CAMA 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