommodate those industrial, wholesale, warehouse, and other uses which by their nature may create an excessive amount of noise, odor, smoke, dust, airborne debris or other objectionable impacts which might be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of surrounding areas. The City's objective is to locate all heavy industrial development outside the corporate area. The only areas where the land use plan supports new industrial growth are those designated for industrial use by the city's zoning ordinance. Buffering adjacent to non -industrial uses is strongly supported. Allowable Density: The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet per parcel. Thus, the density may be expected to be 1.5 to 2 parcels per acre. Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage objective is 80% maximum per parcel. A stormwater management plan for all development whose impervious surface coverage exceeds 25% will be required. This system should be designed to handle the first 1-1/2 inches of rainfall on -site. This will require revision to the City's zoning ordinance. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height is 50 feet, with an additional building height of two (2) feet for each additional foot the building is set back from required setbacks. City of Washington 224 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Permitted Uses: Industrial, wholesale, warehouse, and other uses which, by their nature, may create an excessive amount of noise, odor, smoke, dust, airborne debris or other objectionable impacts. Uses Not Permitted: Residential uses and other uses which are not related to industrial, wholesale, or warehouse services. e. Light Industrial This land use category is intended to accommodate those industrial, wholesale, warehouse, and other uses which by their nature do not create an excessive amount of noise, odor, smoke, dust, airborne debris, or other objectionable impacts which might be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of surrounding areas. Industrial areas indicated on the Land Use Plan should be buffered with either Office/Institutional/Multi-Family or Conservation/Open Space land uses. Allowable Density: The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet per parcel. Thus, the density may be expected to be 1.5 to 2 parcels per acre. Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage objective is 80% maximum per parcel. A stormwater management plan for all development whose impervious surface coverage exceeds 25% will be required. This system should be designed to handle the first 1-1/2 inches of rainfall on -site. This will require revision to the City's zoning ordinance. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height is 50 feet, with an additional building height of two (2) feet for each additional foot the building is set back from required setbacks. Permitted Uses: Industrial uses which are not detrimental to Washington's health, safety or welfare. Uses Not Permitted: Heavy industrial uses, residential uses, and all other uses not related to industry/manufacturing services City of Washington 225 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future f. Mixed Use The Mixed Use land use category provides an environment where convenient shopping and service facilities exist by promoting compact development of commercial, office, and service uses while preserving Washington's historic character. This category is intended to correspond with the Central Business Historic District and surrounding residential and commercial areas. This area allows for a rich mixture of diverse land uses while requiring review and approval of development proposals by the City. Allowable Density: There is no minimum lot size. The residential density will not exceed seven (7) dwelling units per acre. Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage objective is 80% maximum per parcel. A stormwater management plan for all development whose impervious surface coverage exceeds 25% will be required. This system should be designed to handle the first 1-1/2 inches of rainfall on -site. This will require revision to the City's zoning ordinance. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height is 96 feet. Permitted Uses: Mixtures of commercial office, institutional, single-family, and multi -family uses will be allowed. This will be an area of high density development. Uses Not Permitted: Industrial uses will be prohibited. g. High Density Residential The High Density Residential future land use category is intended to encourage dense residential development of mobile homes on individual lots, multi -family properties, mobile home park developments and single-family developments on small lots at least 6,000 square feet in size. Allowable Density: Densities will be seven (7) dwelling units per acre or less. City of Washington 226 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface shall be 40% coverage of a parcel. Where impervious surface coverage exceeds 25%, an on -site stormwater management plan will be required. This plan should address the first 1-1 /2 inches of rainfall on -site. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall be 50 feet. Permitted Uses: Single-family, multi -family, recreational, and open space land uses. Uses Not Permitted: All non-residential land uses will be prohibited. h. Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential land use category is primarily intended for residential development of single-family homes on lots between 8,000 and 14,000 square feet in size. Residential densities shall be three (3) to five (5) dwelling units per acre, depending on lot size. This land use category also allows for Planned Unit Developments (PUD). PUDs are developments that allow for innovation in land use that varies from standard single-family/single use projects as long as they meet certain minimum standards, such as density remaining below or equal to one dwelling unit per every 6,000 square feet of land. Allowable Density: Densities will be three (3) to five (5) dwelling units per acre, depending on lot size. Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface shall be 40% coverage of a parcel. Where impervious surface coverage exceeds 25%, an on -site stormwater management plan will be required. This plan should address the first 1-1 /2 inches of rainfall on -site. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall be 50 feet. Permitted Uses: Single-family residential, open space, recreation, and conservation. City of Washington 227 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future Uses Not Permitted: All non-residential land uses will be prohibited. i. Low Density Residential The Low Density Residential land use category is intended to accommodate a compatible mixture of single-family dwellings and agricultural uses at lower densities of approximately two (2) units or less per acre. The 1999 Comprehensive Plan stated that this category is intended for areas without sewer service that are not yet appropriate for development at higher densities. Allowable Density: Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, or two (2) dwelling units per acre. Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface shall be 40% y coverage of a parcel. Where impervious surface coverage exceeds 25%, an on -site stormwater management plan will be required. This plan should address the first 1-1 /2 inches of rainfall on -site. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height is 50 feet. Permitted Uses: Single-family residential, agricultural, open space, recreation, and conservation. Uses Not Permitted: All non-residential land uses will be prohibited. j. Conservation The Conservation category includes park lands and lands identified as least suitable and of low suitability for development. (See Section V(H), page 134.) The conservation category is intended to provide for effective long-term management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas. The City's policy statements and implementing actions support the 15ANCAC7H CAMA regulations for protection of AECs. The reader is encouraged to consult the City's Shoreline Access Plan (1997), Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1992) and an Addendum to the 1992 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1999) which discuss options for future parks and recreation expenditures for guidance on future recreation sites, rather than City of Washington 228 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Plan for the Future designating sites for public use in advance to avoid driving up real estate prices in such areas. Park lands are included in the Conservation category. Allowable Density: Except for cluster development, the minimum lot size for development within the Conservation category is 20,000 square feet. Densities will not exceed 1.5 units per acre. Cluster development will be encouraged in conservation areas. Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage objective per parcel is 10% regardless of use. This will require revision to the City's zoning ordinance. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height for this category is 35 feet. Permitted Uses: This category was established in response to environmentally sensitive and natural hazard areas identified through the land suitability analysis and environmental composite discussion earlier in this plan. Due to these factors, land use within this category should consist of low density residential housing and recreational/open space with accessory support uses. All development should be contingent on whether all environmental impacts have g been assessed, and potential effects of natural hazards taken into account. Development within this category will primarily rely on on -site wastewater treatment facilities. Uses Not Permitted: Non-residential uses are not routinely permitted in this district. However, proposals for non-residential development will be assessed on a case -by -case basis by making a determination regarding a given adverse development impact on environmental conditions. An Entry Corridor Overlay(ECO) is shown on the Future Land Use Map. This is an overlay and the underlying land use categories apply. The purpose for establishing these entry corridor overlay districts is first, to recognize the importance that different roadway corridors play in defining the city's character as city entryways and, second, to protect and preserve/promote both the aesthetics of these important roadways and their traffic - handling capabilities, thereby contributing to the general welfare of the City of Washington. The City of Washington's zoning ordinance will be revised to provide additional protection for the ECO including, at a minimum, controls for: City of Washington 229 Core Land Use Plan Section VI - Plan for the Future • Interconnectivity of developments • Landscaping • Building appearance • Traffic impact The Future Land Use Map delineates proposed commercial nodes and neighborhood commercial nodes. These nodes will serve as commercial focus areas. The circular shapes of the nodes are not intended to be applied literally. They are intended to represent a concept or desire to concentrate commercial development in a predominantly nodal fashion. It should be noted that the location and size of the nodes included in the plan are not intended to be static. As the area surrounding the nodes develop, larger node definitions and possibly even shifts in location from one intersection to another may be warranted. In addition, as the commercial nodes located in the in the outlying areas of the city's planning jurisdiction develop, they should be buffered from surrounding uses by office/institutional/multi-family land uses. The exact size of the required buffer has not been predetermined. The required buffer width should be determined when the ultimate extent of the commercial node is known. As a result, it will be necessary to periodically revise the future land use map as development continues and patterns change. Recommendations for the review and update of the city's future land use map are included in the policy statement section of this document. The Future Land Use Map indicates areas which are least suitable for development (refer to the Land Suitability Analysis, page 134). This is an overlay, and the underlying land use categories apply. However, the least suitable areas are those to which particular attention should be paid by the City during its review and approval of specific development proposals. Mitigative action may be required to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Cluster development will be encouraged. Each of the land use categories is supported by zoning districts contained in the City's existing zoning ordinance. Table 54 provides a comparison of the land use categories and the City's existing zoning districts. The reader is cautioned that this is an "overview" and detailed analysis must be based on careful review of the City's zoning ordinance. The terms "generally consistent, conditionally consistent, and inconsistent" are intended to only be indicators of where revisions may need to occur for the City's zoning ordinance to support implementation of this plan. The land use category descriptions express some "objectives" which maybe inconsistent with the existing zoning ordinance. City of Washington 230 Core Land Use Plan Section A - Plan for the Future Table 54. Future Land Use Plan Compatibility Matrix Consistency Review of Future Land Use Map Designations and Existing Zoning Districts g = generally consistent c = conditionally consistent x = inconsistent City of Washington 231 CorLLandUse lan Zoning Districts RA20 R15S R95 RbS RMF RM-H RHD PUD B1H B-2 B-3 B-4 0-I I-1 I-2 AP Min. Lot Size (SF) 20,000 15,000 9,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 6,000 Note 1 None 20,000 10,000 6,000 7,500 20,000 20,000 217,800 Max. Lot Coverage 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 None None None 40 40 60 60 None Max. Bldg. Height 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 96 Note 2 Note 2 50 96 Note 2 Note(ft.) Designations/ Average Density (du per acre) Airport Dev./NA x x x x x x x x x x c c c g Commercial/NA x x x x x x x c x gc gx x x Note 4 081/5 x x x x x x x c x x x x gx x x Heavy Indus/NA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x gNote 4 Light Indus/NA x x x x x x x x x x x x xx Note 4 Mixed Use/7 x x x gc x gx ggx x c x x x High Density Residential/7Med. x x x ggggc x x x c x x x x Density Residential/3-4 x ggx x x gc x x x c gx x x Low Density Residential/2Conservation/1.5gXxx gx x x x x x c x x x c gx x x x x x x x xx x x x Section VI - Plan for the Future Notes to the Future Land Use Plan Compatibility Matrix: Note 1: The PUD is a special use zoning district. The maximum residential density is six (6) dwelling units per acre. Development conditions are determined by issuance of a special use permit. Note 2: Buildings over 50 feet in height must be set back from the front lot line one (1) foot for every two (2) feet in excess of 50 feet in height. Note 3: Conical surface determined by the City of Washington Airport Height Control Ordinance. Note 4: Some commercial and industrial uses are conditionally allowed in the Airport category. Implementation of this land use plan requires significant revisions to the City of Washington's zoning ordinance (see policies and implementing actions). This includes a review of impervious surface areas. City of Washington 232 Core Land Use Plan Section VII -Tools for Managing Development Section VII. Tools for Managing Development A. Guide for Land Use Decision Making It is intended that this document be an integral part of the City of Washington decision making process concerning future land use. This document should be consulted prior to any decision being made by the Washington staff, Planning Board, and/or City Council concerning land use and development. B. Existing Development Program The existing management program includes the following ordinances: City of Washington Zoning Ordinance, City of Washington Subdivision Ordinance, North Carolina Building Code, National Flood Insurance Program, the 1996 Washington Land Use Plan, and the Beaufort County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Preparation of the 1996 Land Use Plan was coordinated with the land use related codes. C. Additional Tools The City of Washington will utilize the following additional tools to implement this plan: • Conduct annual training sessions for the City of Washington Planning Board and Board of Adjustment. • The Planning Department staff, in concert with the Planning Board, shall prepare an annual report assessing the effectiveness of plan implementation. This report shall be presented to the City Council. • At a minimum, update the Land Use Plan and implementation process every six to seven years. • Revise the city's zoning and subdivision ordinances to support the policies and implementing actions contained in this plan. • Prepare a capital improvements plan/program to address the following community facilities: water, sewer, stormwater, and transportation. City of Washington 233 Core Land Use Plan Section VII -Tools for Managing Development • Update the City of Washington Comprehensive Plan (under preparation September 2006). D. Action Plan/schedule 1. Citizen Participation For the preparation of this plan, the City of Washington adopted a citizen participation plan on September 13, 2004. A copy of that plan is included as Appendix I. Following adoption of this plan, the City of Washington will implement the following to ensure adequate citizen participation: • The city will encourage public participation in all land use decisions and procedure development processes and encourage citizen input via its boards and commissions. • The City of Washington will advertise all meetings of the city's Planning Board and Board of Adjustment through newspaper advertisements and public service announcements. • The City of Washington will utilize advisory committees to assess and advise the city on special planning issues/needs. • The city will, at least annually, conduct a joint meeting of the Washington City Council and the city's Planning Board to identify planning issues/needs. • All Planning Department activities will be outlined on the city's web -site. The site will include this plan. • All public hearings for changes to land use related ordinances that affect AECs shall include in the notice a specific description of the impact of the proposed change on the AECs. • Ensure that the membership of all planned related and ad hoc advisory committees has a broad cross section of Washington's citizenry. City of Washington 234 Core Land Use Plan Section VII -Tools for Managing Development 2. Action Plan/Schedule The following describes the priority actions that will be taken by the City of Washington to implement this CAMA Core Land Use Plan and the fiscal year(s) in which each action is anticipated to begin and end. This action plan will be used to prepare the implementation status report for the CAMA Land Use Plan. City of Washington 235 Core Land Use Plan Schedule Begin End Policy References Implementing Actions P.8-P.40 The City of Washington will revise its zoning, subdivision, FY07-08 FY08-09 P.41-P.61 and other regulatory ordinances to address the policies P.69-P.81 contained in this Land Use Plan. P.82-P.105 P.1-P.7 The City of Washington will updated its Shoreline Access FY07-08 FY08-09 P.83, P.85 Plan. This update shall accomplish the following: • Assessment of public beach access, such as Whichards Beach • Emphasis on the protection of scenic areas • Development of a tourism brochure which emphasizes the availability and quality of the City's shoreline access sites. P.8-P.19 The City of Washington will update its minimum housing FY08-09 FY08-09 code to ensure that structures are fit for human habitation P.8-P.40 The City of Washington will review and update its FY10-11 FY11-12 comprehensive plan every five years to ensure conformity with the CAMA Land Use Plan and responsiveness to current conditions. Emphasis will be placed on strategic planning. P.35 The City of Washington will adopt an ordinance to regulate FY07-08 FY07-08 off -road vehicle usage in conservation areas P.51-P.61 The City of Washington will focus on the land use impacts FY06-07 FY06-07 of the construction of the US 17 bypass in the preparation of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. This will include specific recommendations to mitigate any negative impacts and maximize the efficiency of the bypass. P.82-P.85 The City of Washington will establish a specific public FY08-09 FY08-09 facilities capital improvements plan for the improvement and expansion of cultural facilities. P.82-P.85 The City of Washington will seek funding to update its FY08-09 FY08-09 historical properties survey within its planning jurisdiction Section VII -Tools for Managing Development Schedule Begin End Policy References Implementing Actions P.92-P.95 The following summarizes restructuring action steps which FY06-07 FY10-11 must be implemented for revitalization of the Central Business District (note: not listed in priority order): Establish a strong linkage to the Greenville market. Promote more marina/boating space and supporting facilities/services. Create activity centers at strategic points along the Riverfront. Promote connectivity between the Riverfront Promenade and Main Street. Improve the appearance of Main Street buildings, especially the facades. Promote additional restaurant and lodging choices. Promote downtown housing, both in amount and style. Increase and manage parking spaces. Create two- way streets. Improve service vehicle access. Expand activity showcasing visual and performing arts, crafts, culture, and historic attractions. P.98-P.105 The City of Washington will develop a community services/ FY08-09 FY08-09 facilities plan (as a stand-alone document, not as an expansion of this plan), which will define existing deficiencies in police protection, fire protection, local administrative buildings, public recreational facilities, public shoreline access, and public parks. This plan will not address school system needs. The plan will prioritize needs and make specific recommendations concerning financing and budgeting the high priority needs. This will be done in concert with the preparation of a Capital Improvements Plan. Section VII -Tools for Managing Development E. Resource Conservation Management Action Plan/Positive and Negative Impacts of Land Use Plan Policies The City of Washington believes that the policies, management goals, planning objectives, and land use plan requirements contained in this document will have positive impacts for the city. However, the following could have some negative impacts: • Infrastructure improvements which extend through sensitive environmental areas. • Infringement of growth on the City of Washington's waterfront/shoreline and AECs. • Impact of population growth on the Beaufort County School System. • Transportation improvements in sensitive areas (NOTE: mitigative actions will be taken to reduce potential negative impacts from the construction of the US 17 highway bypass on wetlands). • Growth impact on the city's infrastructure. • Negative impacts of stormwater runoff on the Tar and Pamlico Rivers. • Development within areas defined as least suitable for development. The management objectives, policies, and implementing actions address the issues associated with these possible negative impacts. Mitigating polices are stated in the conservation policies, page 193; stormwater control policies, page 195; infrastructure carrying capacity, page 196; transportation, page 199; and water quality, page 204. Table 55 summarizes the management topics and the associated policies. All policies are interrelated; i.e., the land use compatibility policies impact the water quality policies and conversely the water quality policies impact the land use compatibility policies. City of Washington 237 Core Land Use Plan Section VII Tools for Managing Development Table 55. City of Washington Policy Analysis Matrix - Land Use Plan Management Topics Policy Benchmarks - Beneficial = (B), Neutral = (N), Detrimental = (D)' Public Access Land Use Compatibility Infrastructure Carrying Capacity Natural Hazards Water Quality Local Concerns Management Topics • more planned access • reduction in habitat loss • water, sewer, and other key • land uses and development • implement land use • preservation of cultural, locations and fragmentation related community facilities and services patterns that reduce and development historic, and scenic • upgrades to existing access to impacts of land use and being available in required vulnerability to natural criteria and measures areas locations development locations at adequate capacities hazards that abate impacts • support of economic • increase pedestrian access • reduction of water to support planned community • land uses and development that degrade water development • comply with state access resource and water quality growth and development patterns that take into quality • development of human standards to enhance degradation patterns account the existing and • coordinate water resources opportunities for state • balance growth demands • during construction of planned capacity of quality efforts with • support smart growth funding with protection of the infrastructure systems, AECs and evacuation infrastructure Beaufort County concepts • support smart growth environment other fragile areas should be • minimize development in • support smart growth • implementation of these concepts • support smart growth protected floodplains, AECs, concepts policies will require • implementation of these concepts • transportation improvements wetlands, and other fragile • implementation of revision of the City's policies will require • implementation of these should support the efficiency of areas these policies will zoning, subdivision and revision of the City's policies will require traffic flow and pedestrian safety • support smart growth require revision of the stormwater control zoning, subdivision and revision of the City's • support smart growth concepts concepts City's zoning, ordinances stormwater control zoning, subdivision and • implementation of these policies • implementation of these subdivision and ordinances stormwater control will require revision of the City's policies will require stormwater control ordinances zoning, subdivision and revision of the City's ordinances • protection of areas shown stormwater control ordinances zoning, subdivision and as least suitable on the stormwater control future land use map ordinances Land Use and Development Policies Public Access Land Use Compatibility Infrastructure Carrying Capacity Natural Hazards Water Quality Local Concerns Public Access: Policies P.1 Supported by revisions to All policies are directed at Coordinate with natural Improved water quality Shoreline access is to P.7 are considered local ordinances, see policies improving water quality, including hazards, see policy P.67 will enhance access. important to Washington's beneficial (B), see pages P.29, P.30, P.31, P.32, and impact of US 17 bypass (P.61) Especially see policies future. See policies P.83, 184 to 186. Also, refer to P.34 P.69, P.73, P.74, P.75, P.87, P.93, P.96, P.97, land use compatibility P.76, and P.81 and P.99 policies, P.16(B), P.31(B), P.34(B), and areas of local concern policies P.83(B), P.96(B), P.97(B) *Detrimental (D): This means a policy is potentially detrimental and mitigating actions may be required to reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts. Note that any development within areas delineated on the future land use map (Map 21 A) as least suitable is detrimental and mitigative action will be required. All actions which may adversely affect areas of environmental concern, areas least suitable for development, or implementation of this plan are considered detrimental. (Continued on next page) City of Washington 238 Core Land Use Plan Section VII Tools for Mana ink Development Land Use and Development Policies Public Access Land Use Compatibility Infrastructure Carrying Capacity Natural Hazards Water Quality Local Concerns Land Use Compatibility: Policies P.8 to P.40 address land use compatibility, see pages 188 to 195. All policies are considered NOTE: ALL POLICIES CONTAINED IN THIS PLAN HAVE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IMPLICATIONS. beneficial except the following : P.21 and P.28 are potentially detrimental and may require mitigative action Infrastructure Carrying Infrastructure carrying All infrastructure carrying Infrastructure must be Infrastructure carrying Refer to policies P.88, Capacity (includes capacity policies support capacity policies have coordinated with natural capacity policies support P.89, P.90, P.91, and Transportation): Policies services to public access potential to both stimulate hazards. Ppolicies P.62 to growth. The policies on P.100 P.41 to P.61 address sites and support growth P.68 will impact water quality P.69 to infrastructure carrying infrastructure P.81 and stormwater capacity, see pages 197 to control P.36 to P.40 must 201. All policies are be implemented to beneficial except the mitigate adverse impacts following: Policies P.42 and P.51 are potentially detrimental because any infrastructure construction project may have adverse environmental impacts Natural Hazards: Policies Public access design must Revisions proposed for local Infrastructure design must Failure to support the Implementation of the P.62 to P.68 address natural incorporate consideration of land use control ordinances incorporate consideration of natural natural hazard policies local concern policies hazards, see page 203. All natural hazard areas must reflect protection of hazard areas will adversely affect must reflect the natural of these policies are natural hazards water quality hazard policies considered beneficial. All land use compatibility policies, pages 188 to 195, should be referred to, especially the conservation policies P.29 to P.35 City of Washington (Continued on next page) 239 Core Land Use Plan Section VII -Toots for Managing Development Land Use and Development Policies Public Access Land Use Compatibility I Infrastructure Carrying Capacity Natural Hazards Water Quality Local Concerns Water Quality: Policies P.69 to P.81 address water quality, see pages 205 and 206. All policies are considered beneficial. Land NOTE: ALL POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY. ALL GROWTH/LAND USE DECISIONS MUST CONSIDER WATER QUALITY IMPLICATIONS use compatibility policies P.29 to P.35 (conservation), pages 193 and 194 should be referenced. Local Concerns: Policies P.82 to P.105 address areas of local concern, see pages 208 to 215. All of these policies are considered beneficial. Implementation NOTE: THE LOCAL CONCERN POLICIES ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT AND BE COORDINATED WITH POLICIES P.1 TO P.81 of the local concern policies will be based on the effective implementation of the other policies contained in this plan City of Washington 240 Core Land Use Plan I Section VII -Tools for Managing Development Notes to Policy Analysis Matrix Public Access Please refer to: Section V.G.6, page 119 Section V.I.18 and 19, Page 145 Section VI.B.3, page 163 Land Use Compatibility Please refer to: Section V.E, pages 49 to 100 Section V. F, pages 100 to 106 Section VLA, pages 148 to 180 Infrastructure Carryinp,Capacity Please refer to: Section V.H, pages 134 to 137 Section VLF, pages 215 to 227 Section V.G.1-14, pages 107 to 128 Section VI.A.4-5, pages 165 to 167 Natural Hazards Please refer to: Section V.E.1.c, pages 53 to 59 Section V.E.1.g, pages 67 to 78 Section V. E.2, pages 89 to 93 Section V.J, pages 134 to 138 Water Quality Please refer to: Section V. E.3, pages 93 to 100 Section V. F.3, pages 103 to 106 Section V.G.15, pages 128 to 134 Local Concerns Please refer to: Section V.G, pages 107 to 134 Section VI.A.1 through B.9, pages 148 to 170 City of Washington 241 Core Land Use Plan Section VI -Tools for ManaQinQ Development NOTE: Local concern issues are dispersed throughout this plan. Issues of primary local concern are identified on page 20. Policies/implementing actions are discussed on page 171. It is clearly the City's intent that all land use decisions be coordinated with the policies and implementing actions included in this plan. This includes consideration of whether actions will be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Specifically, the following actions by those involved in the development process will support plan implementation: • Petitioner. Consult the policies to formulate a request that is consistent with the policies, thereby increasing the chances of approval. • Planning Staff. Review request in light of policies, pointing out those policies: (1) that support the petition; (2) that are in conflict; and (3) that carry the most weight, thereby shaping the overall staff response. • Planning Board. Planning Board members can make individual determinations as to the consistency of the request with the policies. They may consider staff recommendations, but may choose to give different weights to the policies. • General Public. Residents can reference the policies when speaking in favor of or against a petition. • City Council. The City Council should take into account and weigh the policy interpretations by the petitioner, the staff, the Planning Board, and residents, as well as its own interpretation and priorities in making its decisions. City of Washington 242 Core Land Use Plan Section VIII - Hazard Mitigation Plan Section VIII. Hazard Mitigation Plan The City of Washington participated in the Beaufort County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan which was adopted by the County and participating municipalities in January, 2005, and was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on June 13, 2005. The plan in its entirety is available for public review at the Beaufort County Emergency Management Office and the City of Washington Planning Department, and is incorporated herein by reference. The plan's mitigation strategies and policies are s provided in Appendix VII, and are policies of this Land Use Plan. City of Washington 243 Core Land Use Plan Appendix I Citizen Participation Plan CITY OF WASHINGTON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PREPARATION OF A CORE LAND USE PLAN PHASE I The City of Washington has received a Coastal Area Management Act grant for preparation of a Core Land Use Plan, Phase I. Adequate citizen participation in the development of the plan is essential to the preparation of a document responsive to the needs of the citizens of the City of Washington. To ensure such input, the following citizen participation program will be utilized by the City.. The Washington City Council will appoint the Washington Land Use Plan Advisory Committee to work with the City's planning consultant to ensure that the final product will be a plan suitable for adoption by the City. Specifically, the planning consultant and the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will be responsible for ensuring accomplishment of the following: Conduct initial orientation session with project team; develop and adopt the Citizen Participation Plan; conduct public information meeting; and conduct a City-wide meeting to identify community aspirations, issues, and needs. In addition, prepare analysis of existing and emerging conditions; prepare existing land use map and existing facilities & infrastructure map; review analysis of existing and emerging conditions and existing environmental conditions and hazards; complete analysis of community facilities. Finalize forecast of future land use needs; prepare composite environmental conditions map; prepare/review land suitability analysis and map; review existing CAMA plan, local regulations, and other plan documents. The following schedule will be utilized for Phase I: August, 2004 Begin data collection and analysis. 2. September, 2004 Conduct public information meeting. — City Council adopt the Citizen Participation Plan. Conduct initial meeting with Land Use Plan Advisory Committee and review Citizen Participation Plan and process for preparing the land use plan. Conduct City-wide issues identification meeting. 3. September, 2004 to April, 2005 — Prepare preliminary draft land use plan which will include analysis of existing conditions, land suitability analysis, natural systems .analysis, and community facilities analysis. Conduct monthly meetings with the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee. 4. May, 2005 — Present draft of Phase I to the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee and City Council. 5. June, 2005 — Conduct open house; present plan to the City Council. All meetings of the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee and City Council at which the Plan will be discussed will be advertised in a local newspaper. The public information meeting, City-wide meeting, and public hearing will also be advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, public service announcements will be mailed to local radio stations and posted in the Municipal Building and other public buildings as directed by the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee and City Council. All meetings will be open to the public. The City will encourage and consider all economic, social, ethnic and cultural viewpoints. No major non-English speaking groups are known to exist in the City of Washington. This plan was adopted by resolution of the City Council of the City of Washington, North Carolina on September 13, 2004. CITY OF WASHINGTON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PREPARATION OF A CORE LAND USE PLAN PHASE 11 The City of Washington has received a Coastal Area Management Act grant for preparation of a Core Land Use Plan, Phase 11. Adequate citizen participation in the development of the plan is essential to the preparation of a document responsive to the needs of the citizens of the City of Washington. To ensure such input, the following citizen participation program will be utilized by the City. The Washington City Council has appointed the City of Washington Land Use Plan Advisory Committee (LUPAC) to work with the City's planning consultant to ensure that the final product will be a plan suitable for adoption by the City. Specifically, the planning consultant and the LUPACwill be responsible for ensuring accomplishment of the following: • Adopt and implement Citizen Participation Plan for Phase 11. • Revise preliminary plan based on public review. • Complete plan for the future (including future land use map and tools for managing development). • Present the draft plan to the City Council. • Submit plan to state/DCM for review; provide plan to adjacent jurisdictions for review; conduct public information hearings. • Review plan based on state and local review; conduct public hearing; City Council adoption; submit for CRC certification. The following schedule will be utilized for Phase II: August - September, 2005 Update Citizen Participation Plan Begin preparation of Phase 11 portion of LUP 2. October, 2005 -January, 2006 — Hold monthly meetings with LUPAC Revise preliminary plan based on public review 3. February, 2006 — Provide plan to adjacent jurisdictions to review 4. March, 2006 — Submit plan (with any revisions) to the City of Washington Planning Board for review and preliminary approval 5. April, 2006 — Submit draft plan to state for DCM review 6. May, 2006 Revise plan based on state and local review Conduct public hearing for City Council to adopt plan Submit to CRC for certification All meetings of the LUPAC and City Council at which the Plan will be discussed will be advertised in a local newspaper. The public hearing will also be advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, public service announcements will be posted at the Municipal Building and other public buildings as directed by the LUPAC and City Council. All meetings will be open to the public. The City will encourage and consider all economic, social, ethnic and cultural viewpoints. No major non-English speaking groups are known to exist in the City of Washington. 7/14/05 B:\Planning\Land Use\Washington\LUP\CPP.Phase II.wpd Appendix II Absentee Property Owners Survey Results CITY OF WASHINGTON 2005-2006 CAMA CORE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE ABSENTEE PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY RESULTS 1. Washington's current efforts to promote the City for tourism and economic development are good or excellent. Corporate Limits Agree No Opinion Disagree 12 7 5 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 17 7 1 Total Agree No Opinion Disagree 29 14 6 2. Washington should increase its economic development efforts, and provide incentives, where feasible, in an effort to attract more light industry to the City. Corporate Limits Agree No Opinion Disagree 15 8 1 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 21 4 0 Total Agree No Opinion Disagree 36 12 1 Washington should impose increased design standards and/or other development restrictions at the planned US Highway 17 Bypass interchanges in the City to ensure that these interchanges provide an attractive gateway to the City's historic/downtown business district, and to the rest of the city. Cor orate Limits Agree No Opinion Disagree 19 5 0 Extraterritorial urisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 22 3 1 0 Total Agree No Opinion Disagree 41 8 0 4. Washington should take steps to ensure that the current US Highway 17 corridor is redeveloped in a manner that promotes the city. Corporate Limits Agree No Opinion Disagree 22 2 0 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 24 0 1 Total Agree No Opinion Disagree 46 2 1 5. Washington should increase parking spaces, and address a need for increased pedestrian access to the downtown and waterfront, and to the rest of the city. Corporate Limits Agree No Opinion Disagree 17 5 2 Extraterritorial urisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 20 5 1 0 Total Agree No Opinion Disagree 37 10 2 6. Washington should expand and improve ublic access to the waters of the Tar/Pamlico River. Corporate Limits A ree No Opinion Disagree 18 1 2 4 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 18 6 1 Total A ree No Opinion Disagree 36 1 8 5 Washington should strengthen its code enforcement efforts and enforcement of other ordinances to reduce the number of vacant and dila idated structures. Corporate Limits Agree No Opinion Disagree 18 1 5 1 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 24 0 1 Total Agree No Opinion Disagree 42 5 2 Washington should make affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing a top priority. Corporate Limits Agree No Opinion Disagree 16 3 5 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 15 8 2 Total Agree No Opinion Disagree 31 11 7 9. The City of Washington should make the revitalization of the historic district/central business district a top priorityduring the plannin period. Cor orate Limits Aree No Opinion - Disagree 16 6 2 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Agree No Opinion Disagree 19 5 1 Total Agree No Opinion Disa ree 35 11 3 10. Ranking of key issues: The following issues were identified and ranked by permanent residents of the City at a public meeting held on February 7, 2005. Absentee property owners as identified by Beaufort County tax records were asked to rank each issue identified from 1 to 10, with 1 being the most important need and 10 being the least important need. Following are the results of the ranking by absentee property owners: CORPORATE LIMITS SCORE KEY ISSUE RANK 96 Stabilizing and Improving Neighborhoods Adjacent to the Historic District 1 97 Improve Central Business District and Ensure Cohesive Plan for Downtown 2 Redevelopment 101 Promoting the City 3 104 Control Impacts of Highway 17 Bypass 4 114 Improve Gateways to the City 5 121 Improve Recreational and Cultural Opportunities 6 144 Strengthen Code Enforcement 7 153 Encouraging Recreational Uses on the Southern Shore of the Tar/Pamlico River 8 in the City's Extraterritorial jurisdiction 153 Accommodating Multiple Uses of the Tar/Pamlico River 9 182 Prioritizing Areas for Annexation 10 EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION SCORE KEY ISSUE RANK 74 Promoting the City 1 89 Control Impacts of Highway 17 Bypass 2 98 Stabilizing and Improving Neighborhoods Adjacent to the Historic District 3 98 Improve Central Business District and Ensure Cohesive Plan for Downtown 4 Redevelopment 103 Improve Gateways to the City 5 107 Strengthen Code Enforcement 6 128 Improve Recreational and Cultural Opportunities 7 144 Encouraging Recreational Uses on the Southern Shore of the Tar/Pamlico River 8 in the City's Extraterritorial jurisdiction 144 Accommodating Multiple Uses of the Tar/Pamlico River 9 170 Prioritizing Areas for Annexation 10 11. Comments: Corporate Limits • Washington, NC is such a beautiful and lovely part of our inheritance that the many historic places and part of our living should be restored for future generations. However, the main highway 17 should have more instances of safety apparent. We do need improvement and more traffic lights on the main thruway (17). We need to preserve the landmarks and other cultural aspects that makes one proud to be a Washingtonian. • Must emphasize job creation, locating manufacturing companies outside the historic district. We must also promote the city as an attractive place to live, thus increasing property values. We need not cater to low income housing that attracts illegal activity (i.e., drug dealing, etc.), but we must attract working class people with moderately priced dwelling units. • Continued efforts to improve the historic district will contribute to many of the other items listed above. • The building and fire codes are not conducive to promoting new and expanding businesses in Beaufort County or the City of Washington. These codes need to be relaxed to a reasonable point. These codes require proprietors to spend monies that could otherwise be spent to grow the business which creates jobs and local revenues. • Code enforcement is needed badly, as well as enforcement of decent, safe, and sanitary affordable housing. I receive complaints all the time that there is not enough affordable housing in Washington. • Promote Washington and New Bern jointly. Tourists can visit both locations on one excursion. • Work on moving the water from rains out of the area quicker. If at all possible, raise my home at 701 N. Market Street. • Why do you "bother" to inform property owners of changes being made (by perm. citizens) in their District, when you do not heed their concerns; i.e., allowing new residents to cut off our view that we have had for generations? Could it be because they are on the committee? I am not alone in this complaint. The others are polite enough not to let their feelings be known. • Good luck and keep up the good work. • Jack's Creek is a terrible eyesore in the city. This area could be enjoyed by many for various social activities. The creek should be widened with marshy areas and planted in cypress/tupelo trees similar to estuarium. The bank also should be planted in live oaks. Various picnic tables should be placed for enjoyment of all. • We would like to see renovations of older business buildings and demolition of commercial buildings that are not improved. Continue to add trees along 17 (in town) and along commercial properties and low income housing for increased property value and overall beautification of our city. Trees can hide many "ugly structures." Extraterritorial Jurisdiction • The city needs to dedicate more areas for recreational use for the public in downtown on the Pamlico River. This will draw more people to our downtown. A good example, is the park at the Point in New Bern. Our city's leadership would have given the land away to developers to build condominiums. An example of this mentality is the present plan for the Moss Planing Mill site. Our city should be concerned with the welfare of its citizens, not wealthy developers. • Raise River Road to keep Washington Park from flooding. • 1 am impressed with downtown and the waterfront — keep up the good work! People will come when there is water, good food, friendly people, good housing, and cultural as well as water activities! I am from the Washington area and the changes enhanced the area! • Maintain Washington's unique blend of the old and the new, preserving worthy landmarks and removing crumbing eyesores. Promote incentives to "spring clean" your town — cash awards for most improved business, single home dwelling, industry, etc. (require before/after photo); media sponsors, etc. Improve the city and it will promote itself. • Let's get a major hotel and develop the shoreline so we draw people to the area. Quaint shops and boutiques would help. The hotel will help draw summer visitors. Stop saying to yourselves that keeping it the same will draw people, it won't. You have tried that and it does not work. Build more docks so that the waterfront is used more. South side next to the bridge needs a lot of help. • We own property in the Slatestone area and Whichards Beach Road and I would like to see city sewer expanded. I feel like if I have to have inspections by city inspectors and buy permits from the city, 1 should have access to city sewer, etc. also. I would be interested in having both my properties on sewer especially on Slatestone Road where we are about 1-1/2 miles beyond the High School which is a 13-space mobile home park. The other property is in Portside 1 on Whichards Beach Road. Thank you. • 90% of your boating tourism uses the facilities @ Whichards Beach. The landowners have been trying to improve the area with NO help from the city. Enforce/revise the laws to remove abandoned cars, homes, and boats. Strengthen the code enforcement efforts and enforce ordinances! • Since we are not residents and are unfamiliar with all that is going on in town, we do not feel qualified to comment. Thank you for soliciting our opinions. We have been excited to see all that is going on in Washington and look forward to becoming residents in 2006. Appendix III Levels of Service (LOS) LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) LOS A: Describes primarily free flow conditions. The motorist experiences a high level of physical and psychological comfort. The effects of minor incidents of breakdown are easily absorbed. Even the maximum density, the average spacing between vehicles, is about 528 feet, or 26 car lengths. LOS B: Represents reasonably free flow conditions. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted. The lowest average spacing between vehicles is about 330 feet, or 18 car lengths. LOS C: Provides for stable operations, but flows approach the range in which small increases will cause substantial deterioration in service. Freedom to maneuver is noticeably restricted. Minor incidents may still be absorbed, but the local decline in service will be great. Queues may be expected to form behind any significant blockage. Minimum average spacings are in the range of 220 feet, or 12 car lengths. LOS D: Borders on unstable flow. Density begins to deteriorate somewhat more quickly with increasing flow. Small increases in flow can cause substantial deterioration in service. Freedom to maneuver is severely limited, and the driver experiences drastically reduced comfort levels. Minor incidents can be expected to create substantial queuing. At the limit, vehicles are spaced at about 165 feet, or 9 car lengths. LOS E: Describes operation at capacity. Operations at this level are extremely unstable because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as a vehicle entering from a ramp or changing lanes, requires the following vehicles to give way to admit the vehicle. This can establish a disruption wave that propagates through the upstream traffic flow. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate any disruption. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. Vehicles are spaced at approximately 6 car lengths, leaving little room to maneuver. LOS F: Describes forced or breakdown flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues forming behind breakdown points. s.: _1 �,� ',',�. 'i=::. d rry':,� "; � f. 'Fi 1 Ste' , ,,� � ._ �x ;�*�i � �;�' Appendix IV Beaufort County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Projects TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COUNTY COST ROUTE/CITY ID NO./ LOCATION -DESCRIPTION -MILEAGE -BREAK FUNDING WORK TYPE SCHEDULE ESTIMATES BREAK SOURCE (FISCAL YEARS) (THOU.) INC 00 R-0000 * 1-40 TO HOMETOWN. WIDEN ROADWAY TO A PLANNING/DESIGN IN PROGRESS I FOUR -LANE DIVIDED FACILITY WITH A BYPASS MITIGATION (NHS) 150 FY 07 ROUTE NUMBER ON NEW LOCATION. (12.3 MILES) RIGHT OF WAY (NHS) 4,550 FY 08 Listed in order of I, CONSTRUCTION (NHS) 19,350 FY 10 US, NC, SR, CITY INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT or NEW ROUTE WORK TYPE SCHEDULE Current status of project A 1-40 TO NC 3. BREAK Phase of project phase or proposed schedule. If work B NC 3 TO HOMETOWN. TERMINI implementation. is not shown, phase is complete or L not applicable. IDENTIFICATION INDICATES PROJECT BREAKS I NUMBER Assigned pg Repayment of Garvee Bond Amount FUNDING The category of funds to each project at programmed for right of way, ESTIMATED COST Right of way, mitigation conception and LOCATION-DESCRIPTION-MILEAGE_J mitigation and construction. (See and construction cost estimates by funding remains with Project termini, general description funding Key). Funding source not category in current dollars (cost may project until of work and length in miles. shown for Planning/Design. includes one or more funding types) completion APD - Appalachian Development IM - Interstate Maintenance S - State Construction BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs L - Local S(5) - State (Highway) Transit Funds BRGI - Bridge Inspection NFA - Bridge Replacement Off -Federal- Aid System SF - Ferries C - City NFAM - Municipal Bridge Replacement Program SG - Safety Grant CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation NHS - National Highway System S(M) - State Match DP - Discretionary or Demonstration NRT - National Recreation Trails SRTS - Safe Routes to School FA - Bridge Replacement On-Fereral-Aid System O - Others STP - Surface Transportation Program FLP - Federal Lands Program PLF - Personalized Automobile License Plate Funds STPDA - Surface Transportation Program, Direct Attributable HES - High Hazard Safety RR - Rail -Highway Safety STPE - Surface Transportation Program, Enhancement HP - Federal -id High Priority T - Highway Trust Fund CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation EDTAP - State Elderly and Disabled Transportation FBUS - Capital Program - Bus Earmark (5309) FED - Federal FEDPO - Special Ederly and Disabled FMPL - Metropolitan Planning (5303) FNF - New Fredom Program FINS - Capital Programs - New Start KEY TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FUNDIN FNU - Non Urbanized Area Formula Program (5311) FSPR - State Planning and Research FUZ - Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) HSTM - State Administrative Assistance - Human Services JARC - Job Assistance and Reverse Commute (3037) L - Local OAWF - Operating Assistance - Work First RGP - Rural General Public Program RIMA - Regional and Inter -City Maintenance Assistance RTAP - Rural Transit Assistance Program RTCH - Rural Technology SFCP - State Rural Facility Program SMAP - State Maintenance Assistance Program STAT - State STCP - State Rural Capital Program STP - Surface Transportation Program UTCH - Urban Technology FUNDING SOURCE MAY CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE REVENUE VARIATION; * INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT ALL SCHEDULES SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUND: TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY COST ID. NO. / WORK TYPE FUNDING ESTIMATES SCHEDULE ROUTE/CITY BREAK LOCATION - DESCRIPTION - MILEAGE - BREAK SOURCE (THOU) (FISCAL YEARS) RURAL PROJECTS US 13, US 17. R-4401 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM GUARDRAIL REHABILITATION. UPGRADE SUBSTANDARD GUARDRAIL, 46 PRIOR YEARS US 64, US 70, END TREATMENTS AND BRIDGE ANCHOR UNITS. 300 Mile(s) CONSTRUCTION NHS 1,465 FY 07 US 158, US 264 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,511 US 17 R-2510' WASHINGTON BYPASS, SOUTH OF SR 1127 (POSSUM TRACK ROAD) TO NORTH OF NC 171. 23,061 PRIOR YEARS FOUR LANE DIVIDED FREEWAY, SOME NEW LOCATION. 15 Mile(s) PLANNING/DESIGN IN PROGRESS A SOUTH OF SR 1127 (POSSUM TRACK ROAD) TO SOUTH OF SR 1149 (PRICE ROAD). CONSTRUCTION NHS 13,800 FY 08 B SOUTH OF SR 1149 (PRICE ROAD) TO US 17 NORTH OF SR 1509 (SPRINGS ROAD). RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 6,950 FY 07 CONSTRUCTION NHS 220,844 FY 07 C US 17 NORTH OF SR 1509 (SPRINGS ROAD) TO NORTH OF NC 171. RIGHT-OF-WAY S(M) 860 FY 07 CONSTRUCTION NHS 25,600 UNFUNDED PB REPAYMENT OF GARVEE BOND AMOUNT RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 4,525 FY 07 STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR GARVEE BOND FUNDING $3.4 MILLION, SEGMENT C RIGHT OF WAY,• PAYBACK FY 2007 - FY 2018 TOTAL PROJECT COST 295,640 US 17 R-2611' WASHINGTON BYPASS NORTH OF NC 171 TO MULTI -LANES SOUTH OF WILLIAMSTON. 500 PRIOR YEARS WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES. 10.4 Mile(s) PLANNING/DESIGN IN PROGRESS RIGHT-OF-WAY T 8,450 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION T 35,000 UNFUNDED STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR PROGRAMMED FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ONLY TOTAL PROJECT COST 43,960 US 17 R-2513• SR 1438 (SPRUILL TOWN ROAD) TO SOUTH OF SR 1127 (POSSUM TRACK ROAD). 800 PRIOR YEARS WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES. 13.3 Mile(s) RIGHT-OF-WAY T 18,600 UNFUNDED B SR 1438 (SPRUILL TOWN ROAD) TO SR 1637 (MILL POND ROAD). CONSTRUCTION T 12,700 UNFUNDED C SR 1637 (MILL POND ROAD) TO SR 1646 (MILE ROAD). CONSTRUCTION T 8,800 UNFUNDED D SR 1646 (MILE ROAD) IN CRAVEN COUNTY TO SR 1130 (C.C. ROAD) IN BEAUFORT COUNTY. CONSTRUCTION T 15,500 UNFUNDED E SR 1130 (C.C. ROAD) TO SOUTH OF SR 1127 (POSSUM TRACK ROAD). CONSTRUCTION T 15,300 UNFUNDED STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR TOTAL PROJECT COST 71,700 US 264 R-2601 NC 32 TO NC 99 AT BELHAVEN. WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES. 22.8 Mile(s) RIGHT-OF-WAY STP 16,825 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION STP 45,100 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 61,925 INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICA_N C TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY COST ID. NO. / WORK TYPE FUNDING ESTIMATES SCHEDULE ROUTE/CITY BREAK LOCATION - DESCRIPTION - MILEAGE - BREAK SOURCE (THOU) (FISCAL YEARS) RURAL PROJECTS US 264 R-3422 WASHINGTON NORTHERN BYPASS, SR 1409 (WHARTON STATION ROAD) WEST OF WASHINGTON TO SR 1600 (BRADDY ROAD) EAST OF WASHINGTON. FOUR LANES DIVIDED ON NEW LOCATION. 15.7 Mile(s) STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR RIGHT-OF-WAY STP 10,600 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION STP 89,400 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 100,000 NC 306 X-0004 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE AND APPROACHES ACROSS THE PAMLICO RIVER. 3.4 Mile(s) RIGHT-OF-WAY STP 1,000 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION STP 55,000 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 56,000 URBAN PROJECTS WASHINGTON U-2723 SR 1501 (OLD BATH HIGHWAY), SR 1306 (12TH STREET) TO SR 1507 (SLATESTONE ROAD). RIGHT-OF-WAY STP 1,500 UNFUNDED WIDEN TO MULTI -LANES. 1.4 Mile(s) CONSTRUCTION STP 5,500 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 7,000 FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS US 264 B-4413 BROAD CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 51 150 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 60 FY 10 CONSTRUCTION FA 600 FY11 TOTAL PROJECT COST 810 US 264 B-4414 PUNGO CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 43 2 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 90 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION FA 900 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 992 NC 32 B-4018 BROAD CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO- 104 250 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 31 IN PROGRESS CONSTRUCTION FA 1,350 FY 08 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,631 NC 32 B-4019 RUNYON CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 103 400 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 225 IN PROGRESS CONSTRUCTION FA 4,550 FY 08 TOTAL PROJECT COST 5,176 INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO GREEN TEXT INDICATES DELIVERABLE STIP PROJECT 2-6 SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY COST ID. NO. / WORK TYPE FUNDING ESTIMATES SCHEDULE ROUTE/CITY BREAK LOCATION - DESCRIPTION - MILEAGE - BREAK SOURCE (THOU) (FISCAL YEARS) FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS NC 32 B-4416 PUNGO CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 21 200 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 80 FY 10 CONSTRUCTION FA 800 FY 11 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,080 NC 33 B-4416 CAROLINA AND NORTHWEST RAILROAD. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 76 150 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 60 FY 09 CONSTRUCTION FA 600 FY 11 TOTAL PROJECT COST 810 NC 99 B-3611 PANTEGO CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 77 900 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 450 FY 09 MITIGATION FA 58 FY 09 CONSTRUCTION FA 9,100 FY 10 TOTAL PROJECT COST 10,508 NC 99 B-3809 PUNGO CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 64 525 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 405 FY 09 MITIGATION FA 59 FY 09 CONSTRUCTION FA 4,100 FY 10 TOTAL PROJECT COST 6,089 NC 99 B-4417 JACK CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 59 100 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 45 FY 08 CONSTRUCTION FA 450 FY 09 TOTAL PROJECT COST 595 NC 99 B-4418 ST. CLAIR CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 54 60 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 50 FY 11 MITIGATION FA 3 FY 11 CONSTRUCTION FA 500 FY 12 TOTAL PROJECT COST 613 SR 1001 B-4708 AGGIE RUN. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 5 150 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 150 FY 12 MITIGATION NFA 1 FY 12 CONSTRUCTION NFA 1,500 FY 13 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,801 • INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO _ SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS MORE INF RM - TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY COST ID. NO. / WORK TYPE FUNDING ESTIMATES SCHEDULE ROUTE/CITY BREAK LOCATION - DESCRIPTION - MILEAGE - BREAK SOURCE (THOU) (FISCAL YEARS) FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS SR 1003 B-"21 DURHAM CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 42 26 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 50 FY 11 MITIGATION FA 17 FY 11 CONSTRUCTION FA 500 FY 12 TOTAL PROJECT COST 593 SR 1106 B-4422 BLOUNTS CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 81 150 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 50 UNFUNDED MITIGATION NFA 14 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION NFA 500 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 714 SR 1136 B-4423 HORSE BRANCH CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 67 100 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 225 IN PROGRESS MITIGATION NFA 8 FY 07 CONSTRUCTION NFA 800 FY 08 PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT (POC) TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,133 SR 1136 B-4424 BRANCH OF CHOCOWINITY CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 68 150 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 272 FY 08 MITIGATION NFA 8 FY 08 CONSTRUCTION NFA 800 FY 08 PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT (POC) TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,230 SR 1136 B-4426 BRANCH OF CHOCOWINITY CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 69 60 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 50 UNFUNDED MITIGATION NFA 5 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION NFA 925 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,040 SR 1403 B-4020 TRANTERS CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 8 400 PRIOR YEARS SR 1567 RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 180 IN PROGRESS MITIGATION NFA 7 FY 07 CONSTRUCTION NFA 2,750 FY 08 TOTAL PROJECT COST 3,337 INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO GREEN TEXT INDICATES DELIVERABLE STIP PROJECT 2-8 SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY COST ID. NO. / WORK TYPE FUNDING ESTIMATES SCHEDULE ROUTE/CITY BREAK LOCATION - DESCRIPTION - MILEAGE - BREAK SOURCE (THOU) (FISCAL YEARS) FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS SR 1410 B-4021 LATHAM CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 84 200 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY IN PROGRESS CONSTRUCTION NFA 900 FY08 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,100 SR 1414 B-4022 TRANTERS CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 90 340 PRIOR YEARS SR 1556 RIGHT-OF-WAY IN PROGRESS CONSTRUCTION NFA 1,300 FY 08 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,640 SR 1422 B-4427 BIG SWAMP. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 6 85 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY FA 70 UNFUNDED MITIGATION FA 5 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION FA 1,100 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,260 SR 1514 B-3810 BIG SWAMP. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 272 150 PRIOR YEARS CONSTRUCTION NFA 450 IN PROGRESS TOTAL PROJECT COST 600 SR 1626 B-4024 CANAL. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 136 170 PRIOR YEARS CONSTRUCTION NFA 525 IN PROGRESS TOTAL PROJECT COST 695 SR 1626 B-4428 CANAL. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 140 250 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 90 FY 09 CONSTRUCTION NFA 900 FY10 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,240 SR 1742 B-4430 BATH CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 135 150 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 50 UNFUNDED MITIGATION NFA 11 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION NFA 500 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 711 SR 1743 B-4431 BRANCH OF BACK CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 178 624 PRIOR YEARS CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS TOTAL PROJECT COST 624 INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO _ IGNIF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY COST ID. NO. / WORK TYPE FUNDING ESTIMATES SCHEDULE ROUTE/CITY BREAK LOCATION - DESCRIPTION - MILEAGE - BREAK SOURCE (THOU) (FISCAL YEARS) FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS SR 1925 B-4025 CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39 150 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 25 FY 07 CONSTRUCTION NFA 675 FY 08 PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT (POC) TOTAL PROJECT COST 850 SR 1932 B-"33 HORSEPEN SWAMP. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40 60 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 35 UNFUNDED MITIGATION NFA 5 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION NFA 350 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 450 SR 1932 B-4709 BRANCH DURHAM CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 14 60 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY NFA 50 UNFUNDED MITIGATION NFA 8 UNFUNDED CONSTRUCTION NFA 500 UNFUNDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 618 MUNICIPAL BRIDGE PROJECTS BELHAVEN B-4500 WATERS STREET OVER TRIBUTARY OF PUNGO RIVER. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 324 120 PRIOR YEARS RIGHT-OF-WAY C 10 FY 08 RIGHT-OF-WAY NFAM 40 FY 08 CONSTRUCTION C 100 FY09 CONSTRUCTION NFAM 400 FY09 TOTAL PROJECT COST 670 MITIGATION PROJECTS VARIOUS EE-4902 ECOSYSTEMS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR DIVISION 2 PROJECTS. 679 PRIOR YEARS MITIGATION IN PROGRESS TOTAL PROJECT COST 679 ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS (REST AREA) US 17 K-3800 ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATE REST AREA AT NEW LOCATION WITH MUNICIPAL WATER 400 PRIOR YEARS AND SEWER AVAILABLE. (COORDINATE WITH R-2510B) RIGHT-OF-WAY NHS 500 FY 08 CONSTRUCTION NHS 3,500 FY 10 TOTAL PROJECT COST 4,400 * INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO GREEN TEXT INDICATES DELIVERABLE STIP PROJECT 2 - 10 SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY COST ID. NO. / WORK TYPE FUNDING ESTIMATES SCHEDULE ROUTE/CITY BREAK LOCATION - DESCRIPTION - MILEAGE - BREAK SOURCE (THOU) (FISCAL YEARS) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS BEAUFORT TJ-4906 PROVIDE OPERATING ASSISTANCE TO COUNTIES AND COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS TO OPERATIONS OAWF 12 FY 07 08 COUNTY MEET WORK FIRST AND EMPLOYMENT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. TOTAL PROJECT COST 12 BEAUFORT TL-4906 PROVIDE OPERATING ASSISTANCE FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY OPERATIONS EDTAP 94 FY 07 08 COUNTY AND DISABLED. TOTAL PROJECT COST 94 BEAUFORT TR-4906 PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS TO SERVE THE OPERATIONS RGP 84 FY 07 08 COUNTY RURAL GENERAL PUBLIC. TOTAL PROJECT COST 84 INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS MORE INFOR Appendix V Future Infrastructure Map 0 ,%,,:`,. �OfAll M, i"W®rmaWe� -4 %"�%, W2, Appendix VI Downtown Washington Revitalization Strategy Downtown Washington Revitalization Strategy 1 Executive Summary Following a slow economic decline in the latter half of the 20t' Century, the City of Washington began a revitalization program for its downtown in 1996. What followed was the creation of a strategic plan and the construction of several structural improvements, including changes to Stewart Parkway and the creation of the current riverwalk. In 2003, following "recommendations by the North Carolina Downtown Development Association, the Washington City Council endorsed the creation of Downtown Washington onthe Waterfront, Inc (DWOW), a public/private partnership responsible for managing further Downtown revitalization efforts. The mission of DWOW is "to serve as a facilitator and catalyst to renew, restore, rebuild, and revitalize the downtown business district, .improve economic conditions, lessen the burden of government, and combat community deterioration." Early in 2004, DWOW contracted WK Dickson to assist them in creating a revitalization strategy. The first component was an economic analysis of Downtown Washington and surrounding market areas to help guide an expanded revitalization strategy. The report resulting from this study, entitled Economic Repositioning Program for Downtown Washington (NC), made nine recommendations for revitalization strategy. These recommendations, assembled from the results of a community questionnaire, public input received from DWOW's plan room, and comments from DWOW, provided the foundation for Component II: Revitalization Strategy. In February 2005 WK Dickson presented three preliminary concept plans . Wlf DICKSON rwnmumeV;enaanuelw� enrnw�ann to the DWOW Board of Directors. With comments received from the DWOW Board of Directors and the citizens of Washington, WK Dickson prepared a "preferred plan." The "preferred plan" detailed in this report is the Revitalization Strategy. Endorsed by DWOW, it will be presented to the citizens of Washington for comment in September 2005. The Downtown Washington Revitalization Strategy is divided into three sections: Site Analysis, Revitalization Strategy Components, and Revitalization Strategy Implementation.. The Site Analysis section describes Downtown Washington's existing land use patterns, transportation infrastructure, and aesthetics. This section also contains a discussion of 'Smart Growth' principles and how they apply to the revitalization of Downtown Washington. The goals of the revitalization strategy were based on recommendations in the Economic Repositioning Program report, the Downtown Washington on the Waterfront Board of Directors, and the citizens of Washington. The goals were as follows: • Enhance connectivity both between downtown and the waterfront, and within downtown itself. • Strengthen the urban core by encouraging new development. • Draw more visitors to Downtown Washington. Create more open space on waterfront. • Increase commercial and recreational activity along the waterfront • Create the physical infrastructure to accommodate public markets, festivals, and the arts. Downtown Washington Revitalization Strate Now 06 Maintain existing parking, and provide. additional parking to accommodate increased visitation. The Revitalization Strategy Components 0 section explains how these goals are achieved. The Revitalization Strategy consists of three broad components: A Waterfront Plaza and Open Space; Western, Central, and Eastern Activity Nodes along the Waterfront; and Streetscapes, Gateways, S and Pedestrian Connections. Following the S description of the Revitalization Strategy ile Components, the Implementation of Revitalization Strategy section contains a A detailed cost analysis (in current prices) and S phasing recommendations for construction of the revitalization plan. � . �1AtIt a/!DICKSaON Downtown Washington Revitalization Strategy 12 Revitalization Strategy Components The Downtown Washington Revitalization Strategy encompasses the physical design aspects of the revitalization process. There are three major aspects to the physical. revitalization plan: )) Creation of waterfront plaza and greenspace; 2) Development of activity nodes along waterfront; and 3) Streetscaping, gateways, and pedestrian improvements. waterfront. The large plaza, amphitheater, and lawn will also provide an enhanced setting for the arts; for performances and festivals like the Washington Summer Festival, Smoke on the Water, and Music in the Streets; and a new opportunity for an open air farmers market or craft fairs. These activities and, events can do much to create a more vibrant downtown that attracts visitors from both the. immediate area and surrounding counties, a critical element Li EJ o oQ��Qm� G is AR r .rM1 fY" � 4� a3 r i ,�,'. Y. k W'^`�_ �a� •n �] ,L!'. S 1. �� �� 1� •l�'tPb.:r.. °�w 14 +Yw�r� r.+ir..�d'yer.*mG%lYmyk •g'ky�+' �+ a ^n � .jE` '% ' -.. Proposed waterfront plan Waterfront/ Greenspace The creation of a world -class waterfront plaza, amphitheater, and greenspace is the centerpiece of the revitalization effort. It is this element, more than any other that will tie all the pieces of the revitalization strategy together and help create a new image for the city. This open space will serve several functions that will help Washington achieve the goals set for the downtown revitalization. First, it will fulfill a stated desire by many citizens of Washington for more park land and passive recreation opportunities on the in the economic revitalization of downtown. Another desire expressed by the public was for more downtown activity on weekends. By providing a setting for passive recreation, festivals and the arts, and commercial. nodes, the new waterfront will provide just that. Activity Nodes Just as the new waterfront will provide a setting for passive recreation and performance, it will also provide the setting for more intensive activity nodes along the river. These -activity nodes will capitalize on, and contribute to, increased visitation DD CI KSON CasinuiutY IINICMCCNC� CCIUWOM� Downtown Washi Lentral Activity Node :on Revitalization Strategy 13 h . of downtown and the waterfront. They are I` connected to each other and downtown by the waterfront and the streetscape. enhancements. Central Activity Node A new public/private commercial node, located prominently at the intersection . of Market Street and Stewart Parkway, consists of a new central square bounded by rehabilitated commercial buildings and a new river overlook. The stage for a waterfront amphitheater is incorporated into the back of one of the buildings bounding the square. The new attractions, along with an intimate paved square, new pier, and amphitheater, will provide a multitude of activities to draw visitors to the waterfront, and give them. reason to stay once they arrive. West Activity Node To the west of Stewart Parkway, centered on the existing marina, is the proposed Marina District. Here, an expanded marina with more boat slips and services (more extensive maintenance, possibly dry storage facility here or nearby) provides the hub for a district of rehabilitated historic buildings and new infill built along the waterfront. DD CKSON COs111Yllllr MHGLIItlK LMIYIICI.1. Tying the district together is a riverwalk with small plazas and park areas. The new and refurbished buildings could house support for the marina in the form of service buildings, shops, and restaurants. As was pointed out in the Economic Repositioning Program for Downtown Washington report, an expanded marina has the potential to be a real economic engine for Washington, drawing boaters from surrounding counties and further. The addition of a dry storage facility, which would be the only one in Beaufort County, would allow Washington to draw visitors from the nearly 100,000 boaters who. live within 100 miles. Washington is also the closest "big water" to 2 million people, which provides a huge potential market for an expanded marina. Increased promotion and more careful management of the waterfront would aid in attracting boaters,to Washington. East Activity Node The Moss property at the eastern end of the waterfront is the location of a potential hotel with possible residential and small commercial components. This hotel will address the need for more downtown lodging. The Economic Repositioning report states that the current lack of lodging greatly limits visitation, and that more lodging. Downtown Washington, Revitalization Strategy .14 downtown is vital to attract the number of out-of-town. visitors necessary to support the proposed revitalization strategies. A first class hotel on the waterfront could become an important destination in itself, especially when tied to the waterfront park and plaza, North Carolina Estuarium, expanded marina, and Washington's, historic downtown. Connected as they are, all these elements have a mutually supportive relationship- each being more likely to thrive if the others do. DV CKSON t9s�uMry •I�M�MuC9nIW N Streetscaping Gateways, and Pedestrian Improvements In order for Downtown to fully realize the benefits of the world -class waterfront and the new activity nodes, it must be strongly connected to its waterfront. Vehicle, and especially pedestrian, access must be obvious, attractive, and .i .: comfortable. Connectivity and pedestrian travel ti throughout downtown and to the waterfront should be enhanced. To this.end a hierarchy of streetscape w. improvements has been devised to improve the eio pedestrian experience, to help orient visitors to downtown, and. i m prove ' connectivity between the r7 waterfront and downtown. q The need for amulti-use trail to connect downtown with outlying greenspaces was addressed as part of the proposed pedestrian 4� = improvements. The specifics of the streetscaping plans are ,ers), LLQ described later in this document. In addition to streetscape improvements, there has been an often expressed need for obvious 'gateways' at the periphery of downtown to advertise the presence of downtown and draw visitors into the heart of the city. This revitalization plan includes a series of prominent 'gateway intersections' along Bridge Street and 5t' Street/ Hwy 264. III. MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND POLICIES The Mitigation Strategies and Policies section of the plan identifies specific strategies and policies that will "put into action" the mitigation values and goals established above by completing the following steps: ■ Formulating selection criteria ■ Identifying policies to carry out the mitigation strategies ■ Creating an action plan for the mitigation strategies ■ Prioritizing the policies ■ Identifying funding sources Assigning implementation responsibilities A. Discussion of Mitigation Strategies and Section Format Hazard mitigation objectives have been identified which can be defined as measurable, concrete steps towards achieving the goals presented in the preceding section. Goals are considered met when objectives have been completed. Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 6 Hazard mitigation policies have also been identified which are specific tasks and actions that achieve the above stated objectives. Objectives are considered met when all polices have been implemented. When formulating objectives.and policies, the county and the participating municipalities were very mindful of the available types of activities, or strategies, that will result in natural hazard mitigation, as presented in "Keeping Natural Hazards from Becoming Disasters: A Mitigation Planning Guidebook for Local Governments" published in May of 2003 by the NCDEM Hazard Mitigation Section and the Hazard Mitigation Planning Clinic at the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These are summarized below: ■ Prevention - Actions designed to reduce the community's future vulnerability, such as zoning or stormwater management regulations. ■ Property Protection - Retrofitting or removal of existing structures subject to a . elevated risk of natural hazard damage. ■ Natural Resource Protection Preserving or restoring natural features to ensure or enhance. their mitigative functions. ■ Structural Projects - Modification of the natural environment through built structures to protect property and life. ■ Public Information- Educational.and informational activities. A variety of strategies, and combination of strategies, will be utilized to meet the stated goals and objectives through the policies provided below. Policies selected will meet the following criteria: ■ The policy will solve the problem it is intended to solve, or begin to develop a solution; and ■ The policy meets at least one community mitigation goal; and ■ The policy complies with all laws and. regulations; and ■ The policy is cost -beneficial; and ■ The community implementing the policy has (or will have) the capability to do so; and Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 7 ■ The policy is environmentally sound; and ■ The policy is technically feasible. B. Mitigation Objectives As stated above, objectives are defined as measurable, concrete steps towards achieving the goals presented in this plan. When all objectives are complete, the goals will have been met. Objective Number Number Objective 1 1 Ensure that all shelter locations are well publicized. 1 2 Reduce the frequency of electrical -outages and length of time such outages last. 1 3 Provide for effective evacuation prior to natural hazards. 1 4 Reduce flood insurance rates. 1 5 Reduce the risk of dam failure to existing development. 2 1 Preserve open sace in flood lain areas. 2. 2 Reduce the risk of damage from wildfires to future development. 2 3 Improve wind resistance of structures within the countv. 3 1 Maximize the use of available hazard mitigation grant programs to protect the most vulnerable structures and o ulationS. 4 1 Develop specific, timely recommendations for hazard mitigation measures following a State or Federally declared natural disaster and ensure that hazard mitigation is considered when redevelopment occurs after a natural disaster. 5 1 Ensure that the public is aware of the risks of different types of natural hazards, and reduces their personal exposure to natural hazards. 5 2 Implement public education efforts designed to help inform the public of actions they can take to mitigate the damages to their health and property. 6 1 Miti ate damages due to stormwater. 6 2 Protect Areas of Environmental Concern. Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 8 C. Mitigation Policies 1. Introduction Specific actions, or "policies", are needed to realize each objective provided above. For each policy, the following information will be provided in this subsection: ■ A statement of the policy ■ The type of strategy represented by the policy ■ The hazard(s) it is developed to address ■ The objective(s) it will achieve ■ The priority. the action has (high, medium or low) ■ Possible funding sources, if any The agency or staff member assigned with responsibility for the policy ■ Projected completion date ■ Notes and/or background information on the policy 2. Prioritization and Cost Benefit Review A process for prioritization of identified hazard mitigation strategies was performed. The hazard mitigation advisory committee used the following criteria for prioritization of hazard mitigation strategies: a) cost -benefit review b) results of Hazard Identification and Analysis c) results of Vulnerability Assessment d) results of Community Capability Assessment e) effectiveness in meeting hazard mitigation goals and comprehensive plan goals Cost -benefit review was given special emphasis, in light of its possible use in environmental review for HMGP, FMA, and other federal hazard mitigation projects. 3. Mitigation Policies The hazard mitigation- policies are listed below: Policy Number 1 Policy Update CAMA Land Use Plan. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora Bath, Belhaven & Washington Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan - 9 Strategy Type Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed All Objective(s) Addressed " 2.1 and 4.1 Priority Medium Possible Funding Sources Technical assistance available through State Department o Commerce, Division of Community Assistance Responsible Parties Beaufort County Planning Director, Aurora Town Clerk,, Bath Town Clerk, Belhaven Town Manager, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date When CAMA funding is available Policy Number 2 Policy Review "Firewise" zoning and subdivision standards and report on their appropriateness for incorporation into the existing zoning and subdivision ordinances. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed Wildfire Objective(s) Addressed 2.2 Priority Low Possible Funding Sources N/A. Information on "Firewise" zoning and subdivision ordinance provisions is widely available in the public record. An excellent resource is http://www.firewise.org. Responsible Parties In conjunction with Local Fire Chiefs: Beaufort County Planning Director, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk, Belhaven Town Manager, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date June 1 2005 Policy Number 3 Policy Attempt to improve Community Rating System (CRS) status by accomplishing additional CRS tasks. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort" County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding Objective(s) Addressed 1.4, 2.1, and 5.1 Priority Medium Possible Funding Sources North Carolina Emergency Management http://www.ncem.org. Funding source is Federal (75%) and non -Federal usual) State 25% Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 10 Responsible Parties Beaufort County Planning Director, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk; Belhaven Town Manager; Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date June 1 2006 Policy Number 4 Policy Convene a working group with electric service providers within' the county and produce a report, with specific recommendations and detailed implementation timelines, that addresses the issues of 1) disaster preparedness and 2) communication with officials during and immediately after a natural hazard event that results in loss of electrical power. Applicable Jurisdictions. Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Prevention, and possibly property protection and/or structural projects Hazard(s) Addressed Primarily hazards associated with a lot of wind and severe - winter storms Objective(s) Addressed 1.2 Priority Medium Possible Funding Sources Background information on utility ice storm preparation can be found at http://www.ncuc.commerce.state.nus.us/reports/bartlice.pdf. Responsible Party Beaufort County Emergency Management Coordinator Projected Completion Date June 1 2005 Policy Number 5 Policy Work with the State Office of Dam Safety (ODS) to: _ a) Ensure that all dams in Beaufort County for which the ODS has jurisdiction are inspected on a regular basis. b) Ensure that. ODS notifies the Beaufort County Emergency Management (EM) Office of all ODS jurisdictional dams classified as "high hazard" or "distressed" dams. c) Attempt to ensure that all high hazard or distressed dams in the County have an updated and implemented operations and maintenance plan and emergency action plans. d) Provide the County EM office with an inventory of all ODS jurisdictional dams in the County. Applicable' Jurisdictions BeaufortCounty Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 11 Strategy Type Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed Dam Failure, Flooding Objective(s) Addressed 7.1: Priority Low Possible Funding Sources Coordination and technical assistance are available from the NC Dam Safety Program, contact is Max Fowler, P.E. 919/733-4574, http://www.dir.enr.state.nc.us/dam.htmi. Some grant funding is available through the NC Rural Center, contact is Billy Ray Hall, Director, 4021 Carya Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27610, e-mail: info ncruralcenter.orq, http://www.ncruralcenter.org Beaufort County Emergency Management Coordinator Responsible Party Projected Completion Date June 1 2005 Policy Number 6 Policy Apply for funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) following a natural disaster, if eligible, for equipment to assist with hazard mitigation initiatives or emergency operations (i.e., generators). Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Property protection and/or structural projects Hazard(s) Addressed All . Objective(s) Addressed 3.1 and 4.1 Priority High .Possible Funding Sources Background information on the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and similar hazard mitigation programs. can be found at http://www.ncem.org and at http://www.fema.gov. Funding source is Federal (75%) and non -Federal (usually State) (25%) Responsible Parties Beaufort County Manager, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk, Behaven Town Manager, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date After next major Presidentially declared disaster Policy Number 7 Policy Ensure that local libraries maintain documents about flood insurance,. flood protection, floodplain management, and natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. Many documents are available free of charge from the .Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Public Information Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 12 Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding Objective(s) Addressed 5.1 and 5.2 Priority High Possible Funding Sources FEMA, the American Red Cross . and numerous other organizations have free public information materials than can be used to achieve this policy. http://www.fema.gov and http://www.redcross.ora Responsible Parties Beaufort County Planning Director, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk, Belhaven Town Manager, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date June 1 2005, then ongoing. Policy Number 8 Policy Monitor trees and branches at- risk of breaking or falling during hazard events. Prune or thin branches on government property when they post a threat to property, utility lines, or other significant structures or critical facilities. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Prevention and Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed Hurricanes, Thunderstorms and Tornados, Severe Winter Storms, and Nor'easters Objective(s) Addressed 1.2 Priority High Possible Funding Sources N/A Responsible Parties Beaufort County Maintenance Department Head, Aurora Public Works Director, Bath Water Department Director, Belhaven Public Works Director, Washington Public Works Director Projected Completion Date June 1 2005 Policy Number 9 Policy Apply for funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) following a natural hazard, if eligible, for elevation/floodproofing of repetitive loss properties or other homes affected by flooding. Applications should also be submitted for funding for the windproofing of homes affected by hurricanes or tornados. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Property protection Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding Objectives Addressed 3.1 and 4.1 Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 13 Priority High Possible Funding Sources Background. information on the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and similar, hazard mitigation programs can be found at httg://www.ncem.org and at http://www.fema.aov. Funding source is Federal (75%) and non -Federal (usually State) (25%) Responsible Parties Beaufort County Manager, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk, Belhaven Town Manager, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date I After next major Presidentially declared disaster Policy Number 10 Policy Provide local real estate agents with handouts that advise potential buyers about flood hazards. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, -Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Public Information Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding Objective(s) Addressed 5.1 and 5.2 Priority Low Possible Funding Sources N/A Responsible Parties Beaufort County Emergency Management Coordinator, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk, Belhaven Building Inspector, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date June 2005 then ongoing Policy Number 11 Policy Send a flood protection flyer to all properties in each local government through a community newsletter, utility bill, or other document that is distributed to all residences. The flyer should include the following information: flood safety, flood insurance, property protection, floodplain development requirements, and drainage system maintenance. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Public Information Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding Objective(s) Addressed 5.1 and 5.2 Priority Medium - Possible Funding Sources FEMA, the American Red Cross and numerous other organizations have free public information materials than can be used to achieve this policy. http://www.fema.gov and httwww.redcross.or 14 Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan Responsible Parties Beaufort County Emergency Management Coordinator, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk, Belhaven Building Inspector, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date June 2005 then ongoing. Policy Number 12 Policy Advertise the availability of flood insurance on an annual basis. Applicable Jurisdictions . Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Prevention, Property Protection, and Public Information Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding Objective(s) Addressed 5.1 and 5.2 Priority Medium Possible Funding Sources N/A Responsible Parties Beaufort County Emergency Management Coordinator, Aurora Town Clerk, Bath Town Clerk, Belhaven Building. Inspector, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date June 2005 then ongoing Policy Number 13 Policy Develop a page within local governments websites that is devoted to hurricane preparedness. Post the Hazard Mitigation Plan and the evacuation route on the websites. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Belhaven, and Washington Strategy Type Public Information Hazard(s) Addressed All Objective(s) Addressed 1.1, 1.3, 5.1, and 5.2 Priority High Possible Funding Sources N/A Responsible Party Beaufort County Emergency Management Coordinator, Belhaven Town Manager, Washington Planning and Development Director Projected Completion Date June, 2005 Policy Number 14 Policy Provide new home buyer and local contractors with information on windproofing including wood and light steel construction connectors and anchoring systems. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora Bath Belhaven, & Washington Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 15 Strategy Type Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed Hurricanes, Thunderstorms and Tornados, and Nor'easters Objectives) Addressed 2.3 and 5.2 Priority Medium Possible Funding Sources N/A Responsible Party County and Municipal Building Inspectors Projected Completion Date June, 2005 Policy Number 15 Policy Monitor drainage areas to ensure they are clear and adequate for drainage Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Prevention and Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed Flooding Objective(s) Addressed 4.1 Priority Medium Possible Funding Sources N/A Responsible Party Beaufort County Maintenance Department Head, Aurora Public Works Director, Bath Water Department Director, Belhaven Public Works Director, Washington Public Works.Director Projected Com letion Date June 2005 Policy Number 16 Policy Advertise the importance of keeping private roads free from debris and the general areas cleaned out to ensure the ability of emergency vehicles to pass through. Applicable Jurisdictions Beaufort County, Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, & Washington Strategy Type Public Information Hazard(s) Addressed All Objective(s) Addressed 1.2, 1.3, and 5.2 Priority Medium Possible Funding Sources N/A Responsible Party Beaufort County Maintenance Department Head, Aurora Public Works Director, Bath Water Department Director, Belhaven Public Works Director, Washington Public Works Director Projected Com letion Date 13une, 2005 Beaufort County Hazard Mitigation Plan 16