Land Use Plan Update-1996

DCM COPY DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
Division of
f Coastal Management

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF WASHINGTON
1996 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
source Man
> provided - by At
;red by the Of a'
.mosphedc Adm

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF WASHINGTON
1996 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
PAGE
SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. INTRODUCTION..............................................1-1
1. Establishment of Information Base ............................ 1-1
2. Goals/Objectives........................................ 1-3
B. DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING ................................. 1-4
1. Regional and County Population Growth ........................ 1-4
2. City of Washington Population Growth and Composition ............ 1-8
3. Housing Characteristics .................................. 1-10
4. Summary............................................1-13
C. ECONOMY................................................1-14
Summary.................................................I-20
D. EXISTING LAND USE.........................................I-20
1
1.
Introduction............................
1-20
2.
Residential ...........................................
1-22
3.
Commercial ...........................................
1-22
4.
Industrial .............................................
I-25
5.
Office and Institutional
1-25
6.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ..........................
1-25
7.
Transportation
I-27
8.
Annexations ..........................................
1-28
9.
Basinwide Water Quality Management ........................
1-31
10.
Summary............................................I-32
E. EXISTING PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND LAND USE CONTROLS ............
1-34
1.
Zoning Ordinance .......................
I-34
2.
Subdivision Regulations . ...... . . . ......
1-34
3.
North Carolina State Building Code ..........................
1-34
4.
5.
Floodplain Development Ordinance ...........................
Minimum Housing Code
1-34
1-35
6.
City of Washington Land Use Plan Update, 1990 .................
1-35
i
7.
8.
Warren Field Airport Layout Plan Report .......................
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Washington, NC, April 1992 ......
1-35
1-35
9.
An Assessment of City Operations for the City of Washington,
10.
North Carolina, February, 1988 .............................
Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina, January, 1991 .
1-35
1-36
11.
Annexation Feasibility Study, City of Washington, North Carolina, 1992
1-36
12.
13.
Transportation Plan for Washington and Washington Park, 1979 ......
Solid Waste Management Plan, Beaufort County and Municipalities,
1-36
July,1997...........................................1-36

PAGE I,
F. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1990 LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES ........... 1-37
G. LAND AND WATER USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS .................. 1-37
1. Unplanned Development .................................. 1-38
2. Summary ................................... .......1-38
H. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY ..................
1. Climate ..............................................
1-39
1-39
2.
Topography/Geology....................................
1-39
3.
4.
Water Supply .........................................
Flood Hazard Areas .....................................
1-40
1-40
5.
Fragile Areas ..........................................
1-45
a. Coastal Wetlands ..................................
b. Public Trust Areas .................................
1-45
1-45
C. Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shoreline .................
1-47
d. Historic and Archaeological Sites .......................
1-47
e. 404 Wetlands ....................................
1-48
f. Natural Resource Fragile Areas ........................
1-50
g. Sound and Estuarine Islands ..........................
1-50
6.
Soils................................................1-51
7.
Areas of Resource Potential ...............................
1-55
a. Agricultural and Forestlands ..........................
1-55
b. Public Parks .....................................
1-55
C. Marine Resources/Water Quality .......................
1-55
d. Valuable Mineral Resources ...........................
1-57
e. Public Gamelands..................................
1-57
f. Private Wildlife Sanctuaries ...........................
1-57
g. Marinas and Mooring Fields ...........................
1-57
h. Floating Homes ...................................
1-58
i. Aquaculture.....................................
1-58
j. Channel Maintenance and Interstate Waterways ............
1-58
,
I. DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRAINTS: PUBLIC FACILITIES ..................
1-59
1.
Water Supply .........................................
1-59
2.
3.
Sewer .......... ................................... ..1-61
Solid Waste Disposal ....................................
1-62
4.
Schools.............................................I-62
5.
6.
Transportation .........................................
Recreation ............................................
1-63
1-65
7.
Electric System ........................................
1-67
8.
9.
Police ...............................................
Fire/Emergency Services ..................................
1-70
1-70
10.
Administration .........................................
1-71
11.
12.
City/Community Facilities .................................
Streets ..............................................
1-72
1-72
13.
Watershed Management and Planning ........................
1-74
1

IPAGE
SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A.
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR DEVELOPMENT .........................
II-1
1.
Demographic Trends
II-1
2.
Potential Annexations ........ . .................. . ........
II-2
3.
Housing Trends ........................................
II-7
4.
5.
Commercial and Industrial Land Use ..........................
Transportation
11-7
11-8
6.
Public Land Use ........................................
II-9
7.
8.
Water System ........................................
Wastewater .........................................
II-13
II-13
9.
Electrical System ......................................
II-14
10.
Storm Drainage .......................................
11-16
11.
Police Protection, Fire Protection, and Emergency Medical Services ...
II-17
12.
Schools ............................................
II-18
13.
Solid Waste Disposal ...................................
11-18
14.
Redevelopment Issues ..................................
II-18
15.
Areas Likely to Experience Major Land Use Changes .............
II-19
16.
Intergovernmental Coordination and Implementation .............
II-19
SECTION III:
LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ...........................
III-1
SECTION IV:
POLICY STATEMENTS
A.
VISION
STATEMENT .........................................
IV-2
B.
RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS .....................
IV-3
C.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES .............. IV-10
D.
ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. IV-13
E. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES ..................... IV-22
F. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY,
AND EVACUATION PLANS .................................... IV-22
ISECTION V: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS ........ V-1
TABLES
Table 1
Total Population and Percent Change for CAMA-Regulated
r
Counties, 1960-1995 ..............................
1-5
Table 2
Beaufort County : Summary of Year -Round Population Growth,
1970-1995
1-7
Table 3
City of Washington and Beaufort County - Population
Characteristics: Racial Composition, 1995 ...............
1-8
Table 4
City of Washington and Beaufort County - Population
Distribution by Age Group, 1990 ......................
1-9

u
PAGE
Table 5
City of Washington and Beaufort County - Educational
Attainment, Persons 25 Years and Over, 1990 ............
1-9
Table 6
City of Washington - Housing Tenure ...................
1-10
Table 7
City of Washington/ETJ - 1990-1996 Building Permits .......
1-1 1
Table 8
City of Washington - 1990 Dwelling Unit Room Count .......
1-12
Table 9
City of Washington and Beaufort County - 1990 Dwelling Unit
Age and Number of Units in Structure ..................
1-12
Table 10
City of Washington and Beaufort County - Housing Condition
and Water/Sewer Services, 1990 .....................
1-13
Table 11
City of Washington and Beaufort County - Per Capita Income,
1990.........................................
1-14
Table 12
City of Washington - Household Income, 1990 ............
1-15
Table 13
City of Washington - Employment by Industry, 1990 ........
1-15
Table 14
City of Washington/ETJ - Industries, 1996 ...............
1-16
,
Table 15
City of Washington - Retail Trade, 1992 .................
1-17
Table 16
City of Washington - Distribution of Poverty, 1990 .........
1-18
Table 17
City of Washington - Revenues/Expenditures for Selected Years
1-19
Table 18
City of Washington - Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory ..
1-26
Table 19
City of Washington - Annexed Areas, 1989-1997 ..........
1-29
Table 20
City of Washington - Building Site Development Soil Features ..
1-53
Table 21
City of Washington - List of Groundwater Sources - New Well
Field and Existing Well at Slatestone ...................
1-59
Table 22
City of Washington - Average Monthly Water Use in MGD for
1997.........................................
1-60
Table 23
City of Washington - 1996-1997 Water Use by Type of User ..
1-60
1-60
Table 24
City of Washington - 1998 System's Largest Water Users ....
Table 25
City of Washington - WWTP Monthly Monitoring Records, 1997
1-61
Table 26
City of Washington - Schools ........................
1-62
Table 27
Warren Field Airport Capital Improvement Program,
1996-2000......................................
1-65
1-66
Table 28
City of Washington - Recreational Facilities ...............
Table 29
City of Washington - Transformer Capacity Versus Peak Load ..
1-68
Table 30
City of Washington - Staffing, 1998 ...................
1-71
1
Table 31
City of Washington and Beaufort County - Summary of
Projected Year -Round Population Growth, 1995-2005 .......
II-1
Table 32
City of Washington - Recreation Facility Standards .........
II-10
Table 33
City of Washington - Recreation Facility Needs ............
II-1 1
II-13
Table 34
City of Washington - Water Demand Projections ...........
Table 35
City of Washington - Wastewater Flow Projections .........
II-14
F"
LJ

IPAGE
Table 36 City of Washington : Police, Fire: and Rescue
Additional Needs II-18
IMAPS
Map 1
City of Washington Existing Land Use ..................
1-21
Map 2
City of Washington Concentrations of Substandard Housing ...
1-23
Map 3
City of Washington FY96 and 97/98 Target Areas ..........
1-24
Map 4
City of Washington Annexation, 1990-1996 ..............
1-30
Map 5
City of Washington Watershed Boundaries ...............
1-33
Map 6
Map 7
City of Washington Flood Hazard Area ..................
City of Washington Storm Surge Inundation Area
1-42
1-43
Map 8
Map 9
City of Washington Areas of Environmental Concern ........
City of Washington Historic District ....................
1-46
1-49
Map 10
City of Washington Soil Types ........................
1-52
Map 11
City of Washington Water Classifications ................
1-56
Map 12
City of Washington Average Daily Traffic Counts ..........
1-64
Map 13
City of Washington Existing Community and Recreation
Facilities
1-73
Map 14
Map 15
City of Washington Potential Annexation Areas ............
City of Washington Existing and Potential Recreational Facilities
II-3
II-12
Map 16
City of Washington Land Classifications .................
III-3
1
DIAGRAMS
Diagram 1
City of Washington General Airport Layout ...............
1-27
Graph 1
GRAPHS
City of Washington System Non -Coincident
II-15
Peak KW Demand ................................
APPENDICES
Appendix I
Appendix II
Summary of 1990 City of Washington Policy Statements
Rating of 1990 City of Washington Land Use Plan Policy
Statements
Appendix III
City of Washington Historical and Archaeological Sites
Appendix IV
City of Washington Facilities
Appendix V
Appendix VI
City of Washington Policies Considered But Not Adopted
City of Washington Citizen Participation Plan

SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Establishment of Information Base
The existing City of Washington CAMA Land Use Plan was prepared in 1990 and certified by
the Coastal Resources Commission on March 22, 1991. That plan was prepared in
conformance with the 1990-1991 15A NCAC 7B CAMA planning guidelines.
During 1995 and 1996, the 15A NCAC 7B CAMA planning guidelines were revised. The
revised guidelines included new requirements for the development of policy statements.
These changes included the following policy statement additions:
-- A general vision policy statement describing the type of community that the
local government would like to become within the next ten years.
-- A basic statement as to the community attitude toward resource protection.
-- A policy addressing the protection of wetlands identified as being of the highest
functional significance on maps supplied by the Division of Coastal
a Management.
A policy addressing moorings and mooring fields.
-- A policy addressing water quality problems and management measures
designed to reduce or eliminate local sources of surface water quality problems.
-- A statement as to the community attitude toward resource production and
management.
-- A policy addressing commitment to state and federal programs, including
housing rehabilitation, community development block grants, housing for low
and moderate income level citizens, water and sewer installation, and rural
water systems.
-- A policy addressing assistance in interstate waterways.
This land use plan update has been prepared in compliance with the revised guidelines dated
March 5, 1996.
The 7B guidelines define the following intent of land use plans:
"Local governments, through the land use planning process, address issues and
adopt policies that guide the development of their community. Many decisions
affecting development are made by other levels of government, and local
policies must consider and be consistent with established state and federal

policies. Most development -related decisions, however, are primarily of local
concern. Policies which address the type of development to be encouraged, the
density and patterns of development, and the methods of providing public
access to beaches and waterfronts are examples of these local policy decisions.
When such development issues are carefully and explicitly addressed in the
local Land Use Plan, other levels of government will follow local policies in their
actions that affect these issues. State and federal agencies will use the local
Land Use Plans and policies in making project consistency, funding, and permit
decisions."
"The land use plan shall contain the following basic elements:
1) a summary of data collection and analysis;
2) an existing land use map;
3) a policy discussion;
4) a land classification map."
In addition to these basic elements, the 7B guidelines require that the following issues be
addressed in the plan:
1) Resource Protection
2) Resource Production and Management
3) Economic and Community Development
4) Continuing Public Participation
5) Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery and Evacuation Plans
This land use plan provides a guide for development of the City of Washington by addressing
issues and adopting policies that are relevant to the City of Washington. Specifically, this land
use plan includes the following eleven elements which are mandated by the 7B guidelines:
(1)
Executive Summary [not applicable for Sketch Plans]
(2)
Introduction
(3)
Goals and Objectives
(4)
Data Collection and Analysis
(5)
Present Conditions
(6)
Constraints
(7)
Estimated Demands
(8)
Policy Statements
(9)
Land Classification
(10)
Intergovernmental Coordination and Implementation
(1 1)
Public Participation
It should be noted that the policy section of the plan is the most important part of the
document. State and federal agencies will use the local land use policies in making project
consistency, funding, and permit decisions.
I
1-2

u
I�
1
1
The 1991 City of Washington Land Use Plan included policy statements which addressed the
five policy areas. CAMA planning guidelines require that the existing (1991) policy statements
be summarized in this document. The 1991 policy statements are summarized in Appendix
I.
With the exception of the policy addressing marina and floating home development, the 1991
CAMA policy statements supported but did not exceed the 15A NCAC 7H minimum use
standards for areas of environmental concern (AECs). The City of Washington's marina policy
specifies that marinas shall be four or more slips and located consistent with the City of
Washington's zoning ordinance.
Listed below are some of the sources and documents utilized during preparation of this Land
Use Plan:
-- Beaufort County 1991 Land Use Plan Update
-- City of Washington 1991 Land Use Plan Update
-- City of Washington 1985 Land Use Plan Update
-- USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Beaufort County
-- NCDOT, Planning and Policies Section
-- City of Washington Staff
-- Beaufort County School Board
-- North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management
-- North Carolina Division of Archives and History
-- Flood Insurance Study, City of Washington
-- City of Washington Zoning Ordinance
-- City of Washington Subdivision Ordinance.
-- North Carolina Division of Community Assistance
-- North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
-- North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development
-- U.S. Census, 1990
-- City of Washington and Beaufort County, North Carolina, Economic Study,
1964.
-- Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina
-- 1992 Annexation Feasibility Study, City of Washington, North Carolina
-- An Assessment of City Operations for the City of Washington, North Carolina,
February, 1988.
-- Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina, January, 1991.
-- Wastewater Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina, February, 1992.
These sources were supplemented by "windshield" surveys conducted to obtain data on
existing land use patterns.
2. Goals Ob'ectives
The city has the following goals/objectives for updating the land use plan:
M-- Establishment of policies to deal with existing and anticipated land use issues.
-- Preparation of a revised land classification map.
-3

-- Preparation of hurricane mitigation and post -disaster recovery plans and
policies.
-- Assessment of opportunities for participation in state and federal programs.
-- An updated Land Use Plan based on an effective citizen participation process.
-- Update population, economic, and land use forecasts.
-- Identify existing land use problems and environmental issues.
-- Update constraints analysis.
The goals and objectives of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) are stated in North
Carolina General Statute 113A-102(b).
B. DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING I
1. Regional and County Population Growth
During the past 35 years, the 20 Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) counties have
experienced a total population increase of 63.1 %. This exceeded the North Carolina total
population increase of 55.8%. During that period, all CAMA regulated counties except four
experienced population increases. These increases ranged from a low at 0.3% in Washington
County to a high of 347.5% in Dare County. Table 1 provides a summary of the population
growth for the CAMA regulated county's from 1960 to 1995.
Beaufort County and the adjacent CAMA counties of Hyde, Craven, Pamlico, and Washington
experienced a total 35-year population increase of 31.7%. The CAMA region's population I
growth has been greatly inflated by the beach counties (excluding Hyde County) where the
population increases ranged from a low of 79.4% in Pender County to Dare County's high of
347.5%. In the non -beach counties, Beaufort County tied with Pamlico County at fourth
behind the counties of Craven, Pasquotank, and Chowan. These top five non -beach CAMA
counties ranked well ahead of all other non -beach counties in population growth.
The 63.1 % increase in population growth in the coastal counties since 1960 is reflective of
the well -documented national trend of migration to non -metropolitan areas which began in the
late 1960s. By the early 1970s, coastal North Carolina felt the impact of this migration.
Some of the factors influencing the growth of the coastal region include expansion of military
facilities, industrial decentralization, and in particular, the development of recreation and
retirement centers. I
The growth of Beaufort and other coastal counties as recreational/retirement centers over the
past twenty years has had a significant impact on the composition of the permanent
population, and ultimately, the economic structure of the coastal region. The average
household size has decreased and the median age has increased as coastal North Carolina has
grown as a recreational/retirement center. The coastal areas are gradually losing their rural
character as residential and commercial development have expanded significantly near the
state's shoreline and estuarine areas over the past twenty years. Also, coastal counties such
as Beaufort have had a noticeable shift toward a non -basic (service and retail) economy over
the past twenty years. Increased retail trade and growth of service industries are the result
of seasonal demand and retiree in -migration to the coastal region.
a
�

M r r w� M M M W M M M M M" ILA M NoMll
Table 1
Total Population and Percent Change for CAMA-Regulated Counties, 1960-1995
County
Total Population
Percent Increase
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
'60-'70
'70-'80
180-190
'90-'95*
Overall
'60-'95
Beaufort
36,014
35,980
40,355
42,283
43,537
-0.1%
12.2%
4.8%
3.0%
20.9%
Bertie
24,350
20,477
21,024
20,388
20,365
-15.9%
2.7%
-3.0%
-0.09%
-16.3%
Brunswick
20,278
24,223
35,777
50,985
59,376
19.4%
47.7%
42.5%
16.5%
192.8%
Camden
5,598
5,453
5,829
5,904
6,124
-2.6%
6.9%
1.3%
3.7%
9.3%
Carteret
27,438
31,603
41,092
52,556
58,963
15.2%
30.0%
27.9%
12.2%
113.4%
Chowan
11,729
10,764
12,558
13,506
14,239
-8.2%
16.7%
7.5%
5.4%
21.4%
Craven
58,773
62,554
71,043
81,613
88,455
6.4%
13.6%
14.9%
8.4%
50.5%
Currituck
6,601
6,976
11,089
13,736
15,486
5.7%
58.9%
23.9%
12.7%
134.6%
Dare
5,935
6,995
13,377
22,746
26,558
17.9%
91.2%
70.0%
16.8%
347.5%
Gates
9,254
8,524
8,875
9,305
9,758
-7.9%
4.1 %
4.8%
4.8%
5.4%
Hertford
22,718
23,529
23,368
22,523
22,409
3.6%
-0.7%
-3.6%
-0.5%
-1.3%
Hyde
5,765
5,571
5,873
5,411
5,346
-3.4%
5.4%
-7.9%
-1.2%
-7.2%
New Hanover
71,742
82,996
103,471
120,284
132,506
15.7%
24.7%
16.2%
10.2%
84.7%
Onslow
82,706
103,126
112,784
149,838
156,920
24.7%
9.4%
32.9%
4.7%
89.7%
Pamlico
9,850
9,467
10,398
11,372
11,906
-4.2%
9.8%
9.4%
4.7%
20.9%
Pasquotank
25,630
26,824
28,462
31,298
33,117
4.7%
6.1%
10.0%
5.8%
29.2%
Pender
18,508
18,149
22,262
28,855
33,205
-1.9%
22.7%
29.6%
15.1 %
79.4%
Perquimans
9,178
8,351
9,486
10,447
10,748
-9.0%
13.6%
10.1 %
2.9%
17.1 %
Tyrrell
4,520
3,806
3,975
3,856
3,837
-15.8%
4.4%
-3.0%
-0.5%
-15.1 %
Washington
13,488
14,038
14,801
13,997
13,890
4.1 %
5.4%
-5.4%
-0.7%
0.3%
Total
470,075
509,406
595,899
710,903
766,745
8.4%
16.9%
19.3%
7.9%
63.1 %
North Carolina
4,556,155
5,084,411
5,880,095
6,628,637
7,098,336
11.6%
15.6%
12.7%
7.1%
55.8%
Source: State Data Center, N.C. Office of State Planning.
* 1995 population based on estimate.
1-5

The increased military and industrial presence in coastal North Carolina has also influenced
permanent population growth, peak population growth, and changes in population composition
in Beaufort and other coastal counties since 1960. The appeal of the region to industry and
the military -- availability of open space, low tax and wage structure, relatively few "urban"
problems -- also adds to its appeal to retirees and seasonal homeowners.
Table 2 provides a summary of the distribution of Beaufort County's population by municipality
from 1970 to 1995. During this period, the City of Washington's percentage of the county's
total population decreased from 24.9% in 1970 to 21.7% in 1995. However, the City of
Washington continues to be the county's largest municipality with a 1995 population of
9,421.
Fi
1
1-6 1

w M M mom M W= W M M IM IMM M M M M r
Table 2
Beaufort County
Summary of Year -Round Population Growth, 1970 to 1995
Municipality/Area
Year -Round Population
Percentage
Change
Overall
1970
1980
1990
1995
'70-'80
'80-'90
'90-'95
'70-'95
Aurora
620
698
654
640
12.6%
-6.3%
-2.1 %
3.2%
Bath
231
207
154
190
-10.4%
-25.6%
23.4%
-17.7%
Belhaven
2,259
2,430
2,269
2,212
7.6%
-6.6%
-2.5%
-2.1 %
Chocowinity
566
644
624
809
13.8%
-3.1 %
29.6%
42.9%
Pantego
218
185
171
170
-15.1 %
-7.6%
-0.6%
-22.0%
Washington
8,961
8,418
9,160
9,421
-6.1 %
8.8%
2.8%
5.1 %
Washington Park
517
514
486
482
-0.6%
-5.4%
-0.8%
-6.8%
Total Municipalities
13,372
13,096
13,518
13,924
-2.1 %
3.2%
3.0%
4.1 %
Total Unincorporated Areas
22,608
27,259
28,765
29,406
20.6%
5.5%
2.2%
30.1 %
Total County
35,980
40,355
42,283
43,330
12.2%
4.8%
2.5%
20.4%
Source: N.C. Office of State Planning; extrapolation of data for unincorporated areas by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
1-7

2. City of Washington Population Growth and Composition I
The City of Washington's population has increased steadily from 1970 to 1995. The North
Carolina Office of State Planning estimated the City of Washington's 1995 population to be
9,421. Thus, from 1970 to 1995, the City of Washington's population increased by 460, a
5.1 % increase. This increase is below that of 20.4% for Beaufort County from 1970 to
1995. However, the City of Washington's growth has been evenly disbursed during the
1970s and 1980s.
The City of Washington's population is predominantly white. In 1995, 5,012 or 53.2% of the
total population was white and 44.1 % was black. Only 0.7% of the City of Washington's
population was Asian or other. It should be noted that eastern North Carolina municipalities
and counties normally have larger black populations than the rest of North Carolina's
municipalities and counties.
Table 3
City of Washington and Beaufort County
Population Characteristics: Racial Composition 1995
American
Indian, Asian or
Eskimo, Pacific Other
White % Black % or Aleut % Islander % Race %
Beaufort County 29,638 68.4% 13,539 31.2% 30 0.07% 43 0.1 % 78 0.2%
Aurora 394 61.5% 246 38.4% 1 0.1 % 0 0
Bath 158 83.1 % 32 16.9% 0 0 0
Belhaven 821 37.1% 1,385 62.6% 4 0.2% 2 0.09% 0
Chocowinity 663 81.9% 146 .18.1 % 0 0 0
Pantego 153 90.0% 17 10.0% 0 0 0
Washington 5,059 53.7% 4,258 45.2% 0 47 0.5% 57 0.6%
Washington Park 387 80.2% 95 19.8% 0 0 0
Source: 1990 U.S. Census. 1995 estimates based on 1990 percentages.
Table 4 provides a summary of the City of Washington and Beaufort County population by age
group. Approximately 20% of the City of Washington's population is 65 years old or older.
A large percentage of the City of Washington's population (46%) falls within the 25 to 64 age
group.
I
1
a
�

1
it
F
Table 4
City of Washington and Beaufort County
Population Distribution by Age Group, 1990
Age Group
Total Population
Under 5 years
5 to 17 years
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 years and over
Mean Age
Citv of Washinaton*
9,160
100 %
662
7%
1,805
20%
633
7%
1,320
15%
1,121
12%
826
9%
918
10%
560
6%
421
5%
809
9%
38.7
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
* 1990 US Census population distribution does not total 9,160.
Beaufort Count
42,283
100%
2,755
7%
8,232
19%
3,469
8%
6,203
15%
6,314
15%
4,707
11 %
4,279
10%
2,105
5 %
1,632
4%
2,587
6%
37.3
The median age for the City of Washington was 38.7. Distribution of population by age group
was consistent with that for the county.
The City of Washington's 1990 population included 3,932 males, or 43% of the total
population. Female population totaled 5,143, or 57% of the total.
The City of Washington and Beaufort County 1990 educational attainment is provided in Table
5. Attainment levels are generally consistent for the City of Washington and Beaufort County.
In 1990, 18.3% of the City of Washington's population had attained but did not exceed a high
school degree. Only 6.7% of the City of Washington's total population had achieved a four
year college degree. However, 41.5% of the population had achieved a high school degree
or some higher level of education.
Table 5
City of Washington and Beaufort County
Educational Attainment, Persons 25 Years and Over, 1990
City of Washington
Beaufort
%
County
%
Less than 9th grade
1,147
12.5%
4,369
10.3%
9th-12th grade, no diploma
1,025
11.2%
5,116
12.1 %
High School Graduate
1,683
18.3%
9,322
22.0%
Some college, no degree
976
10.7%
4,359
10.3%
Associate Degree
286
3.1 %
1,642
3.9%
Bachelor's Degree
618
6.7%
2,144
5.0%
Graduate Degree
240
2.6%
875
2.0%
Source: Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A.
Ili

3. Housina Characteristics
In 1990, the City of Washington contained 3,873 dwelling units. Approximately eight percent
of the dwelling units were vacant. Table 6 provides a summary of the housing tenure.
Table 6
City of Washington
Housing Tenure
# of Units
Total Units 3,873
Occupied
3,579
Owner occupied
1,815
Renter occupied
1,764
Vacant
294
Condominium
0
For rent
0
For sale only
0
For seasonal, recreational,
or occasional use
0
All other vacants
0
Not a condominium
294
For rent
124
For sale only
53
For seasonal, recreational,
or occasional use
13
All other vacants
104
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
* Note: Percentages are rounded and are also not additive.
Percentage
of Total
100 %
92%
47%
46%
8%
0%
0%
0%
Only 53 of the total 294 vacant dwelling units were available for sale. In addition, only 13
of the vacant units were seasonal/recreational.
From 1990-96, the total number of single-family dwelling units increased by 262 dwelling
units within the City of Washington and its ETJ. Concurrently, there was an increase of 69
duplex and multi -family dwelling units within the City of Washington and its ETJ. The 1990-
1996 building permit data is summarized in Table 7.
1-10

Table 7
City of Washington / ETJ
1990-1996 Building Permits*
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total
Mobile Homes
29
30
SW/DW
Single -Family
37
52
Homes
Duplex
6
2
Multi -Family
7
4
Homes
Commercial/
19
16
Office
Church
0
0
School
0
0
Municipal
0
1
Group Home
0
0
Demolition
4
5
Totals
102
110
City of Washington
60
58
ETJ
42
52
Source: City of Washington.
*NOTE: Data compiled through 12/9/96.
37
35
29
14
35
209
38
45
33
49
47
301
0
0
0
0
0
8
2
0
2
5
41
61
12
8
16
12
30
113
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
6
6
3
3
12
39
95
95
85
88
165
740
40
42
48
55
93
396
55
53
37
33
72
344
The issuance of building permits was almost evenly divided between the City of Washington
and the ETJ, with 53% having been issued within the City of Washington.
The majority of the City of Washington's dwelling units included three or more rooms. Only
3% of 156 dwelling units included two rooms or less. Table 8 provides a summary of the City
of Washington's housing inventory by size. From 1990 to 1996, a significant portion, 28%,
of the City of Washington's new housing stock was mobile or manufactured homes.

Table 8
City of Washington
1990 Dwelling Unit Room Count
Number of Rooms
Number of Units
Percentage
1 room
36
1 %
2 rooms
120
3%
3 or 4 rooms
1,181
30%
5 or 6 rooms
1,705
44%
7 or 8 rooms
640
17%
9 or more rooms
191
5 %
Rooms per unit
5.3
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
The average persons per occupied unit was 2.3 with an average of 0.4 persons per room.
The City of Washington's housing inventory was beginning to show considerable age in 1990.
Approximately 50% or 1,940 dwelling units were 30 years old or older. Many of these older
units are located within the City of Washington's historic district and are considered an asset.
Over 21 % or 823 dwelling units were 50 years old or older. Generally, the City of
Washington's housing inventory tends to be older than that of the county.
Table 9
City of Washington and Beaufort County
1990 Dwelling Unit Age and Number of Units in Structure
1989
to
1985
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
1939
1990
to
to
to
to
to
to
or
(Mar)
1988
1984
1979
1969
1959
1949
earlier
Total
Beaufort
507
1,854
2,311
5,107
3,125
2,270
1,347
3,077
19,598
County
Aurora
3
5
10
84
75
27
38
68
310
Bath
4
8
0
6
14
22
30
65
149
Belhaven
9
66
103
218
163
55
127
239
980
Chocowinity
2
5
11
80
47
49
22
74
290
Pantego
0
3
2
22
13
15
0
27
82
Washington
63
213
446
646
565
679
438
823
3,873
Washington
Park
0
6
4
15
30
50
50
44
199
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
1-12

n
L
Although the City of Washington's housing inventory is increasing in age, there are only 123
substandard dwelling units which comprise 3.3% of the City of Washington's total housing
inventory. In addition, 3,762 dwelling units or 97.1 % of the City of Washington's total
dwelling units, have public sewer.
Table 10
City of Washington and Beaufort County
Housing Condition and Water/Sewer Services, 1990
County or Other Other
Substandard Municipal Water Public Septic Sewage
Housing Water Source Sewer Tank Disposal
Beaufort County 987 6,762 96 5,608 13,317 673
Aurora 7 307 0 288 20 2
Pantego 0 0 2 0 78 4
Washington Park 4 239 0 9 190 0
Washington 123 3,810 9 3,762 105 6
Belhaven 98 974 3 947 28 5
Bath 7 137 8 128 9 12
Chocowinity 10 271 0 17 271 2
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
By comparison, 5% of the county's housing is substandard and only 28.6% of the county's
1 dwelling units have public sewer.
The City of Washington has aggressively pursued state and federal funding assistance to
improve its housing inventory. Since 1990 four separate housing improvement programs
totaling $15,250,000 have been funded. These projects involved the rehabilitation of 105
dwelling units and ten demolitions. Two of the projects, the fiscal year 1996 and 1998
programs, were being implemented concurrent with the preparation of this plan.
4. Summary
The following provides a summary of significant demographic and housing findings:
-- During the past 35 years, the 20 CAMA counties have experienced a total population
increase of 63.1 %.
-- The City of Washington's population increased steadily from 1970 to 1995.
-- Fifty-three percent (53%) of the total population was white with 46% being black.
-13

Only 6.7% of the City of Washington's total population had achieved a four-year
college degree in 1990.
-- In 1990, only 8% of the City of Washington's dwelling units were vacant.
-- Since 1990 the total number of dwelling units has increased by 262.
-- In 1990, over 21 % of the City of Washington's dwelling units were over 50 years old.
-- Approximately 123 substandard dwelling units were located in the City of Washington
in 1990.
-- Almost all dwelling units located within the City of Washington in 1990 had public
sewer service.
C. ECONOMY
In 1990, the City of Washington and Beaufort County per capita incomes fell well below that
of the state as a whole. The North Carolina per capita income was $12,885. The per capita
incomes for the City of Washington and Beaufort County, respectively, were $10,118 and
$10,722. The City of Washington and Beaufort County per capita income data is detailed in
Table 11.
Table 11
City of Washington and Beaufort County
Per Capita Income, 1990
1989 Per Capita Income City of Washington Beaufort County
Per Capita Total Income $ 10,118 10,722
Per Capita Income by Race:
White $ 14,133 12,667
Black $ 5,408 6,495
American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut $ 7,548
Asian/Pacific Islander $ 12,089 10,932
Other race $ 4,704 3,886
Hispanic origin (any race) $ 7,276 8,304
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
The black per capita income for both the City of Washington and Beaufort County was
significantly below the state per capita income while the white population per capita income
was significantly above that of the state.
1-14

1
Household income provides an additional measure of wealth.
Table 12 provides a summary
of household income by income level and race.
The 1990 average household income for the
City of Washington was $25,252. For comparison the state's average household income was
$26,647 and Beaufort County's was $27,967.
The average household income for the white
population was over twice that of the black population.
Table 12
City of Washington
Household Income, 1990
Households (100% base)
3,528
By 1989 Income Level:
Less than $20,000
1,955
55%
$20,000 to $34,999
778
22%
$35,000 to $49,999
394
11 %
$50,000 to $74,999
249
7%
$75,000 to $99,999
78
2%
$100,000 to $149,999
42
1 %
$150,000 or more
32
1 %
Average household income $
25,252
By Race of Householder:
White $
Black $
33,005
14,816
American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut $
Asian/Pacific Islander $
22,500
Other Race $
15,000
Hispanic Origin (any race) $
17,111
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
'
Table 13 provides the City of Washington employment by industry for those persons 16 years
old or older. The leading employment industries are manufacturing (29%),
retail trade (22%),
and professional services (21 %).
Table 13
City of Washington
'
Employment by Industry, 1990
Industry City of Washington
Employed Persons 16+ years (% base) 3,704
By Industry:
'
Agriculture/forestry/fisheries 39
1 %
Mining 9
0%
Construction 247
7%
-15

Table 13 (continued)
Industry
Manufacturing, nondurables
Manufacturing, durable goods
Transportation
Communications and other public utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Business and Repair Services
Personal Services
Entertainment/Recreation Services
Professional and Rel. Services
Health Services
Education Services
Other prof. & rel. services
Public Administration
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Citv of Washington
578
16%
470
13%
84
2%
61
2%
129
3%
807
22%
138
4%
98
3%
100
3%
20
1 %
794
21 %
261
7%
320
9%
213
130
4%
The remaining industries range in employment from 0% to 7% of the City of Washington's
total employment population 16 years old or older.
Manufacturing ranks first as an employer. The City of Washington has a strong and diversified
base of industries. Table 14 provides a summary of the major industrial employers located
in the City of Washington and its ETJ in 1996.
Table 14
City of Washington/ETJ
Industries, 1996
Industry
Product
Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc.
Special and nuclear power valves
Bafer, Inc.
Plastic injection molding
Bonny Products, Inc.
Plastic kitchen utensils
Coastal Remanufacturing
Aluminum & metal truck body refurbishing
Coastal Water Systems, Inc.
Water treatment systems
Cox Direct, Inc.
Direct mail
Flanders Filters, Inc.
Air cleaning and purifying filters
Fountain Powerboat Industries
Sport boats
Hackney & Sons, Inc.
Delivery and emergency vehicles truck bodies
Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex
Electrical household small appliances"
l
1
NE.

J
'
Table 14
(continued)
Industry
Product
Mason Lumber Co.
Sawing and planing mill
National Spinning Co., Inc.
Yarn
Osprey Seafood Co.
Fresh crab meat
Pamlico Technical Molding, Inc.
Injection molded plastics
Ready Mixed Concrete Co.
Ready mixed concrete
Samson Apparel
Mens' and boys' shirts, nightwear, and swimwear
Smoke's Rubber Products, Inc.
Cover textile rolls
Stanadyne Automotive Corp.
Diesel engine fuel injection systems
Washington Garment Co., Inc.
Children's dresses
Washington News Publishing Co.
Newspaper publishing
Washington Packing Co.
Sausage and pork processing
Source: 1996 North Carolina Manufacturer's Directory.
--In the Spring of 1997, Hamilton Beach/Proctor
Silex moved the production of domestic mixers and
blenders from its City of Washington facility
to Mexico. The production of commercial mixers and
blenders has remained in the City of Washington. As a result, employment at the City of Washington
1
facility dropped from approximately 350/400
to 200.
The City of Washington's industrial base offers both skilled and unskilled employment
opportunities. At the end of the 1997 second quarter, the City of Washington's
unemployment rate was only 7.5%. Most of the City of Washington's industries are non-
polluting operations which have minimal adverse environmental impact.
Retail trade has been a strong contributor to the area's economy. In 1992, the City of
Washington retail trade totaled $181,582,000. This accounted for 67% of Beaufort County's
total retail sales of $269,758,000. Table 15 provides a summary of the City of Washington's
1992 retail trade activity. The leading retail sales category was food stores.
' Table 15
City of Washington
Retail Trade, 1992
Number of Sales Number of
Establishments ($1,000) Employees
SIC Retail Trade 156 $181,582 1,936
521,3 Building materials and supplies 5 () 100-249
53 General merchandise stores 9 $35,338 392
54 Food stores 14 $35,700 260
55 Automotive dealers 17 $29,281 94
554 Gasoline service stations 11 $11,497 45
56 Apparel and accessory stores 25 $6,243 99
57 Furniture and home furnishings 19 $7,146 91

L
Table 15 (continued)
Number of Sales Number of
Establishments ($1,000) Employees
591 Drug and proprietary stores 5 $7,567 67
59 Miscellaneous retail stores 27 (*) 100-249
Source: Economic Census, Retail Trade.
M Data not available.
The City of Washington has a high level of poverty. In 1990, 27.3% of the City of
Washington's population was below poverty level. For comparison, 13% of the state's total
population was at or below the poverty level and 19.5% of Beaufort County's population was
at or below poverty level. The 1970 North Carolina average weighted threshold for a family
of four was $12,675. This compares to the 1980 census average weighted poverty threshold
of $7,142 for a family of four. Table 16 provides an analysis of the distribution of poverty
within the City of Washington's population.
Table 16
City of Washington
Distribution of Poverty, 1990
Total Families (% base)
2,340
Below the poverty level:
Married couple family
260
11 %
With related children < 18
169
7%
Other family
389
17%
With related children <18
353
15%
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
,
The majority of the City of Washington's poverty level people
are non -white. Only 14.1 % of
the city's white population is at or below the poverty level.
The City of Washington has maintained a fiscally sound municipal government. Table 17
provides a summary of revenues and expenditures for selected years from 1980 through
1994. In each year, except 1994, revenues exceeded expenditures. In 1994, expenditures
only slightly exceeded revenues by $185. In 1994, debt service was only 5.3% of the City
of Washington's total expenditures.
I
I-18 '

Table 17
City of Washington
Revenues/Expenditures for Selected Years
1980
1985
1990
1994
'
Revenue by Source
Property Taxes
507,000
1,078,000
1,485,000
1,797,000
Local Option Sales Taxes
232,995
495,181
948,883
1,048,435
Other Taxes
115,133
111,849
205,568
249,245
Federal Intergovernmental
830,920
642,551
516,466
433,614
State Intergovernmental
668,551
890,587
1,204,172
1,074,607
Local Intergovernmental
0
68,605
337,028
1,943,955
Permits and Fees
10,175
30,273
55,627
44,136
Sales and Services
139,229
147,895
339,092
565,868
Utilities
Miscellaneous
11,593,778
446,749
15,159,686
448,856
21,293,636
1,050,767
25,504,465
854,594
Other Financing Sources
0
0
0
3,500,000
Total
14,545,000
19,074,000
27,436,000
37,016,000
Expenditure by Type
General Government
487,764
785,296
1,090,011
1,292,573
Public Safety
610,565
940,335
1,626,436
2,322,321
Transportation
443,394
198,135
515,291
710,738
Environmental Protection
523,447
436,557
692,100
790,245
Economic and Physical Development
688,495
396,751
210,153
581,719
Human Services
0
0
8,892
0
Culture and Recreation
399,936
394,630
613,659
1,653,452
Utilities
10,647,513
13,406,274
18,977,719
27,599,220
Debt Service
140,170
1,203,227
1,335,280
1,977,934
'
Nondepartmental
0
0
36,023
0
Other
0
101,814
81,300
273,006
Intergovernmental: Social Svcs.
0
0
0
0
Public Schools
0
0
0
0
Community Colleges
0
0
0
0
Total (000s)
14,233,000
17,863,000
25,187,000
37,201,000
Expenditure by Object
Salaries and Wages
0
0
3,729,473
4,939,415
Other Operating Expenses
0
0
18,594,875
25,351,185
Non -School Capital Outlay
0
0
2,781,216
6,637,602
'
Public School Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
Public School Current Expenses
0
0
0
0
Other
0
0
81,300
273,006
Source: N.C. Division of Coastal Management.

Summary
The following provides a summary of the most significant economic factors influencing the
City of Washington:
-- In 1990, the City of Washington per capita and household incomes fell well below
those of the state as a whole.
-- The City of Washington's leading employers are manufacturing, retail trade, and
professional services.
-- The City of Washington accounts for 67% of Beaufort County's total retail sales.
-- The City of Washington has a high level of poverty with 27.3% of its total population
at or below the poverty level.
-- The City of Washington's poverty level households and individuals are predominantly
black.
-- The City of Washington maintains a fiscally sound municipal government.
D. EXISTING LAND USE
1. Introduction
Since 1990 there have been very few changes in existing land use. The City of Washington
continues to be a fairly compact urban area with development extending east -west along U.S.
264 north of the Tar/Pamlico Rivers. Some development has occurred to the north of the City
of Washington between U.S. 17 and U.S. 264. The area south of the City of Washington
along the southern shoreline of the Tar/Pamlico Rivers continues to be a predominantly
undeveloped area of wetlands. Major projects which have been developed since 1990 include
the following:
Comfort Inn
Captain D's
Holiday Inn Express
Advance Auto
The Willows Townhouses
The Courtyards Apartments
I. H. Apartments
Auto Zone
State Employees Credit Union
Hardee's
Heilig Meyers
Washington Square Mall Renovations
The existing land use is depicted on Map 1.
U.S. 17 North
U.S. 17 North
U.S. 17 North
U.S. 17 North
Third and Hackney Streets
Third and Hackney Streets
Second and Hackney Streets
Fifteenth Street
Fifteenth Street
Fifteenth Street
West Fifth Street
Fifteenth Street
1
u
1-20

The preparation of this map was financed in
part through a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
itxough 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.
030y0103090050
.,ra,Irere Creek
LEGEND � j
�x p V 11
RESIDENTIAL y N
jM PARKING >`
INDUSTRIAL �w~�
® COMMERCIAL
`k
PARKS 1500 0 1500 3IXO 4500
FEET/INCH
vrllTlT.l PRIVATE INSTITUTION
®1�/� ICII!PUBLIC INSTITUTION
VACANT
��• WATERSHED BOUNDARIES
EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION
03020104010020
Hills Creek, Pamlico River
1 , 1
1 � 03020103090040
;I I Big SwamP
I

2. Residential
' The City of Washington's residential areas are concentrated west and east of the City of
Washington's Central Business District along portions of Third, Second, and Main Street.
Much of the residential area east of the Central Business District is located within the City of
Washington Historic District. Additional residential areas are located north of Fifth Street and
east of the airport and Market Street Extension.
Residential building permits were, in most years (1990-1995), evenly divided between mobile
homes and single-family site built residential dwelling units. Multi -family dwelling unit
construction was not significant. Most of the City of Washington's residential development
both within the corporate limits and in the ETJ has been on individual traditionally subdivided
parcels ranging from 7,000 to 15,000 square feet.
' The City of Washington's substandard housing is concentrated in two areas. The first is
generally located between Fifth Street and Third Street from Pierce Street east of Charlotte
Street. The second area is located in the northeast corner of the City of Washington and is
' generally bounded by John Small Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, Havens Street, and Fourth
Street. These areas are delineated on Map 2. The City of Washington has continued to focus
code enforcement and housing rehabilitation efforts in these areas. The city's application for
an FY97-98 CDBG grant was funded in January, 1998. Both the fiscal year 1996 and 1998
target areas are delineated on Map 3.
Since 1990 four major subdivisions have been approved. Two were approved in 1991. The
Hillandale Subdivision located west of Tranter's Creek Drive was approved with approximately
35 lots. In addition, the last section of the Smallwood Subdivision east of Market Street
Extension was approved with approximately 55 lots. In 1997, the Iron Creek subdivision with
' 107 lots and the Bay Lake subdivision with 103 lots were approved. The majority of the land
within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction is zoned for residential usage.
1 3. Commercial
Commercial land use is concentrated in the City of Washington's waterfront Central Business
District, along U.S. 17 North and U.S. 264 both west and east of the City of Washington.
The City of Washington has devoted much attention to the renovation/preservation of its
Central Business District. This effort has resulted in improvements to a majority of the area's
buildings and the attraction of many new businesses to the Central Business District. The City
of Washington maintains a river walk area and open space areas along Stewart Parkway on
the waterfront. In addition, a bulkhead and walkway have been constructed along the
I
shoreline.
The areas along U.S. 264 west and east and U.S. 17 north have been developed with
shopping centers and some strip commercialization. Much of this development occurred
between 1985 and 1995. These outlying areas provide commercial diversity but also tend
to detract from redevelopment of the City of Washington's Central Business District.
I-22

111
��oaaQ�0000 ��
1090
© E 3. L., t . -_- .1-1 1 ML '
• y
DEED 1101:150
( (A
I
CORPORATE
PAMLICO RNER
MAP 2
CITY OF WASHINGTON
CONCENTRATIONS OF SUBSTANDARD. HOUSING
CONCENTRATIONS OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
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.
1500 0 1500 4500
-23
FEET/INCH
. Xx

V �
MAP 3
JLUJ�--' CITY OF WASHINGTON
FY96 AND FY97-98 TARGET AREAS
LEGEND
D��' FY96 TARGET AREAS
E:-
E:11:3=� FY97-98 TARGET AREAS
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. -
PAMUCO RNEft -ka
too o i�oo 3000 4500 1_24
i. w... q
FEET/INCH

1
4. Industrial
The City of Washington's industrial development is concentrated in six areas located within
the City of Washington and its ETJ. The largest industrial areas are located north and south
of U.S. 264 west of the City of Washington and east of U.S. 17 North. As discussed in the
economic section, most of the City of Washington's industries both within the corporate limits
and the ETJ are light industrial uses which have minimal adverse environmental impact on the
environment. Demands for sewage treatment are primarily for domestic sewage. Most
industrial land uses have not produced any significant conflicts with adjacent land uses.
However, National Spinning on Plymouth Street and Fountain Powerboat Industries on
Whichard's Beach Road south of the Pamlico River have experienced some problems with
conflicts. Fountain Powerboats is adjacent to some residential areas. The City of Washington
has received some complaints from residents of those areas. However, Fountain Powerboats
is zoned for industrial usage. In past years, National Spinning has experienced some waste
treatment problems. However, that has been eliminated by the City of Washington providing
waste treatment since the plant was annexed in 1994. The industry has approximately 1,200
employees and does impact the local transportation system. Both the local and regional
highway systems have provided good access for industries located within the City of
Washington and its ETJ.
5. Office and Institutional
Office and Institutional land uses are concentrated in four primary areas. These include:
' -- The U.S. 264/Whispering Pines Road intersection.
-- West 15th Street in the vicinity of Pierce Street.
-- East 12th Street and Highland Drive in the vicinity of Beaufort County Hospital.
-- Washington High School.
In addition, some office and institutional uses are scattered throughout the Central Business
District. Since 1990, there have not been any significant changes in office and institutional
land use.
6. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
The City of Washington's parks and recreational facilities are delineated on the Existing Land
Use Map, Map 2. These facilities and their current usages are summarized in Table 18.
The City of Washington's planning jurisdiction also includes significant passive open space
area. Extensive 404 wetland areas are located south of the City of Washington along the
southern shoreline of the Tar/Pamlico River. Much of this area is zoned RA-20. However, the
Federal 404 Wetland Permitting Program may limit development in these areas. The City of
Washington has acquired 200 acres of the wetlands immediately west of U.S. 17. An
expressed goal of the City of Washington is the preservation of these wetland areas. They
provide a natural aesthetic setting for the City of Washington's Central Business District
shoreline.
1-25

Table 18
City of Washington
Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory
Soft- Base-
Foot-
Play
Basket -ball Picnic
Tennis
CITY OWNED Acres Gym ball ball Soccer
ball
Area
Building
Goals Tables
Courts
Comment
Airport Property 4.0
Undeveloped
Armory 0.5
Maintenance
Beebe Park 3.0
Undeveloped
Bridge Street 2.0 1
1
1
2
Recreation Center
Bug House Park 1.5
1
4
4 L
Shelter
Castle Island* 1.5
Undeveloped
Civic Center 2.0
Special Use
Farmers' Market
Special Use
Fragrance Garden 0.5
Garden
Havens Garden 6.5
1
12
2 Boat Ramps, 3
Shelters, Pier
Kugler Field 4.0 1 LC
1 CL
Concessions
Oakdale Park 1.0
1
2
Wildlife Ramp 1.75
2 Boat Ramps
Stewart Parkway 10.0
Special Use
Todd Maxwell 3.5 2 LL (L)
Concessions
Veteran's Park 2.5
Undeveloped
Third Street Building 1.5
1
Third and Pierce 0.25
1
Seventh Street Park 8.0 1
1 L
1
1
3
Recreation Center,
Fitness Trail
SCHOOL PROPERTY
Eastern Elementary 15.0 1 L+ 2
1 C
John Cotten Tayloe 12.0 2 L
1
Track
P.S. Jones Middle School 4.0 1 L
Band Field 1.0
1 L
Undeveloped
Washington High School N/A
6L
Ninth Street Field 2.5 1 L
*Based on the City of Washington tax records this site is city -owned.
LL = Little League; L = Lights; C = Combination
Source: City of Washington Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
1-26

1
I
7. Transportation
Other than street, highway, and railroad right-of-way, the largest transportation land use is the
Warren Field Airport which is located north of the City of Washington and west of the Market
Street Extension. The airport includes approximately 450 acres. The facility is a modern,
nonprecision instrument approach airport with a 5,000 foot runway. This provides the
capability to serve most business/corporate aircraft. There are 47 aircraft based at the airport
and approximately 28,050 operations are conducted per year (each take -off and landing
constitutes a separate operation). Diagram 1 provides a general layout of the airport.
Diagram 1
City of Washington
General Airport Layout
+W Tree
fA
4
9 <O
O
+6U Trees
Cn
i?
B' Qitch
c
A
`J
o
+qQ,0
uel
Tree
�
+
Trees �v
`T-Hangers
� rf
�S
��N4at*q/
Source: North Carolina Air Transportation System Plan.
The airport and the surrounding area have been zoned Airport District in order to protect the
approach to runway 5-23, the primary runway.
1-27

8. Annexations I
Since 1989, a total of 23 annexations have occurred. All except one were voluntary '
annexations. Only two, the Harry Meredith annexation and the Macswoods, Slatestone Hills,
and Runyon Hills annexation, included dwelling units and population. The Harry Meredith
annexation included 52 dwelling units and 83 people. The Macswoods, Slatestone Hills, 'and '
Runyon Hills annexation included 154 dwelling units and 590 people. Thus, 673 people were
annexed between 1990 and 1997. Table 19 provides a summary of the annexation actions.
The annexed areas are delineated on Map 4. 1
1
I-28

r r r �r Ir r �r irr r r rr it r rr r r r rr r
Table 19
City of Washington
Annexed Areas, 1989-97
Ordinance &
Date of
Acres
Population
No. of
Name
Reference Number
Annexation
Annexed
Annexed
Houses
Washington West Ltd. Partnership
Adopted 12/12/88
Ordinance 88-A-6
03-31-89
2.063
0
0
W & L Properties
Adopted 1 /9/89
Ordinance 88-A-7
04-30-89
6.0
0
0
Lowes Investment Corp.
Adopted 10/9/89
Ordinance 89-A-1
12-31-89
11.34
0
0
Cherry Run Shopping Center
Adopted 2/12/89
Ordinance 89-A-2
04-03-90
5.04
0
0
Bonny Products (William H. Page)
Adopted 5/14/90
Ordinance 90-A-1
08-31-90
23.65
0
0
Heilig-Meyers
Adopted 5/11/92
Ordinance 92-A-1
08-31-92
2.5041
0
0
Harry Meredith
Adopted 6/8/92
Ordinance 92-A-2
09-30-92
22.00
83
52
Calvary Mobile Homes
Adopted 4/12/93
Ordinance 93-A-1
07-31-93
4.697
0
0
Flanders Filters
Adopted 5/10/93
Ordinance 93-A-2
08-31-93
60.18
0
0
Beaufort Co. Board of Education
Adopted 8/9/93
Ordinance 93-A-3
11-30-93
9.958
0
0
Fowle Dr. & West 10th Street
Adopted 4/12/94
Ordinance 94-A-1
06-30-94
11.34
0
0
State Employees Credit Union
Adopted 6/3/94
Ordinance 94-A-2
09-30-94
2.52
0
0
Calvary Mobile Home Park
Adopted 11 /14/94
Ordinance 94-A-3
02-28-95
39.15
0
0
American Refuse System
Adopted 11 /14/94
Ordinance 94-A-4
02-28-95
12.25
0
0
Eagle Mobile Homes
Adopted 12/12/94
Ordinance 94-A-5
03-31-95
4.16
0
0
National Spinning Co., Inc.
Adopted 12/14/94
Ordinance 95-A-1
02-01-95
42.45
0
0
Walter and Belita Ingalls
Adopted 4/10/95
Ordinance 95-A-2
06-30-95
0.93
0
0
Macswoods, Slatestone Hills, &
Adopted 8/14/95
Ordinance 95-A-3
08-31-96
229.5
590
194
Runyon Hills
Lee Chevrolet
Adopted 6/10/96
Ordinance 96-A-1
09-30-96
5.47
0
0
Beaufort Co. Shrine Corp.
Adopted 6/10/96
Ordinance 96-A-2
09-30-96
0.92
0
0
Gregory Poole Equipment
Adopted 7/8/96
Ordinance 96-A-3
10-30-96
7.94
0
0
Taylor Oil
Adopted 9/9/96
Ordinance 96-A-4
12-31-96
1.57
0
0
Quality Oil Co., Limited Pat.
Adopted 7/14/97
Ordinance 97-A-1
07-31-97
5.77
0
0
Source: City of Washington.
1-29

y100i Ld
'A A0100'
ORO. 94 A-4
93 A-2 QRD. 96
tD. 92
`i
ORD. 96 A�1 . R
�•
I
J
I
F
0 O
,RO 9s.q'�RQ RO s4 q ORD. ✓
OR
q 4 D. as `
[HOF.
/
D aC1
1UN �O©
4� OR 5 A-i
=00011011-
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.
MAP 4
CITY OF WASHINGTON
ANNEXATIONS
1990-1996
t50o o rim 3= 45M
FEET/INCH 1-30

9. Basinwide Water Quality Management
' The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has initiated a basinwide approach to state water
quality management. The overall goal of basinwide management is to develop consistent and
effective long range water quality management strategies that protect the quality and intended
uses of North Carolina's surface waters while accommodating population increases and
economic growth.
The State of North Carolina has been divided into seventeen major river basins. For each river
basin, water quality problems are identified and appropriate management strategies developed.
The plan features basinwide permitting of pollution discharges, integration of existing point
and nonpoint source control programs, and preparation of a basinwide management plan
report.
The purpose of the basinwide management plan is to communicate to policy makers, the
regulated` community, and the general public, the state's rationale, approaches, and long-term
strategies for each basin. Preparation of a basinwide management plan is a five-year process.
In general, this process involves the following five major phases of development:
-- Collecting pertinent water quality and related information,
t == Analyzing the information and targeting problem areas,
Development management strategies,
-- Circulating a draft plan for public review and comment, and
' -- Finalizing the plan.
The City of Washington is located in the Tar -Pamlico Basin. The Tar -Pamlico Basinwide
Management Plan was completed in 1994.
The long-range basinwide management goal is to provide a means of addressing the complex
problem of planning for reasonable economic growth while protecting and/or restoring the
quality and intended uses of the Tar -Pamlico Basin's surface waters.
In striving towards the long-range goal stated above, the Division of Water Quality's highest
priority near -term goals will be the following:
-- Identify and restore the most seriously waters impaired in the basin;
-- Protect those waters known to be of the highest quality or supporting biological
communities of special importance;
' -- Manage problem pollutants, particularly nutrients, biological oxygen demand and
sediment and fecal coliform, in order to correct existing water quality problems and to
ensure protection of those waters currently supporting their uses.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has identified 27 watersheds within
the Tar -Pamlico Basin. Each watershed has been assigned a fourteen -digit code for the
purpose of identification. The City of Washington's planning jurisdiction includes portions of
nine watersheds. The following identifies the nine watersheds:
' I-31

Tranter's Creek, Tar River
Hills Creek, Pamlico River
Big Swamp
Herring Run
Broad Creek
03020103080020
03020103080030
03020103080050
03020104010020
03020103090040
03020104020010
03020104020020
03020104020040
The watershed boundaries are delineated on Map 5. 15A NCAC 7B.0206(3) requires a
summary of land uses by these 14-digit hydrologic units. Additional discussions of water
quality and land use may be found on pages 1-70 through 1-72.
10. Summary
The City of Washington has an effective planning program. There is a staff of seven full-time
employees in the combined Planning/Community Development/Inspections Departments. The
Planning Board has been very active and directly involved in the development of the City of
Washington's planning projects. The Planning Board has been instrumental in the preparation
of this land use plan and the definition of key land use issues which should be addressed in
the future planning and policy statements section of this plan. The following summarizes the
key land use issues which have been identified:
-- Protecting the aesthetic quality of the City of Washington.
-- Promoting Central Business District in -fill development.
-- Continued urban growth and the extension of services.
-- Continued protection of the historic district and all historic properties.
-- Ensuring the location of industries in appropriate locations.
-- Preserving the southern shore of the Tar/Pamlico River as a conservation area and for
recreational purposes.
-- Protecting Warren Field and the airport's approach zones.
-- Accommodating multiple compatible land uses along the river/shoreline to include:
pedestrians, powerboats, vehicles, bicycles, sail boats, paddle boats, etc.
-- Providing a plan to prioritize areas for annexation.
-- Developing a thoroughfare plan.
-- Preserving the Central Business District.
-- Preserving neighborhoods.
-- Continue developing tourism as a major business/industry.
11
u
�
E
1-32

03020103090040
Big Swamp
1
03020103 Creak •-
Trantsrs
IF
L i 63020104020020
Herring Run
Do
© ©C=
omo VA
N" 0®©ME©F©© © EH==
a�b00DODoaoo©EZI ©a©o
©aa❑© ICKIIJ
8 T
o',)
r.t' �a
Q +~
p F-ro coRvonnTE V �" `ti
G •O
p V 03020104010020 10
c Hllls Creek Pamlico River < 1 1Z
Apo&
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.
J
r�
.MAP 5
CITY OF WASHINGTON
WATERSHEDS
190D 0 1500 3= 4600
FEET/INCH
1-33

-- Continue implementing redevelopment/revitalization projects to eliminate substandard
housing.
-- Preserving land adjacent to the industrial park for continued industrial development.
Preserve quality of life in the City of Washington.
E. EXISTING PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND LAND USE CONTROLS
The City of Washington has a wide array of land use related plans and ordinances. Most of
the plans and ordinances apply within both the City of Washington's corporate limit area and
its extraterritorial jurisdiction. This section provides a summary of the related plans,
ordinances, and land use controls.
1 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. The
ordinance was originally adopted in 1955. The zoning ordinance was prepared with the
comprehensive plan for the City of Washington and its extraterritorial area. It was adopted
to promote the systematic development of land within the City of Washington and its
extraterritorial jurisdiction in an efficient and economic manner which will best promote the
health, safety, and general welfare of the people. The ordinance provides for sixteen separate
zoning districts which may be divided into residential, office and institutional, business,
industrial, and airport districts. In addition, the ordinance includes floodplain zoning and a
special historic district. The current ordinance was last revised in 1996.
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.
The purpose of this subdivision ordinance is to establish procedures and standards for the
development and division of land within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction 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 revised in 1996.
3. North Carolina State Buildinq Code
The City of Washington has adopted and enforces the North Carolina State Building Code.
The Codes Administrator 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. Floodplain regulations are included in the City of
Washington's zoning ordinance. Development proposals and subdivision plats are reviewed
to ensure consistency with the flood insurance program.
-34

5. Minimum Housing Code .!
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 160A-441, the City of Washington has adopted a minimum housing
code. The code regulates housing which 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. City of Washington Land Use Plan Update, 1990 '
The 1990 City of Washington land use plan was prepared to satisfy the requirements of 15A
NCAC 76 for the preparation of a CAMA land use plan. The plan was certified by the Coastal
Resources Commission on March 22, 1991. Policies which regulate development within
areas of environmental concern are included.
7. 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 41, 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.
8. Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Washington, NC, April 1992
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.
9. An Assessment of City Operations for the City of Washington, North Carolina,
February, 1988
This study was proposed by the League of Municipalities in 1987. Its purpose was to review
and analyze the existing operating methods and practices of the city and determine areas of
duplication of effort; recommend consolidation or decentralization of functions as appropriate;
develop areas to maximize use of the city's computer; and provide questions for improving
employee morale and productivity.
1-35

1 10. Water Master Plan City of Washington North Carolina, January, 1991
1 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 twenty years. The plan also
provided priorities for establishing a policy for providing water service.
11. Annexation Feasibility Study City of Washington, North Carolina, 1992
The purpose of this report was to investigate the characteristics of areas adjacent to the City
of Washington in order to determine if those areas met the legal requirements and suited the
urban purposes necessary for potential annexation. The area south of the river was not
considered because the City of Washington felt the cost of providing services would be
prohibitive. Areas in the northern sector of the jurisdiction were ultimately taken out of
1 consideration because of the sparse nature of development in that area. Only the areas which
posed prime opportunity for annexation were studied in detail.
1 12. Transportation Plan for Washington and Washington Park, 1979
This plan assesses the existing street system in 1979 and recommends improvements to
better facilitate the flow of traffic. However, this plan is almost twenty years old and severely
out of date. In December, 1996, the Washington City Council executed a contract with the
North Carolina Department of Transportation for the preparation of a new thoroughfare plan.
' The new thoroughfare plan had not yet been completed at the time this land use plan update
was prepared.
13. 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.
' -- To meet the established local waste reduction goals.
-- To decrease improper waste disposal.
-- To protect public health and the environment.
1-36

F. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1990 LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES i
In general, the 1990 City of Washington land use plan has effectively supported the 15A ,
NCAC 7B minimum use standards for areas of environmental concern. The City of
Washington planning staff performed a detailed review of each of the 1990 policies to
determine their effectiveness. Appendix II provides a summary of that assessment. Each
policy received a numerical rating of from one (lowest) to ten (highest). With the exception
of policies dealing with hurricane and flood evacuation needs and stormwater runoff, which
received ratings of five and six, respectively, all policies received a rating of seven or higher.
In the areas of hurricane and flood evacuation needs and stormwater runoff, the City of
Washington needs a municipal (non -county) disaster and evacuation plan and a local
stormwater control ordinance.
G. LAND AND WATER USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
Because of the City of Washington's planning efforts, land use compatibility problems have
been minimized. In addition, the rate of population growth has been low, which has resulted
in gradual expansion of the City of Washington's land uses. However, the City of Washington '
should be aware of both existing and potential land use compatibility problems. The following
summarizes the compatibility issues which exist within the City of Washington's planning
jurisdiction.
-- Strip commercialization has occurred along some of the City of Washington's major
thoroughfares, especially along U.S. 17 north and U.S. 264 both west and east of the
City of Washington.
-- Fountain Power Boats is located adjacent to a residential area.
-- 404 wetland areas and associated federal regulations present obstacles to
development.
-- The development of outlying commercial areas has detracted from the Central Business
District.
-- Development within the CAMA areas of environmental concern as defined by 15A
NCAC 7H must meet or exceed the minimum use standards.
-- Development may infringe on wetland areas located south of the river. The City of r
Washington has expressed its interest in maintaining this area as open space.
-- Development around the airport should be regulated to eliminate land uses which may '
conflict with continued airport operation.
-- Land uses which are detrimental to the preservation of the City of Washington's
historic district should be prohibited.
1-37

r_1
1. Unplanned Development
Since 1990, new development within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction has been
minimal. There have not been any problems created by unplanned development. In addition,
the City of Washington's zoning and subdivision regulations have served to curb any problems
which may have resulted from unplanned development.
The City of Washington's largest potential problem resulting from unplanned development may
be in the areas of transportation. Many of the City of Washington's transportation arteries
are heavily burdened with traffic. The City of Washington's Thoroughfare Plan was written
in 1979 and is out of date. However, the City of Washington has requested the North
Carolina Department of Transportation to prepare a plan. Completion of the plan is expected
in 1998. This document should enable the City of Washington to better coordinate
development of its transportation system with increases in both population and the various
categories of land use.
The City of Washington has undertaken annexation, as evidenced by the 22 annexations
which occurred from 1990 to 1996. However, all but two of these annexations were
voluntary. This has resulted in many satellite annexation areas and a haphazardly shaped City
of Washington boundary. However, the City of Washington has not had a comprehensive
annexation plan which prioritizes areas for annexation and which generally assesses the
service needs for areas which may be annexed. The preparation of such a plan would aid in
avoiding problems which may result from unplanned development.
2. Summary
This summary highlights the land use issues which confront the City of Washington. It is
emphasized that this is only a summary. The reader is cautioned that this plan must be read
in its entirety to fully appreciate the range and complexity of the issues confronting the City
of Washington.
The land use issues which should be addressed in the planning process include but are not
limited to the following:
-- Continue revitalization of the Central Business District.
-- Continue housing preservation and revitalization.
-- Adopt a local stormwater control ordinance.
-- Develop a local storm hazard mitigation and post -disaster reconstruction
plan.
-- Protect Warren Field.
-- Protect Areas of Environmental Concern.
1
1-38

-- Prohibit continued strip commercialization. i
-- Develop a comprehensive annexation plan.
-- Increase the inventory of affordable housing.
-- Preserve/protect residential neighborhoods.
-- Continue development of industries with minimal environmental impact.
-- Preserve the "404" wetland areas located south of the Tar/Pamlico
River.
-- Preserve the City of Washington's historic district.
H. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY I
1. Climate I
The City of Washington is generally hot and humid in the summer, but sea breezes frequently
cool the area. Winter is cool and occasionally has brief cold spells. Rain occurs throughout
the year and is fairly heavy. Snowfall is rare. In winter, the average temperature is 46
degrees F and the average daily minimum temperature is 35 degrees. In Beaufort County, the
lowest temperature on record, which occurred on January 13, 1981, is 6 degrees. In
summer, the average temperature is 77 degrees and the average daily maximum temperature
is 86 degrees. The county's highest recorded temperature, which occurred on July 22, 1952,
is 100 degrees.
The total annual precipitation is about 53 inches. Of this, 30 inches, or about 55%, usually
falls in April through September. In two years out of ten, the rainfall in April through ,
September is less than 25 inches. In Beaufort County, the heaviest one -day rainfall during the
period of record was 10.7 inches on September 5, 1979. Thunderstorms occur on about 43
days each year. The average seasonal snowfall is about two inches. The greatest snow
accumulation at any one time during the period of record (1948-present) was 16 inches
occurring March 3, 1980.
The average relative humidity in midafternoon is about 65%. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 80%. The sun shines 60% of the time possible in summer and
50% in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest,
13 miles per hour, in winter.
Severe local storms, including tornadoes, occasionally strike in or near the area. They are of
short duration. Damage from these storms varies and is spotty. Every few years, a hurricane
crosses the area.
2. Tor)ographv/Geology I
Beaufort County is in the lower coastal plain physiographic province of North Carolina. It is
divided by the Suffolk Scarp into two distinct sections. The Suffolk Scarp is an old beach
front passing north to south through the county at an elevation of about 25 feet above sea
1-39

1
level. The scarp is parallel with North Carolina Highways 32 and 306 and State Road 1334.
It is locally known as the "Minesott Ridge." To the east of the scarp is Pamlico Surface,
which is in the Tidewater Area major land resource area. To the west of the Scarp is the
Talbot Surface, which is in the Atlantic Coast Flatwoods major land resource area.
The surface of the land in the northern part of the county generally slopes in the same
direction as the course of the Pamlico River. The highest point in the county north of the river
is at an elevation of 61 feet above sea level. It is at Batts Crossroads, near the Martin County
line. From that point, the elevation drops eastward toward the Pungo River. The elevation
at the City of Washington is about ten feet. The elevation in the extreme eastern part of the
county, in the vicinity of Belhaven and Leechville, ranges from two to five feet above sea
level. Generally, the City of Washington planning jurisdiction is flat. There are no slopes in
excess of 12%.
3. Water Supply
Water is plentiful throughout Beaufort County. The City of Washington's water supply is
drawn from groundwater. The well field is capable of production of up to 4.5 mgd from eight
wells pumping on an alternating four well schedule. Well water is obtained in parts of
Beaufort County at a depth of 90 to 271 feet. A new water treatment plant began operation
in 1994.
t4. Flood Hazard Areas
I
1
Flood Insurance Rate Maps were prepared for the City of Washington in February, 1987, by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The 100-year flood serves as the base
flood for the purpose of floodplain management. The 100-year flood line represents the level
that water would reach or "rise to" during a flood that may be expected to occur on the
average of once during a 100-year period. Thus, there is a 1 % chance of a 100-year flood
occurring during any one year.
Map 6 provides the approximate boundaries of the City of Washington areas which would be
inundated by a 100-year flood and the floodway zone. These areas may also suffer some
hazards resulting from storm generated waves. Such wave action would normally be
associated with strong coastal storms. Because of the additional hazards associated with
wave action, the National Flood Insurance Program regulations require more demanding
construction procedures in those areas affected by wave action, including elevating structures
on piles or piers.
Encroachments on floodplains, such as artificial fills, reduce the flood -carrying capacity and
add to flood heights, thus increasing flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself.
One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain
development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the National Flood
Insurance Program, the concept of a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities
in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 100-year flood
is divided into a proposed floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of
a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment in order
that the 100-year flood be carried without substantial increases in flood heights.
X

In 1986, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared maps of coastal North Carolina which >�
delineated the flooding which may be expected to occur as a result of hurricanes. The maps
were prepared utilizing a computer base model named SLOSH, Sea Lake Overlaid Surge From '
Hurricanes. The model plots hurricane related flooding which may result from a number of
characteristics including wind speed, wind direction, time, tide, etc.
Map 7 indicates the areas of the City of Washington which may be affected by
hurricane -generated storm surge. The following defines the five storm surge categories:
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 1 1 1 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 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.
1-41

TA ENDS HERE
tn♦
r♦ ♦
v�
1
1
1
100-YEAR FOOD
BOUNDARY
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 Ahnospheric Administration.
M
BOUNpgRY DO0
l�
MAP 6
CITY OF WASHINGTON
FLOOD HAZARD MAP
150� 0 1500 3= 45M
FEET/INCH
1-42

== = 111110 = M M M= M W= W M M M = W=
MAP 7
CITY OF WASHINGTON
STORM SURGE INUNDATION AREAS
LEGEND
Category 1 - 2 Surge Area
Category 3 Additional Surge Area
Category 4 -5 Additional Surge Area
SCALE IN MILES
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.
1-43

1
n
11
�j
7
1
I
1
I
r]
A Category 3 storm would inundate over 50% of the City of Washington's planning
jurisdiction.
A long-range flooding problem could result from anticipated sea level rise. During the past
century, the sea has risen approximately one foot. Generally, experts expect the sea level rise
to accelerate during the next century and rise an additional four to seven feet. Such a rise in
sea level would have a significant impact on the City of Washington. Much of the City of
Washington's shoreline and wetland areas could be lost. This is a serious potential problem
which must be carefully monitored by the City of Washington and mitigative actions defined.
Although the City of Washington is not opposed to bulkheading for protection of its shoreline
areas from intruding water, negative impacts from sea level rise are not anticipated during the
planning period.
Based on on -site assessments by the city public works and planning departments performed
following the 1996 tropical storm cycle, the storm surge in downtown Washington following
Hurricane Fran was approximately 9 ft. (NGVD). Significant flood damage (up to 5 ft. of
standing water) was incurred by approximately 70 commercial structures along Water Street
(along the Pamlico River), an by approximately 125 primarily residential structures located
along Jack's Creek (a tributary of the Pamlico River which drains approximately 65% of the
city). Major portions or all of these two "primary" impact areas have historically been
inundated during the 5, 10, 25, and 50 year flood events described below.
Date
Event
Storm Surge
September 3, 1913
10 ft. flood elevation; major property damage
September 16, 1933
7.5 ft. flood elevation; major property damage
October 15, 1954
Hazel
7.0 ft. flood elevation; moderate property damage
August 2, 1955
Connie
6.4 ft. flood elevation; minor property damage
August 17, 1955
Diane
7.7 ft. flood elevation; major property damage
September 19, 1955
lone
7.8 ft. flood elevation; major property damage
September 11-12, 1960
Donna
6.5 ft. flood elevation; minor property damage
October, 1980
Diana
6.5 ft. flood elevation; minor property damage
July 12-13, 1996
Bertha
7.5 ft. flood elevation; moderate property damage
September 6, 1996
Fran
9.0 ft. flood elevation; major property damage
September 17, 1996
Josephine
flashing flooding; minor property damage
Source: City of Washington FY98 Hazard Mitigation Grant Application.
The estimated property damage from storms prior to Hazel is not available, although based
on the recorded flood elevations and newspaper accounts, the damage was certainly
significant. The property damage caused by the five hurricanes from 1954-1960 totaled $2.2
million. The most significant storm from 1960-1995 in terms of flood damage was Diana in
1980. The city has not yet assessed the overall damage from the three 1996 flood events.
However, based on a floodplain information report published by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in 1965, the overall damage in the city's entire 100-year floodplain due to a 100-
year storm (11 ft. storm surge) would by $5.5 million (in 1964 dollars). The 1996 dollar
amount (considering inflation and new development) would probably be in the $15 million
range (within city limits only).
1
1-44

Other than a slight increase in rainfall, the El Nino of 1997-1998 has not had a significant
impact on Washington.
5. Fragile Areas
Fragile areas are areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed by inappropriate,
unplanned, or poorly planned development. These areas include both Areas of Environmental
Concern (AECs) and Natural Resource Fragile Areas as shown on Map 8. There are many
conflicts in the coastal/shoreline areas of the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction
between development and AECs and fragile areas.
a. Coastal Wetlands
,
The coastal wetlands are generally delineated on Map 8, Areas of Environmental
Concern. Within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction coastal, wetlands are scattered
along the shoreline of the Tar/Pamlico River. However, it is emphasized that the specific
locations of coastal wetlands can be determined only through on -site investigation and
analysis. Coastal wetlands are defined as salt marshes regularly- or irregularly -flooded by
tides, including wind tides, but excluding hurricane or tropical storm tides. These areas
contain some, but not necessarily all, of the following marsh plant species: Cordgrass, Salt
Marsh, Black Needlerush, Glasswort, Salt Grass, Sea Lavender, Bulrush, Saw Grass, Cat -tail,
Salt Meadow Grass, and Salt Reed Grass (the scientific names for each of these plant species
is provided in 15A NCAC 7H). The coastal wetlands are vital to the complex food chain found
in estuaries. They provide marine nursery areas and are essential to a sound commercial
fishing industry. Coastal wetlands also serve as barriers against flood damage and control
erosion between the estuary and uplands.
b. 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; 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
1-45
r

i f!
/ 4
�
-" f
r i
,c
N I
lk
if
El
FF
l0_ l
ti.
M a
LEGEND PROBABLE 404
J 2.
See Note 3 CO LAND AREAS
See Note 3 COASTAL WETLANDS
See Note 1 ESTUARINE WATERS -
See Note 2 ESTUARINE SHORELINE
See Note 1 PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
NOTES
I. ALL WATERS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF
WASHINGTON ARE EITHER ESTUARINE WATERS OR PUBLIC -
TRUST AREAS AS DEFINED IN 15A NCAC 7H.0206 ESTUARINE
WATERS AND .0207 PUBLIC TRUST AREAS.
2. ALL AREAS LYING 0-75' LANDWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER
LEVEL OF ESTUARINE WATERS ARE CLASSIFIED AS ESTUARINE
SHORELINES. BECAUSE OF MAP SCALE, THESE AREAS CANNOT
BE ACCURATELY MAPPED. PRECISE LOCATIONS MUST BE
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD THROUGH CAMA REVIEW AND
PERMIT APPROVAL.
The preparation of #w III aFae kwiced m
3. COASTAL WETLAND AREAS EXIST IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. i� Ih Ugh a 0Cart ptoa[}ed try the North
BECAUSECarohm Coastal Management Program,
OF MAP SCALE, COASTAL WETLAND AREAS MUST BE through turd' provided by the Coastal Zone
DETERMINED THROUGH ON -SITE ANALYSIS. NATURAL HERITAGE PRIORITY AREA Maragemen( Act of 7972 as amended lvttlCh
4. CO A aC?rnWM Bred by the Office of Ocnn and
JURISDICTION DETERMINATIONS CAN ONLY BE MADE BY Coastal Resource Management. Netanai
SITE ANALYSIS. CORPS AL SIS.ENGINEERS PERSONNEL THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ON- �„�,�.� ANADROMOUS FISH SPAWNING AREA OCe� and Airrosphem Admwus"bon
$. THERE ARE 404 WETLAND AREAS LOCATED IN THE NATURAL —•-----• CITY LIMIT LINE
HERITAGE PRIORITY AREA EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION LINE
15M 0 t5M ?CLD 45M
FEE T /INCH
1�
MAP 8
CITY OF WASHINGTON
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
AND OTHER FRAGILE AREAS
m

f]
11
(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.
Within Washington's planning jurisdiction, public trust areas are the most widespread AEC.
Public trust areas must be determined through in -field analysis and definition.
C. Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shoreline
Estuarine waters are generally brackish waters found in coastal estuaries and bays.
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. 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.
Estuarine shorelines are those non -ocean shorelines which are especially vulnerable to
erosion, flooding, or other adverse effects of wind and water and are intimately connected to
the estuary. This area extends from the mean high water level or normal vva ei ievei aiong
the estuaries, sounds, bays, and brackish waters as set forth in an agreement adopted by the
Wildlife Resources Commission and the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources [described in Rule .0206(a) of this Section] for a distance of 75 feet landward. For
those estuarine shorelines immediately contiguous to waters classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters by the Environmental Management Commission, the estuarine shoreline AEC
shall extend to 575 feet landward from the mean high water level or normal water level,
unless the Coastal Resources Commission establishes the boundary at a greater or iesser
extent following required public hearing(s) within the affected county or counties.
All waters of the Tar/Pamlico River above the north/south railroad bridge at the City of
Washington are inland waters and all waters below the bridge are coastal waters. Inland
fishing waters are all inland waters except private ponds; and all water connecting with or
tributary to coastal sounds or the ocean extending inland from the dividing line between
coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters. Coastal fishing waters are the Atlantic
Ocean, the various coastal sounds, and estuarine waters up to the dividing line between
coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters.
d. Historic and Archaeological Sites
Within the City of Washington there are three sites which have been approved for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. These include:
1) Ada Mae Shad Boat
2) Bank of Washington
3) City of Washington Historic District
1-47

The Old Moss Planing Mill Property is a 20-acre tract located on the Pamlico River
shoreline adjacent to the east side of the North Carolina Estuarium. The property is in two
tracts - the Old Mill site and the site occupied by Moss Building Supply. The Old Mill site that
the city is purchasing is 13 acres. Although this site may be of local significance, it has not
been listed on the National Register.
Map 9 delineates the City of Washington's historic district. Archaeological sites may
also exist within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction.
The Division of Archives and History is particularly concerned with areas along and near ,
creeks, rivers, and streams where development has not occurred. Such areas may contain
undisturbed and significant archeological remains. The Division recommends review of all
plans for development in all undisturbed areas.
There are numerous historic and archaeological sites scattered throughout Beaufort
County. Appendix III provides a summary of these sites.
e. 404 Wetlands
404 wetlands are areas covered by water or that have water-logged 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 the growing season. Some wetlands, such as swamps, are ,
obvious. Others are sometimes difficult to identify because they may be dry during part of
the year. Wetlands include, but are not limited to, bottomlands, forests, swamps, pocosins,
pine savannahs, bogs, marshes, and wet meadows.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone interested in depositing
dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States," including wetlands, must apply for ,
and receive a permit for such activities.
Map 8 provides a general delineation of wetlands areas. 404 wetland areas are '
scattered throughout the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction. The map represents the
probable location of various types of wetlands and is intended only for general planning
guidance. A more detailed map provided by the Division of Coastal Management is on file,
and available for public review, at the City of Washington Planning Department. Specific
wetlands locations must be delineated in the field on a case -by -case basis by either the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Washington Office) or field representatives for the Division of 2
Coastal Management.
Wetlands are a significant natural resource because they provide recharge areas for ,
groundwater; serve as filter traps for sediment, pesticides and other pollutants; provide non-
structural flood control; buffer against shoreline erosion; serve as buffer zones between upland
activities and valuable aquatic systems; and provide habitats for numerous furbearing animals,
endangered species, and other wildlife.
I
1-48

00 L—JLr L-L4
00 El
Cn
.� r.. •.w. � � � ��wa• ,ate
I
I �jt
�,_ • ! �-` PAMLICO RfVER
LEGEND
HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY
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.
(nRPORATE
F
MAP 9
CITY OF WASHINGTON
HISTORIC DISTRICT
15M 0 1500 450C
FEET/INCH

If. Natural Resource Fragile Areas
Natural resource fragile areas are generally recognized to be of educational, scientific,
or cultural value because of the natural features of the particular site. Features in these areas
serve to distinguish them from the vast majority of the landscape.
These areas include complex natural areas, areas that sustain remnant species,
pocosins, wooded swamps, prime wildlife habitats, or registered natural landmarks. In the
' vicinity of the City of Washington, there are fragile natural areas located within the hardwood
swamps along the Tar/Pamlico River and its tributaries.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program of the Division of Parks and Recreation
works to identify and facilitate protection of the most ecologically significant natural areas
remaining in the state. Natural areas may be identified because they provide important habitat
for rare species or because they contain outstanding examples of the rich natural diversity of
this state.
Natural area inventories are often conducted county by county. Permission from
landowners is obtained before field work is undertaken. The information collected is important
for land use planning, especially planning for natural area conservation and greenways. High
quality natural areas are valuable resources that make North Carolina and its counties
attractive to live in and to visit. In addition to their educational and culturai uses, natural areas
are important reservoirs of native plants and animals and are key resources for recreation.
Among coastal counties, preliminary natural area inventories were completed for ten
counties during 1980-82. These inventories were conducted for Brunswick, Carteret, Craven,
Dare, Gates, Hyde, Pamlico, Pender, Tyrrell, and Washington counties under the Coastal
' Energy Impact Program of Coastal Management. More thorough inventories were conducted
for the northeastern coastal counties as part of the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study during
1989-1 993. In 1995, a much more in-depth survey was conducted for Brunswick County;
a similar inventory is currently underway for Onslow County. These inventories are funded
with grants from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund administered by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources' Natural Heritage Program and are used to match local
funding. The inventories generally take 18-24 months to complete and cost approximately
$30,000. CAMA planning grants may be considered for part of the local match.
I Within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction, portions of the hardwood
swamps located along the Tar River were identified as a priority natural area. This area is
delineated on Map 8.
g. Sound and Estuarine Islands
Within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction, there are several small estuarine
islands located along the Pamlico River. These islands are undeveloped and remain in a
relatively pristine state. Except for the possibility of public recreational development, the City
of Washington opposes the development of its estuarine islands. The city will revise its
zoning ordinance to regulate development of these islands.
1-50

6. Soils I
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 20 different soils types located within the City of
Washington's planning jurisdiction. These soil types are delineated on Map 10 and their
conditions for site development are provided in Table 20. Most of the soils within the City of
Washington's planning jurisdiction have severe limitations for septic tank usage. In addition,
the area includes extensive prime farmlands.
Prime farmland soils, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are soils that are best
suited to food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Such soils have properties that favor
the economic production of sustained high yields of crops. The soils need only to be treated
and managed by acceptable farming methods. The moisture supply must be adequate, and
the growing season must be sufficiently long. Prime farmland soils produce the highest yields
with minimal expenditure of energy and economic resources. Farming these soils normally
results in the least damage to the environment. Much of the prime farmland soils within the ,
City of Washington's planning jurisdiction have been converted to urban land uses. This
conversion is expected to continue during the planning period. The prime farmland soils are
delineated on Map 10.
Commercial forests cover approximately 60% of Beaufort County. Some of these forest areas
are located within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction. The predominant forest
types include: longleaf -slash pine, loblolly-short leaf pine, and oak -gum cypress.
The potential productivity of woodland depends on physiography, soil properties, climate, and
the effects of past management. Specific soil properties and site characteristics, including
soil depth, texture, structure, and depth to the water table, affect forest productivity primarily
by influencing available water capacity, aeration, and root development. The net effects of
the interaction of these soil properties and site characteristics determine the potential site '
productivity.
Table 20 lists an ordination symbol for each soil. The first part of the ordination symbol, a
number, indicates the potential productivity of a soil for the indicator species in cubic meters
per hectare per year. * The larger the number, the greater the potential productivity. Potential
productivity is based on the site index and the point where mean annual increment is the
greatest. The second part of the ordination symbol, a letter, indicates the major kind of soil
limitation affecting use and management. The letter R indicates a soil that has a significant
limitation because of the slope. The letter W indicates a soil in which excessive water, either
seasonal or year-round, causes a significant limitation. The letter C indicates a soil that has
a limitation because of the kind of amount of clay in the upper part of the profile. The letter
S indicates a dry, sandy soil. The letter A indicates a soil having no significant limitations that
affect forest use and management.
*Refer to the Beaufort County Soil Survey, Table 6, for determination of the indicator/recommended species.
1-51

"u• oc .�cn ����^ ����'�" Management ACt of 19/1, a6 amended, wtitch
StA• State fine -loamy, mixed is admuasterea by the 016ce of Ocean am
Tab Tarboro mixed Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceewac and Almosphenc AomuNsirati
To- Tomotley fine -loamy, mixed
Ur Urban land
I-52
15M O t5m JJoo 45CO
FEE T /INCJ,

r = = = = = = = = r M = IM = = M =
Table 20
City of Washington, North Carolina
Building Site Development Soil Features
Map Symbol and
Shallow
Dwellings
Dwellings with
Small
Local Roads
Lawns and
Septic Tank
Ordination
Soil Name
Excavations
Without
Basements
Commercial
and Streets
Landscaping
Absorption
Symbol
Basements
Buildings
Fields
AaA, AbA -
Severe:
Moderate:
Severe:
Moderate:
Moderate:
Moderate:
Severe:
9A
Altavista*
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness,
wetness
wetness
low strength
At - Augusta*
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Moderate:
Moderate:
Severe:
9A
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness,
wetness
wetness
low strength
BoB - Bonneau
Severe:
Slight
Moderate:
Slight
Slight
Moderate:
Severe:
8S
cutbanks cave
I
wetness
droughty
wetness
CnB - Conetoe
Severe:
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate:
Slight
9S
cutbanks cave
droughty
CrA, CrB, CsC2 -
Severe:
Moderate:
Severe:
Moderate:
Severe:
Slight
Severe:
9C
Craven*
wetness,
wetness,
wetness
wetness,
low strength
wetness,
cutbanks cave
shrink -swell
shrink -swell
peres slowly
Cu - Currituck
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
9W
cutbanks cave,
flooding,
flooding,
flooding,
ponding,
ponding,
flooding,
excess humus,
ponding, low
ponding
ponding, low
flooding
flooding,
ponding, poor
ponding
strength
strength
excess humus
filter
Do - Dorovan
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
5W
excess humus,
subsides,
subsides,
subsides,
subsides,
ponding,
subsides,
ponding
flooding,
flooding,
flooding,
ponding,
flooding,
flooding,
ponding
ponding
ponding
flooding
excess humus
pondin
Ds - Dragston*
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Moderate:
Moderate:
Severe:
8W
wetness,
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness,
wetness,
cutbanks cave
droughty
poor filter
GoA - Goldsboro*
Severe:
Moderate:
Severe:
Moderate:
Moderate:
Slight
Severe:
9A
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
La- Leaf
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
9W
wetness
wetness,
wetness,
wetness,
shrink -swell, low
wetness
wetness,
shrink -swell
shrink -swell
shrink -swell
strength,
peres slowly
wetness
1-53

Map Symbol and
Shallow
Dwellings
Dwellings with
Small
Local Roads
Lawns and
Septic Tank
Ordination
Soil Name
Excavations
Without
Basements
Commercial
and Streets
Landscaping
Absorption
Symbol
Basements
Buildings
Fields
Le - Lenoir
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Moderate:
Severe:
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
lot strength
wetness
wetness, peres
slowly
Ly- Lynchburg*
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
9W
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
Me - Muckalee
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe: flooding,
Severe:
cutbanks cave,
flooding,
flooding,
flooding,
wetness
flooding,
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
Pm - Pits
disturbed soils
Ra-Rains*
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
9W
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
Sb, Se - Seabrook
Severe:
Moderate:
Severe:
Moderate:
Moderate:
Severe:
Severe:
8S
cutbanks cave,
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
droughty
wetness,
wetness
peres slowly
StA - State*
Severe:
Slight
Moderate:
Slight
Moderate:
Slight
Moderate:
9A
cutbanks cave
wetness
low strength
wetness,
peres slowly
TaB - Tarboro
Severe:
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate:
Severe:
7S
cutbanks cave
droughty, too
poor filter
sandy
To - Tomotley*
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
Severe:
10W
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness
wetness,
peres slowly
Ur- Urban Land
disturbed soils
*Soils identified as prime farmland.
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service.
1 WE!

1 7. Areas of Resource Potential
' a. Agricultural and Forestlands
Prime farmland and commercial forestlands are discussed in the soils section, page 48.
b. Public Parks
There are no regionally significant public parks located within the City of Washington's
planning jurisdiction. While the City of Washington waterfront is technically not a park, it
does provide visual access to the Tar/Pamlico River. Haven's Garden Park is located in the
southeastern section of the City of Washington on the Pamlico River. This is a CAMA-funded
waterfront access site. The 5.97 acre facility is primarily an open space area. However, the
following facilities are provided: handicap access, restrooms, showers, 60 parking spaces,
gazebo, picnic tables, and a pier. This facility should be considered a regional access site.
The City of Washington's recreational facilities are discussed in detail on page 62, Recreation.
C. Marine Resources/Water Quality
Since the early 1950s, the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has
assigned primary water quality classifications to all waters of the State of North Carolina. The
schedule of classifications is provided by 15A NCAC 2B.0302-.0317. The classifications are
based upon the existing or contemplated best usage of the various streams and segments of
streams within a basin, as determined through studies, evaluations, and comments received
at public hearings. The state classifies the waters within the City of Washington's planning
jurisdiction as follows:
' Class SB: primary recreation and any other usage specified by the "SC"
classification;
I
Class SC: fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and other
uses requiring waters of lower quality.
Class B: primary recreation (swimming on an organized or frequent basis)
and all uses specified for Class C (and not water supply or other
food -related uses).
Class C: secondary recreation (including swimming on an unorganized or
infrequent basis); wildlife; fish and other aquatic life propagation
' and survival; agriculture and any other usage, except for primary
recreation, water supply or other food -related uses).
Most of the waters within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction are classified
C (Tar River) or SC (Pamlico River). The specific locations of the water classifications are
provided on Map 1 1 .
i
1-55

/ 1 97
C 1
Lai el
EM
014
LUJ
i
1
i
�1 o
4�❑❑©©�©©�❑❑❑ ❑❑❑
�\ _ _ 0❑0❑©❑❑E00❑❑❑ ; aao
1
SC
w L
_ C `IC _
SIC
....� W Se
At
#A
CoaPoaATE Sc
pY,\
F\ 0
�P?O, �2
LEGEND
SB CLASS SB WATER
Sc CLASS SC WATER
C CLASS C WATER
*. LOCATION OF WASTEWATER
DISCHARGE PLANT
NOTE: EXCEPT FOR THE UPPER PORTION OF RUNYON CREEK,
ALL WATERS WITHIN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON'S PLANNING
JURISDICTION ARE RATED AS PARTIALLY SUPPORTING (PS).
THE UPPER PORTION OF RUNYON CREEK IS CLASSIFIED AS
NONSUPPORTING WATER (NS). PARTIALLY SUPPORTING (PS)
AND NS WATERS ARE DEFINED ON PAGE 1-57.
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.
MAP 11
CITY OF WASHINGTON
WATER CLASSIFICATIONS
1500 O 1500 3000 4500
FEET/INCH
1-56

Surface waters (streams, lakes or estuaries) are related as either supporting (S),
support -threatened (ST), partially supporting (PS), or nonsupporting (NS). The terms refer to
whether the classified uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life protection, and
swimming) are being fully supported, partially supported, or are not supported. If the waters
were impacted to the point that even swimming were disallowed, the waters would be rated
as nonsupporting. Streams rated as either partially supporting or nonsupporting are considered
impaired. The support -threatened category for freshwater rivers and streams refers to those
waters classified as good -fair based on water quality data, in contrast to excellent or good
which are considered fully supporting. An overall fully supporting rating, however, does
include both fully supporting and support -threatened waters. Streams which had no data to
determine their use support are listed as nonevaluated (NE). Except for the upper portion of
Runyon Creek, all waters within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction are rated as
partially supporting. The upper portion of Runyon Creek is classified nonsupporting water.
In addition, the state has supplemental classifications to the primary classifications.
The supplemental classifications include: outstanding resource waters, trout waters, nutrient
sensitive waters, swamp waters, and future water supply. All waters within the City of
Washington's planning jurisdiction are classified as nutrient sensitive waters. These are
waters which need additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive
growth of microscopic and macroscopic vegetation. Within these waters, no increase of
nutrients over background levels shall be permitted. However, domestic and industrial
wastewater discharges are allowed.
The City of Washington's planning jurisdiction includes some important fish spawning
areas. Some of the waters are classified as anadromous fish spawning areas. These areas
are delineated on Map 8. An anadromous fish migrates upriver from the sea to breed in fresh
water.
d. Valuable Mineral Resources
' With the exception of some sand deposits, there are no deposits of sufficient size
located within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction to support commercial mining
operations.
e. Public Gamelands
There are no public gamelands located within the City of Washington's planning
jurisdiction. However, Hunters Point, a private firing range, is located on Highway 17.
' f. Private Wildlife Sanctuaries
There are no regionally or locally significant wildlife sanctuaries located in the City of
' Washington's planning jurisdiction.
g. Marinas and Mooring Fields
' Marinas are defined by the state as any publicly- or privately -owned dock, basin, or wet
boat storage facility constructed to accommodate more than 10 boats and providing any of
the following services: permanent or transient docking spaces, dry storage, fueling facilities,
' haulout facilities, and repair service. Excluded from this definition are boat ramp facilities
1-57

allowing access only, temporary docking, and none of the preceding services. However, it
should be noted that the City of Washington's zoning ordinance includes a more stringent
definition of marinas. Marinas are defined locally as any publicly- or privately -owned dock,
basin, or wet boat storage facility constructed to accommodate four boats and providing any
of the above listed services. The City of Washington allows the construction of marinas and
any associated drystack storage facilities that are in compliance with the city's zoning
ordinance.
A "freestanding mooring" is any means to attach a ship, boat, vessel, floating
structure, or other water craft to a stationary underwater device, mooring buoy, buoyed
anchor, or piling (as long as the piling is not associated with an existing or proposed pier,
dock, or boathouse). When more than one freestanding mooring is used in the same general
vicinity, it is commonly referred to as a mooring field. The City of Washington opposes the
establishment of mooring fields and will consider the adoption of a local ordinance to regulate
them.
h. Floating Homes
A floating home or structure is any structure, not a boat, supported by a means of
flotation, designed to be used without a permanent foundation, which is used or intended for
human habitation or commerce. A structure will be considered a floating structure when it
is inhabited or used for commercial purposes for more than thirty days in any one location.
A boat may be deemed a floating structure when its means of propulsion has been removed
or rendered inoperative and it contains at least 200 square feet of living space area.
There are currently no floating homes within Washington. The city discourages the
location of floating homes within its jurisdiction and shall consider adoption of a local
ordinance to regulate them.
i. Aquaculture
As defined under N.C. General Statute 106-758, aquaculture is the propagation and
rearing of aquatic species in controlled or selected environments, including, but not limited to,
ocean ranching. Aquaculture has not been a significant issue within Washington's planning
jurisdiction.
j. Channel Maintenance and Interstate Waterways
The Intracoastal Waterway traverses Beaufort County east of Washington along the
Pungo River, across the Pamlico River, and along Goose Creek. The waterway provides an
indispensable route for fishermen, commercial barge traffic, and recreational boat traffic, all
impacting the city's economic well-being. The waterway is maintained by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers. Recent years have seen a continuing increase in waterway traffic as tourism
activities have grown.
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.

F
n
I7
LJ
1
L 17
I. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: PUBLIC FACILITIES
1 . Water Supply
The water supply source for the City of Washington is a groundwater -based system. The well
field is capable of production of up to 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) from eight wells
pumping on an alternating 4 wells on/4 wells off schedule for 12 hours each schedule. The
wells produce groundwater from the Castle Hayne Aquifer System. The depths of wells and
potential yields of production wells are presented in Table 21.
Table 21
City of Washington
List of Groundwater Sources - New Well Field and Existing Well at Slatestone
Name or Number of Well
Slatestone Well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Well Depth
Feet
182
196
252
278
222
213
202
261
214
Well Yield or Max. Prod
(Pumping Capacity)
MGD
0.288
1.125
1.125
1.125
1.125
1.125
1.125
1.125
1.125
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina,
Facilities that limit total
daily output
Type
MGD
Well
0.288
1
4.50
1
4.50
1
4.50
I
4.50
1
4.50
1
4.50
1
4.50
1
4.50
Beaufort County lies entirely within the state's one and only Capacity Use Area No. 1.
Development of the new well field required extensive interaction with the Groundwater
Section of the Division of Environmental Management. The DEM requires a permit for
withdrawals in the Capacity Use Area of more than 100,000 gpd. Numerous reports were
prepared for the DEM which documented the affects 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 1997 was 2.006 mgd. The
maximum monthly average water use was 3.276 mgd in November, 1997, and the minimum
monthly average water use was 1.45 mgd in December, 1997. The maximum daily water use
was 3.276 mgd during November, 1997. The current capacity of the system is 4.5 mgd.
Thus, the utilization is well under capacity. Table 22 provides the average monthly water use
in mgd for 1997. Water use by type of user is provided in Table 23. Table 24 provides
information on the City of Washington's major water users.
1-59

Table 22
City of Washington
Average Monthly Water Use in MGD for 1997
January
1.926
July
February
1.905
August
March
1.846
September
April
1.936
October
May
2.012
November
June
2.169
December
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina.
Table 23
City of Washington
1996-97 Water Use by Type of User
Metered Connections
2.225
2.219
2.100
2.009
1.954
1.771
Nonmetered Connections
Type Number Water Use Number Estimated Use
(MGD) (MGD)
Residential 3,435 .524
Institutional/ Commercial 835 .643 .336*
Industrial 10 .243
Bulk Sales to Other 9 .454
Suppliers
Un-Accounted for Water
Total 4,289 1.864 .336
*Includes backwash, accelerator, blowdown, filter, softner, and hydrants.
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina.
Table 24
City of Washington
1998 System's Largest Water Users
Water User
Avg Use
Water User
Avg Use
(MGD)
(MGD)
Beaufort County Water District
0.414
Stanadyne
0.021
National Spinning Co.
0.146
Ridgewood Manor
0.021
Flanders Filters
0.052
Quail Ridge of Washington LLC
0.020
Beaufort County Hospital
0.033
Washington High School
0.019
Hamilton Beach
0.031
Washington Housing Authority -
0.013
W. 1 1 `h Street
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington,
North Carolina.

As Table 24 indicates, 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.
2. Sewer
The City of Washington has one wastewater treatment plant, which until 1994 discharged
into Kennedy Creek, a tributary of the Tar River (latitude 35' 33' 04", longitude 77' 03' 45").
The average annual daily discharge is 1.70 mgd which is 53% of the plants permitted
capacity of 3.2 mgd. Presently, discharge is to the Tar River immediately south of the old
Kennedy Creek discharge point.
' The City of Washington's plant operates under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit, NC0020648, which will expire in 2000. Map 12 provides the plant's
location. The 1997 monthly monitoring records are provided in Table 25.
Table 25
City of Washington
WWTP Monthly Monitoring Records,
1997
Flow (MGD)
pH
(su)
Month
Min/Avg/Max
Inf.
Min/Max
Eff.
Min/Max
January
1.7/1.9/2.4
7.0-7.3
7.2-7.8
'
February
1.7/2.0/2.7
7.0-8.8
7.3-8.0
March
1.6/2.0/2.7
7.0-7.5
7.3-8.3
April
1.5/1.7/2.2
7.0-7.3
7.3-7.9
May
1 .5/1.7/1.9
7.1-7.6
7.3-7.9
June
1.4/1.6/1.7
6.9-7.5
7.3-8.1
July
1.3/1.6/1.8
7.0-7.3
7.3-7.9
August
1.3/1.5/1.6
7.2-7.4
7.4-8.0
September
1.2/1.5/2.0
7.2-7.4
7.3-7.9
October
1.3/1.4/1.6
6.8-7.3
7.3-7.9
November
1.3/1.5/2.0
6.9-7.1
7.2-7.7
December
1.3/1.6/1.9
6.8-7.2
7.2-7.9
TOTAL (Avg)
1 .4/1 .7/2.0
7.0-7.5
7.3-7.9
Source: City of Washington Wastewater Master Plan.
The City of Washington has entered into agreement with the Town of Chocowinity and the
Weyerhaeuser Corporation to provide a combined 145,000 gallons per day (gpd) of its
treatment capacity which is only 4.5% of total capacity. Weyerhaeuser plans to develop
Cypress Landing which will consist of approximately 800 residential lots, golf course, and club
-61

house and the Town of Chocowinity needs the capacity to provide for existing and anticipated
development.
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 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
(see page IV-7).
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 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 near Market Street Extension north of the City of Washington.
The City of Washington's sanitation division is in the Public Works Department. The I
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 26.
Table 26
City of Washington
Schools
School
Grades
Teachers
Enrollment
Sg. Ft.
Capacity
Eastern Elementary
K - 1
48
604
58,313
At capacity
J.C. Tayloe Elementary
2 & 3
41
611
51,373
Beyond capacity
J. Small Elementary [1 ]
4 & 5
40
578
68,796
At capacity
P.S. Jones Middle School [21
6-8
65
906
122,019
Well beyond capacity
Washington High School
9 - 12
82
1 ,1 12
171,549
At capacity
Total
276
3,811
472,050
All schools at capacity
or beyond
[11 Previously P.S. Jones Junior High School; [21 Previously old Washington High School.
Source: Beaufort County Schools Administration.
1-62

Facility improvements which have been accomplished since 1990 include: addition of mobile
units, addition of port -a -potties at athletic fields, installation of air conditioning, computer
labs, a stadium complex, new activity bus, and maintenance vehicles. In addition, the
Beaufort County and City of Washington School Offices have been relocated to Smaw Road.
Total enrollment has decreased from 3,997 in 1989-1990 to 3,811 in 1996-1997. This is
a decrease of 4.9%. 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).
' 5. Transportation
' The City of Washington's Thoroughfare Plan was written in 1979 and is out of date. In
December 1996, the Washington City Council executed a contract with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation for the preparation of a thoroughfare plan. The City Council
directed that the development of the thoroughfare plan be closely coordinated with the
development of this plan.
The North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is an overview of transportation
projects anticipated within the next five years. The following projects have been identified
by the Department of Transportation in the current TIP which will improve regional
accessibility to the City of Washington:
-- U.S. 17 Washington Bypass, four -lane divided freeway on new location, planning
stage.
' -- U.S. 17, NC 43 to Washington Bypass, Craven -Beaufort Counties, widen roadway to
a multi -lane facility, planning stage.
' -- U.S. 17, Washington Bypass to multi -lanes south of Williamston, Beaufort -Martin
Counties. Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility, planning stage.
Projects of local significance include:
-- S.R. 1501, S.R. 1306 (12th Street) to S.R. 1507, widen to five lanes with curb and
gutter, identified future need.
' -- S.R. 1306 (15th Street) at S.R. 1422 (Market Street). Construct left turn lanes on
S.R. 1306 at S.R. 1422 in both directions of travel and revise signal. Construction
FY2000.
' Map 12 provides some of the City of Washington's average daily traffic counts. The highest
traffic counts occur on U.S. 17 and U.S. 264.
1-63

1
I�, Op `
�1 \
I
1 Ul
/ .� o•
OD 40.
1 /
4
O
` N
:l
'' Soo
1
` IL
I
CEO
�o _�.���
�7; P41
IF
13,300Ll
o ICSC
— CJC N !C0015=L ACC - . Ej
IL
o ba
RATE y
op\
N�
MAP 12
CITY OF WASHINGTON
1
1995 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS
The preparation of this map eras financed in 1500 o I5M 3= 45M
part through a grant provided by the North FEET/INCH Carolina Coastal Management Program. 1-64
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 Admmistralion.

n
�I
�I
In addition to the highway improvements, significant improvements are scheduled for Warren
Field. An updated Airport Layout Plan Report was prepared in 1995. In that report a capital
improvement program was scheduled through 2000. These improvements are detailed in
Table 27.
Table 27
Warren Field Airport
Capital Improvement Program, 1996-2000
TIP
Estimated
Phase/Year
Protect Description
Funding
Quantity
Units
Cost
PHASE 1
1 996 - 2000
1996-1
Height/Land Use Study
95 TIP
$6,000
1996-2
Approach Survey R/W 17-35
95 TIP
$8,000
1997-1
Rehabilitate Access Road
95 TIP
3,200
SY
$30,000
1997-2
T-Hangar Taxiway Site Prep
95 TIP
9,500
CY
$44,000
1997-3
DME; R/W 5
1997-4
Drainage Improvements
1997-5
Property Acquisition for FAR Part 77; R/W 5
21
Acres
1998-1
Approach Survey
95 TIP
$8,000
1998-2
T-Hangar Taxiway/Access Road/Parking Paving
95 TIP
4,700
SY
$44,000
1998-3
Terminal Apron Expansion
95 TIP
5,000
SY
$100,000
1998-4
Automated Weather Station (AWOS-III)
1998-5
Rehabilitate/Strengthen Taxiways and Aprons
66,600
SY
1998-6
Property Acquisition for Approach Lighting, R/W 5
2
Acres
1999-1
Glide Scope/Outer Marker, R/W 5
95 TIP
$280,000
1999-2
T-Hangar Construction (two complexes - 10 bays)
2000-1
Approach Lighting System (MALSF); R/W 5
2000-2
High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL); R/W 5-23
2000-3
Rehabilitate R/W 17-35
42,000
SY
TOTAL
$432,000
Source: Warren Field Airport Layout Plan Report.
These 1996-2000 improvements constitute Phase I of a long range 20 year capital
improvement program. Ultimately it is proposed to extend runway 5-23 from 5,000 to 6,000
feet. This will require closure of Cowhead Springs Road.
6. Recreation
In 1992, the City of Washington prepared the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. That 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 for programs and facilities for both active and passive recreation. Based
on that plan's analysis, Table 28 provides a summary of the City of Washington's recreational
facilities. These facilities are delineated on Map 13, page 1-69.
1-65

Table 28
City of Washington
Recreational Facilities
Area
1 . City -Wide Areas
Todd Maxwell Complex
Kugler Field
Seventh Street Center
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*
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Ownership
(In Acres)
City
Schools
3.5
4.0
8.0
15.0
12.0
2.5
4.0
1.0
34.5
15.5
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
71.9
* *34.5
10.0
10.0

ITable 28 (continued)
Area
Ownership (In Acres)
Citv Schools
8. Principal Use Summary
'
Active Recreation
23.0 34.5
Passive Recreation/Open Space
13.9
Undeveloped
13.0 10.0
Special Use
12.0
Totals
61.9 44.5
* School owned lands are net acres available for recreation.
* * Excludes new high school lands.
Source: City of Washington Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
'
The City of Washington has identified the need to regulate
the use of off -road vehicles for
recreational purposes and will adopt an ordinance to do so during
the planning period.
7. Electric System
The City of Washington's electrical system receives power from Carolina Power and Light
(CP&L) 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 29 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 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 29 shows the primary and secondary
voltage rating and the existing transformer capacity at each substation.
1-67

Table 29
City of Washington
Transformer Capacity Versus Peak Load
Transformer Capacity Present System Peak Percent Loading
Substation
(OA/FA MVA)
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
1 1 .2/14
7.4
66.1 /52.9
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
0.75/1
0.44
58.7/44.0
Molding
TOTAL 15.45/21.7
8.15
53.1 /37.8
Source: City of Washington Electric Utilities, System Planning Report, Long Range Plan.
The main substation transformer T3 is currently loaded to 1 14.7% 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&L 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&L.
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 may have an impact on the supply of
electricity to the City of Washington. The electric power industry is the last public utility
sector in this country to undergo deregulation, also called restructuring, competition, and retail
wheeling. In 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.
Large industrial customers in the state and nation are pushing for electric deregulation to be
able to shop for electric suppliers. Electricity is a major expense for many industries.
In 1997, the fate of the electric power industry in North Carolina was placed in the hands of
the state General Assembly. The General Assembly formed a study commission made up of
' individuals that represent legislators, electric power companies, environmentalists, industries,
businesses, and residents in North Carolina. In late 1997, this 23-member group began
studying how to proceed with electric deregulation in North Carolina. The Commission will
' present an interim report for the Legislature in 1998 and a final report in 1999. At that time,
the State of North Carolina will take action on how all of North Carolina's electric customers
will be able to purchase electricity.
1-69

8. Police
The City of Washington Police Department includes 7 administrative personnel and 25
budgeted full-time neighborhood policing officers. There are also 2 drug enforcement officers.
This is the same number that was budgeted in 1990. In addition, there are 8 civilian/support
personnel. The department maintains 19 patrol cars and 1 van. 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/Emergency Services
The City of Washington has an I.S.O. 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 fire department personnel includes 22 full-time firefighters (18 are state -
certified firefighters, 5 are Level Two fire instructors, and 8 are Level Three fire inspectors).
The department has 6 Hazmat technicians and 17 certified as Hazmat Operations Level, with
6 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.
These employees are supplemented by 24 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.
The department received 510 fire calls, approximately 1,511 rescue calls in the city, and
1,088 rescue calls in the county last year.
Major equipment includes the following:
PUMPERS
Year Model Pump Capacity Tank Capacity
1988 Quality 1250 gpm 750 gallons
1978 Howe -Grumman 1000 gpm 500 gallons
1966 Howe -Grumman 1000 gpm 800 gallons
TANKERS - None
OTHER APPARATUS
Year Model Pump Capacity Tank Capacity
1979 85' Snorkel 1250 gpm 250 gallons
American La France
1996 E-1 Freightliner
1989 Ford - Rescue 2 #430
1983 Ford - Rescue 1 #431
1,500 gpm 1,000 gallons
1�
1-70

1977 Ford - Equipment
Truck
' 1992 Ford - Chief's Van
10. Administration
The City of Washington operates a manager -council form of government. There are twelve
departments which include: Office of City Manager, Public Affairs, Planning and
Development, Finance, Human Resources, Library, Police, Fire, Purchasing, Parks and
Recreation, Public Works, and Electric. Table 30 provides the 1998 staffing for those
' departments not previously discussed.
Table 30
City of Washington
Staffing, 1998
Budgeted
Current P-T Equiv.
Current
Department
Full -Time
Current
Vacant Part -Time To F-T
Temporary
Office of the City Manager
2.5
2.5
Public Affairs
1
1
Planning and Development
7
7
2
Finance:
Director's Office
1
1
Accounting
5
5
1
Collections & Credits
Information Systems
3
3
3
3
Human Resources
3
3
Library
4
4
10 3.93
1
Purchasing
4.5
4.5
Parks and Recreation:
Director's Office
2
2
8
9
Maintenance
6
5
1
2
Programs/Athletics
3
3
Civic Center
Public Works:
1
1
Director's Office
3
3
'
Streets
Sanitation
10
11
10
11
2
Drainage
5
5
Water Resources
16
16
Water and Sewer
10
10
General Services
12
11
1
1

Table 30 (continued)
L
Budgeted
Current
P-T Equiv. Current '
Department
Full -Time
Current
Vacant
Part -Time
To F-T Temporary
Electric:
Director's Office
2
3
0
T&D
21
21
0
0.75
Meter Services
5
5
0
0.5
0.4
Substation
3
3
Load Management
5
5
1
0.5
Customer Services
6
6
Source: City of Washington.
11. City of Washington/Community Facilities
The City of Washington owns extensive facilities. These are detailed in Appendix IV. The
1996/1997 total estimated value of these facilities was $27,129,694. The value of the
contents was estimated at $14,727,589. The major City of Washington/community facilities
are depicted on Map 13. The community facilities include the Beaufort County Hospital,
which is owned by Beaufort County. The staff includes 44 physicians and 460 support
personnel. The FY1996/1997 hospital budget was $40,095,300.
12. Streets
The City of Washington maintains 43.72 miles of paved streets and 3.85 miles of unpaved
streets. Annually, the City of Washington receives $296,257.57 in Powell Bill funds for street
maintenance.
I
1-72

LEGEND
1.
City Hall
2.
Fire Department
3.
County Manager's Office
4.
Police Department
5.
Beaufort County Courthouse
6.
P.S. Jones Middle School
7.
Post Office
8.
Health Department
9.
Eastern Elementary
10.
John Cotton
11.
Washington High School
12.
National Guard Armory
13.
Boat Launch
14.
Havens Gardens
15.
Bug House Park
M
16.
Kuger Field
17.
Band Field
18.
7th Street Center
19.
9th Street Field
20.
Veteran's Park
21.
Civic Center
22.
3rd & Pierce
23.
Bridge Street Field
24.
Bridge Street Center
25.
Bee -Bee Park
26.
Todd Maxwell Complex
27.
Wildlife Ramp
28.
Stewarts Parkway
29.
Castle Island
1\
I
19
�Rq
1C
10
i
MAP 13
CITY OF WASHINGTON
EXISTING COMMUNITY & RECREATION FACILITIES
The preparation of this map was financed in _�/'
Part through a grant provided by the North I O I �I
Carolina Coastal Management Program, F E E T i 1 N C N
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 1-73
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1 13. Watershed Management and Planning
The City of Washington's planning jurisdiction is located entirely within the Tar -Pamlico
watershed. The state's basinwide water quality management plan for the Tar -Pamlico
watershed was given final approval in December, 1994.
The plan provides water quality summaries for each subbasin. The City of Washington's
planning jurisdiction includes two subbasins: Tranter's Creek (entire Tranter's Creek
watershed to Tar River) and Pamlico River (from Highway 17 in Washington to Pamlico
Sound). The basinwide plan provides the following descriptions and overview of water
quality:
Tranter's Creek
Description: The entire Tranter's Creek catchment is a very small subbasin contained
completely within the coastal plain ecoregion. 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. There are no major metropolitan areas within this subbasin.
Overview of Water Quality: Very few biological investigations have been conducted
in this subbasin. Data has only been collected from the ambient location on Tranter's Creek
near the City of Washington from 1983 through 1989. Bioclassifications from this station
have been in the Fair to Poor range. However, the data is difficult to interpret because of the
possible influence of saline water. Several euryhaline benthic taxa are collected at this
location.
Pamlico River
Description: This area is primarily estuarine in nature, extending from tidal freshwater
areas around the City of Washington to the mouth of the Pamlico River. Tides in these
estuarine areas tend to be more wind dominated than lunar. 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 use is agriculture, with
an urban area around the City of Washington, and a phosphate mine near Aurora. Four major
discharges, the largest being the PCS Phosphate mine, are permitted to discharge into this
subbasin. The subbasin includes primary nursery areas and waters classified as SA.
Overview of Water Quality: Extensive phytoplankton sampling and other types of
water quality monitoring have been conducted in this subbasin. Where the Pamlico River
typically becomes brackish near the City of Washington, phytoplankton populations were
comprised of a diversity of algal classes. This station hosts both fresh and brackish water
species of algae since the fresh -brackish water interface migrates depending on flow and
winds. Downstream, phytoplankton communities at mainstem stations were comprised of
typical estuarine phytoplanktors including bacillariophytes, dinoflagellates, and cryptophytes.
Small filamentous cyanophytes and bacillariophytes were also common by density estimates.
Mainstem stations often exhibited bloom numbers of algae during the summer. In addition,
these stations exhibited winter blooms of cool weather dinoflagellates, Heterocapsa triguetra
and Prorocentrum minimum. These dinoflagellate blooms cause little concern during winter
months because sufficient oxygen is present in the water column even with high levels of
algal respiration. Concern has been expressed, though, that these blooms result in nutrient
enrichment in early summer due to recycling. Fish kills associated with the toxic dinoflagellate
have been documented in this subbasin.
' I-74

Benthos data have been collected from estuarine sites, but no water quality ratings are
associated with this data. Fisheries data from Horse Creek gave a Fair -Good NCIBI rating.
Fish tissue samples indicated elevated mercury levels (above FDA action level) in fish from the
Pungo River and Tranter's Creek. Lakes data note that Pungo Lake is a dystrophic lake that
is considered eutrophic due to high nutrients. A peak of total phosphorus values were
noticeable at the ambient water quality site on the Pamlico River near Gum Point. This station
is just downstream of the PCS Phosphate mining facility.
Management control strategies have been established which affect both subbasins for BOD
control and toxic substances and nutrient control strategies for the Pamlico River Basin. The
following summaries these strategies:
BOD Control Strategies ,
Tranter's Creek Subbasin: The Town of Robersonville discharges into Flat Swamp which
drains into Tranter's Creek. These streams are relatively flat and have low velocities
particularly in the lower portion of Flat Swamp and Tranter's Creek. A QUAL2E model was
calibrated for this section of stream which indicated that assimilative capacity is limited. Each
of the above dischargers was assigned advanced tertiary limits based on the modeling
analysis. In addition to the modeling results, substandard DO concentrations have been
observed at an ambient site in Tranter's Creek. Due to the limited assimilative capacity, no
new dischargers should be allowed into Flat Swamp and the upper portion of Tranter's Creek '
(to Turkey Swamp Creek). In addition, Robersonville should be required to do an engineering
alternatives analysis prior to any expansions. If an environmental assessment is needed for
an expansion of either of these facilities, the alternatives analysis may be incorporated into
the document.
Pamlico River Subbasin: Dissolved oxygen standard violations have occurred in Kennedy
Creek. The City of Washington discharges into the Tar River. No new discharges shall be
allowed to Kennedy Creek.
Nutrient Control Strategies
Pamlico River Subbasin: Kennedy Creek is tidally influenced and has little freshwater inflow.
Since there is little flushing in the creek and winds often push waters upstream, phytoplankton
populations proliferate. Algal blooms were reported in the creek in 1987, 1988, and 1991.
The City of Washington discharges into the Tar River.
In addition, there are basinwide nutrient concerns for the Tar River Basin. The Tar River Basin
has exceeded its assimilative capacity for nutrients. Due to its hydraulic conditions, the
estuary from the City of Washington downstream to the Pungo River is experiencing
degradation from excessive nutrient loadings. Algal blooms are common in the middle reaches
of the estuary, and winter blooms regularly occur. Lack of dissolved oxygen near the bottom
of the sound (hypoxia) has been responsible for the die -off of bottom dwelling (benthic)
organisms.
This condition occurs during periods of water layer stratification (no mixing of waters between
the top and bottom layers) and warm temperatures. To address this problem, and based on
the results of extensive computer modeling of nutrient loadings and their impacts on the
1-75

I
�l
C�
I
estuary, a 30% reduction in total nitrogen (TN) and existing total phosphorous (TP) loading
at the City of Washington is recommended for the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. These loadinq
targets correspond to 1,361,000 kq/yr of TN and 180,000 kq/yr of TP at City of Washington.
Control of nutrients is necessary to limit algal growth potential, to assure protection of the
instream chlorophyll a standard, and to avoid development of nuisance conditions in the
state's waterways including anoxic conditions in bottom waters, and fish kills. To meet this
goal, further reductions in both point and nonpoint source loadings of TP and TN will be
necessary. Point source controls typically involve NPDES permit limits on total phosphorus
(TP) and total nitrogen (TN). Nonpoint controls of nutrients generally include best
management practices (BMPs) to control nutrient loading from areas such as agricultural land,
forests, and urban centers.
The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) declared the Tar -Pamlico River basin as
nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) in September, 1989. The NSW policy stated that new
discharges greater than 0.05 MGD (50,000 gallons per day) and expanding dischargers to
flows greater than 0.5 MGD (500,000 gallons per day) would receive total phosphorus (TP)
limits of 2 mg/I. New discharges greater than 0.1 MGD and expanding discharges to flows
greater than 0.5 MGD would also receive a summer total nitrogen (TN) limit of 4 mg/I and a
winter TN limit of 8 mg/I. Nutrient budget work in the basin indicated that nonpoint sources
contributed the majority of the total nitrogen to the basin's waters and a considerable amount
of the total phosphorus, particularly when PCS Phosphates was eliminated from the analysis.
Toxic Substances Control Strategies
Pamlico River Subbasin: Benthic macroinvertebrate indicates that Kennedy Creek may have
been impacted by the City of Washington outfall and the old outfall location of National
Spinning. Elevated sediment concentrations of nickel, zinc, copper, cadmium, and lead have
been found here. National Spinning has relocated its discharge to the Tar mainstem, and the
City of Washington has renewed its discharge. No new outfalls will be allowed into Kennedy
Creek.
Fish tissue data from several water bodies in this subbasin have revealed elevated mercury
concentrations. At Lake Mattamuskeet, five samples out of fifty exceeded the FDA criteria
of 1.0 mg/kg, and five other fish samples contained mercury ranging from 0.71 mg/kg to 0.97
mg/kg. Two largemouth bass samples collected in 1992 on Tranter's Creek near the City of
Washington exceeded the FDA action level for mercury. One fish tissue sample collected in
1983 on the Pungo River near Pantego contained mercury in excess of the FDA criteria
although subsequent samples collected in 1985 yielded no metals above FDA criteria.
The source (or sources) of this mercury is unknown at this time. DEM's Environmental
Sciences Branch is conducting a major study throughout much of the state's coastal plain to
identify the extent of elevated mercury levels in fish tissues. Identification of the geographic
extent of this phenomenon will hopefully lead to source identification. The State Health
Director has issued fish consumption advisories for waters in the Lumber River basin.
It is intended that land use planning and development be closely coordinated with the
identified management strategies. The waters of the Tar -Pamlico watershed are an
environmental and economic asset which warrant protection and preservation.
U&

' SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A. PROJECTED DEMAND FOR DEVELOPMENT
1 . Demographic Trends
Table 31 provides the estimated population for the City of Washington through 2005. This
forecast is based on the 1997 population of 10,013 which includes population annexed in
1996. The City of Washington should contain approximately 23.2% of the county's total
population by 2005, a slight increase from 1997. The City of Washington will continue to be
the county's largest municipality, with Belhaven a distant second. Again, without annexation,
the City of Washington's growth rate should slow during the planning period. The overall
growth rate should be 4.3% for an average annual growth rate of 0.5%. There is no
significant seasonal population for the City of Washington.
Table 31
City of Washington and Beaufort County
Summary of Projected Year -Round Population Growth, 1995-2005
Municipality/Area Year -Round Population Percentage Change
Overall
1997 2000 2005* '97-'00
'00-'05
'97-'05
Aurora 640 626 618 -2.2%
-1.2%
-3.4%
Bath 190 227 246 19.4%
8.5%
29.5%
Belhaven 2,212 2,154 2,123 -2.6%
-1.4%
-4.0%
Chocowinity 809 998 1,097 23.4%
9.9%
35.6%
0
-
Pantego 170 169 168 0.6 /0
0
- 0.3 /o
0
-0.9 0
/
Washington **10,013 10,182 10,444 1.7%
2.6%
4.3%
Washington Park 482 478 476 -0.8%
-0.4%
-1.3%
Total Municipalities 14,516 14,834 15,172 2.2%
2.3%
4.5%
Total Unincorporated Areas 28,814 29,567 29,790 2.2%
1 .1 %
3.4%
Total County 43,330 44,401 44,962 2.2%
1.5%
3.8%
Sources: North Carolina Office of State Planning; extrapolation of data for municipalities
from 2000-
2005 by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
* Note: 1990 1995 ratios of municipal/county growth utilized to extrapolate
1995-2005
municipal
growth.
* # Note: While the Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex plant suffered a labor force reduction in 1997, overall
economic growth is expected to support the forecast population growth.
II-1

Most of the land within the existing corporate limits has been developed. Thus, the City of
Washington's population cannot appreciably increase without annexation. The extension of
utilities into the extraterritorial area will encourage and support annexation actions. Based on
a survey conducted by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., in December 1996, the population
within the City of Washington's extraterritorial jurisdiction was 4,573. This should increase
to approximately 4,730 by 2005. The City of Washington may undertake annexation and
provide infrastructure and services. '
Map 14 delineates potential annexation areas. Those areas include a total 1996 population
of approximately 450. This should increase to approximately 470 by 2005. Annexation of '
all of these areas by 2005 would result in an additional 4.9% increase in the City of
Washington's total population. The following section discusses the potential annexation of
these areas. '
2. Potential Annexations
In January, 1996, the City of Washington Planning Department prepared a preliminary
assessment of potential annexation areas for both short term and long range annexations.
This section includes that assessment. It is emphasized that these priorities may change
during the planning period. The priorities are based on a preliminary analysis where reasonably
feasible.
Short Term Annexation Priority Recommendations I
Priority Area 1: Honeypod Farm/Brick Kiln Road Area
This area is primarily low -density residential with some large vacant tracts. It is located ,
between the current City of Washington limits and the Macswoods/Runyon Hills/Slatestone
Hills area that was annexed by the City of Washington as of August 31, 1996. The area has
an estimated population of 50.
Pros: The area is served by the Long Acre Water District. The existing sewer
outfalls which will serve Runyon Hills subdivision can likely serve this area as
well. The area is adjacent to existing or proposed corporate limit areas, so little
or no service additions will be needed.
Cons: The area is sparsely populated. Large tracts of vacant land may need
to be cut out to meet the urban density requirements. Active opposition can
likely be expected.
Recommended Priority: High
LI
II-2

71
LEGEND
® SHORT-TERM PRIORITIES
LONG-RANGE PRIORITIES
TOWN OF WASHINGTON PARK
I
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 Manaqement, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
rZ
.wm7
w
;a
x
l�
1
MAP 14
CITY OF WASHINGTON
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS
II-3
1500 0 I500 00 45
FEET/INCH

Priority Area 2: Tar Heel Drive Area
This area is primarily low -density residential with some industrial uses. It is completely
surrounded by the City of Washington limits on three sides, and bordered by the Tar River to
the south. The area has an estimated population of 20.
Pros: The area is already served by City of Washington water. Existing sewer
outfalls, located on West Third Street, should be able to serve this area. The
area is adjacent to the existing corporate limits, so little or no additional service
additions will be needed. The entire area will meet statutory requirements for
urban development.
Cons: Some opposition can likely be expected.
Recommended Priority: High
' Priority Area 3: 15th Street Extension/Highway 17 North Area
This area is a mixture of commercial, agricultural and low -density residential with some large
vacant tracts. This area is located in an area with good commercial development potential.
It is located adjacent to the existing City of Washington limits on two sides, and would
encompass an existing satellite annexation area. The area has an estimated population of 50.
Pros: The area is nearly fully served by City of Washington water and sewer.
The area is adjacent to existing or proposed corporate limit areas, so little or no
additional service additions will be needed. This area contains Hamilton Beach,
which has a high tax value. Little opposition is anticipated from this area.
Cons: The area is sparsely populated. Large tracts of vacant land may need
to be cut out to meet the urban density requirements. Some minor water and
sewer extensions will likely be needed on 15th Street Extension. Some minor
sewer extensions will likely be needed north of Springs Road on Highway 17
North.
Recommended Priority: High
Priority Area 4: Highway 264 West/Clark's Neck Road Area
This area is primarily low -density residential (Arbor Bluff Subdivision) with some industrial,
commercial, and recreational uses. The area borders the existing City of Washington limits
on two sides and borders Tranter's Creek to the south. This area would fill in much of the
area between the existing primary corporate limits and satellite areas to the west. The area
has an estimated population of 100.
Pros: The existing water mains and sewer outfalls located on Highway 264
East and Clark's Neck Road can likely serve this area. The area is adjacent to
existing primary or satellite corporate limit areas, so little or no additional
service additions will be needed. The entire area should have no problem
meeting statutory requirements for urban development.
Cons: Active opposition may be possible from residents of Arbor Bluffs.
11-4

Recommended Priority: High I
Priority Area 5: Hodges Road Area I
This area is primarily low -density residential with some large vacant tracts. It is located
adjacent to the Macswoods/Runyon Hills/Slatestone Hills area annexed by the City of
Washington on August 31, 1996. The area has an estimated population of 12.
Pros: The area is served by the Long Acre Water District. The existing sewer
outfalls which will serve Runyon Hills subdivision can likely serve this area as
well. The area is adjacent to existing or proposed corporate limit areas, so little
or no service additions will be needed. The entire area should have no problem
meeting statutory requirements for urban development. ,
Cons: Since the area is not currently adjacent to the City of Washington limits,
no action may be taken until the Macswoods/Runyon Hills/Slatestone Hills '
annexation area comes into the City of Washington on August 31, 1996. Some
minor opposition may be possible from residents of this area.
Recommended Priority: Medium
Priority Area 6: Keysville Road Area
This area is primarily low -density residential with some industrial and agricultural uses. The
area borders the existing City of Washington limits along the extreme eastern portions of
Smallwood Subdivision. The area has an estimated population of 40.
Pros: Several residents of the area have expressed a desire to have City of
Washington water; this may serve to reduce opposition. The area is adjacent
to existing or proposed corporate limit area, so little or no additional service
additions will be needed. '
Cons: The area is sparsely populated. Large tracts of vacant land may need
to be cut out to meet the urban density requirements. Minor extensions of
water and sewer lines down Keysville Road will likely be needed.
Recommended Priority: Medium
Priority Area 7: Springs Road/Racetrack Road Area
This area is primarily agricultural and low -density residential with some large vacant tracts. '
The area borders the existing City of Washington limits along the extreme northern portions
of Smallwood Subdivision. The area is an area of possible future development and would
serve to connect existing satellite areas to the primary corporate limits. The area has an
estimated population of 10.
Pros: The existing water mains and sewer outfalls serving Springdale Village ,
Mobile Home Park can likely serve this area as well. The area is adjacent to
existing or proposed corporate limit areas, so little or no additional service
additions will be needed.
II-5

Cons: The area is sparsely populated. Large tracts of vacant land may need
to be cut out to meet the urban density requirements. Some minor opposition
could be possible.
Recommended Priority: Low
' Priority Area 8: Forest Hills/Highway 264 East Area
This area is primarily low -density residential. It is located adjacent to the Macswoods/Runyon
Hills/Slatestone Hills area annexed by the City of Washington on August 31, 1996. The area
has an estimated population of 100.
1
ri
k
Pros: The area is served by the Long Acre Water District. The area is adjacent
to existing or proposed corporate limit areas, so little or no service additions will
be needed. The entire area should have no problem meeting statutory
requirements for urban development.
Cons: Since the area is not currently adjacent to the City of Washington limits,
no action may be taken until the Macswoods/Runyon Hills/Slatestone Hills
annexation area comes into the City of Washington on August 31, 1996. Some
major opposition may be possible from residents of this area. Some sewer
extensions along Highway 264 East may likely be needed.
Recommended Priority: Low
Priority Area 9: Atwood Morrill/Old Bath Highway Area
This area is primarily low -density residential and agricultural with one large industrial use
(Atwood Morrill). It is located adjacent to the Macswoods/Runyon Hills/Slatestone Hills area
annexed by the City of Washington on August 31, 1996. The area has an estimated
population of 50.
Pros: The area is served by City of Washington water mains and sewer
outfalls, which serve Atwood Morrill. The area is adjacent to existing or
proposed corporate limit areas, so little or no service additions will be needed.
The entire area should have no problem meeting statutory requirements for
urban development. The area contains Atwood Morrill, which has a high tax
value.
Cons: Since the area is not currently adjacent to the City of Washington limits,
no action may be taken until the Macswoods/Runyon Hills/Slatestone Hills
annexation area comes into the City of Washington on August 31, 1996. Some
major opposition may be possible from residents of this area. Some sewer
extensions along Highway 264 East may likely be needed.
Recommended Priority: Medium

Possible Long Range Annexations:
Area
Estimated Population
Rosedale/Beaufort Heights
300
Tranter's Creek
250
Pamlico Village
200
North Shores
50
Magnolia Shores
50
River Road commercial areas
25
Sherwood Forest
150
Whootentown Road
100
3. Housing Trends
From 1990 to 1996, an annual average of 43 single-family residential building permits were
approved within the City of Washington and its ETJ. In addition, permits for nine multi -family
residential permits were approved within the City of Washington and ETJ. The increase in
mobile homes has been significant with an average annual increase of 30 within the City of
Washington's planning jurisdiction. Thus, the total average annual increase in residential units
has been 82 units. At an average density of one-fourth acre per dwelling unit, the annual
consumption of land has been 20.5 acres. At current growth rates, an additional 820
dwelling units may be expected over the next ten years. Based on the 1990 average
household size of 2.5, these additional units could house an additional 2,050 people. The
total population increase within the City of Washington and its ETJ should be approximately
550, which would generate a demand for approximately 220 additional dwelling units. Thus,
the 1990-1996 residential growth rate would yield an apparent surplus of 565 dwelling units.
The 220 additional dwelling units will consume approximately 55 acres of land. There is
sufficient vacant residentially -zoned land to accommodate this demand. In addition to new
construction, housing rehabilitation and the demolition of dilapidated structures will continue
to be a priority during the planning period.
4. Commercial and Industrial Land Use
No significant changes in commercial and industrial land use patterns are anticipated within
the planning period. From 1990 to 1996, the issuance of commercial/office building permits
was limited, averaging 16 permits per year. The commercial permit activity was equally
divided between the City of Washington and its ETJ area.
Emphasis should continue on the revitalization of City of Washington's central business
district. The City of Washington has experienced success within its downtown area,
especially from 1990 to 1996. In support of this revitalization effort, the natural areas on the
south side of the river should be protected.
Industrial development may be expected to occur primarily within the ETJ. Because of
regional accessibility, existing zoning patterns, and utility availability, industrial growth may
1
11
1
I
11-7

I
be expected to occur primarily west of the City of Washington along the U.S. 264 corridor.
The City of Washington's emphasis on recruiting industries with minimal adverse
environmental impact will continue. Within the city's planning jurisdiction commercial and
industrial development will be allowed which are in compliance with 15A NCAC 7H use
standards, the City of Washington zoning ordinance, and federal regulations.
Historically, the City of Washington and Beaufort County have cooperated in the pursuit of
industrial development. In 1997, the Beaufort County Commissioners appointed an Economic
Development Commission. The Commissioners and the Washington City Council have
appointed people to this board, which began meeting in 1998.
' The following summarizes the factors which should influence commercial and industrial
growth in the City of Washington:
-- The City of Washington will continue to have good regional accessibility, especially
' highway access.
-- Improvement of Warren Field will aid industrial development.
-- Central Business District revitalization efforts will continue.
-- Standards should be developed to control strip commercialization along the City of
Washington's major thoroughfares.
-- The City of Washington should continue to provide sound infrastructure including
water, sewer, and electrical service.
-- The City of Washington should emphasize the prevention of land use compatibility
problems, especially between residential and commercial/industrial land uses.
-- The City of Washington will encourage planning to allow for expansion of the existing
industrial park.
-- Revitalization of the Central Business District should be closely coordinated with the
preservation of the Historic District.
5. Transportation
The City of Washington will emphasize thoroughfare planning during the planning period. This
began with the preparation of a comprehensive thoroughfare plan which will be completed in
1998. In addition to thoroughfare planning, protection and expansion of Warren Field will be
supported by the City of Washington.
' The major transportation issues confronting the City of Washington during the planning period
are summarized as follows:
-- Adopt a thoroughfare plan.
-- Construct the U.S. 17 Bypass.
II-8

-- Service roads should be encouraged when strip commercialization occurs.
-- Lengthen the Warren Field primary runway to 6,000 feet.
-- Protect the approaches to Warren Field.
-- Ensure interconnection of subdivisions in order to develop an adequate feeder street
system.
-- Coordinate with NCDOT to ensure that the City of Washington streets are adequately
maintained.
-- Support improvements to U.S. 264 and U.S. 17 to improve the City of Washington's
regional accessibility.
-- Foster a pedestrian friendly environment within the Central Business District.
-- Widen Highland Drive to five lanes from East 12th Street to Slatestone Road.
-- Relocate Spring Road to the north.
-- Widen Brick Kiln Road to four lanes.
-- Extend Brick Kiln Road from U.S. 264 to Old Bath Highway.
-- Widen River Road to four lanes from Christian Service Camp to Broad Creek Road.
-- Construct a new rest area at intersection of U.S. 264 and new alignment of U.S. 17.
-- Construct left turn lanes on 15th Street at Market Street in both directions of travel
and revise signal.
6. Public Land Use
With the exception of recreational uses, no significant changes to public land use are
anticipated within the planning period. The City of Washington will continue to maintain and
improve its existing public facilities. The City of Washington will emphasis improvements to
its recreational facilities. The recreational standards identified in Table 32 will be utilized to
judge recreational deficiencies.
[I�

1
Table 32
City of Washington
Recreation Facility Standards
Standards for Parks
Acres Per
Population
Classification
1,000 People
Size Range
Served
Service Area
Tot Lots
N/A
2,500 SF to Two (2)
500-2,000
Sub -Neighborhood
Acres
Neighborhood
Three (3)
Minimum Five (5)
1,000-2,000
Approximately 1/2
Parks
Acres
mile
Community Parks
Five (5)
Fifteen (15) to Fifty
5,000-10,000
Approximately
(50) Acres
1-1/2 miles
City -Wide and N/A*
Special Areas
Open Space Ten (10) Varies with Resource Total City -Wide
1 * Includes parkways, historical sites, small parks and ornamental parks, as well as special use areas.
Standards for Selected Facilities
Facility
Standard Per 1,000 People
Comment
Baseball
League Softball
One (1) Per Ten Thousand (10,000)
One (1) Per Four Thousand (4,000)
Regulation, 90' Diamond
Lighted, 270' Outfield
Practice Fields
One (1) Per Three Thousand (3,000)
None
Youth Fields
One (1) Per Three Thousand (3,000)
None
Tennis Courts
One (1) Per One Thousand (1,000)
Best in Batteries of Four (4)
'
Basketball Goals
One (1) Per Five Hundred (500)
Outdoor Courts
Football/Soccer
One (1) Per Six Thousand (6,000)
May Be Multi -Use Fields
Amphitheaters
One (1) Per Twenty Thousand (20,000)
None
Swimming
900 SF Per Thousand (1,000)
None
Source: City of Washington Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Based on the facility standards in Table 32, the following provides a summary of facility needs
through 2005 for the City of Washington population. However, it should be noted that the
' county has not provided organized recreational facilities for its residents. County residents
have, through cooperative agreement with the City of Washington, utilized facilities and
programs offered by the city. As a result, some additional demands are placed on the city's
' facilities by county residents.

Table 33
City of Washington
Recreational Facility Needs
Existing
Facility
Inventory
1997 Need
2000 Need
2005 Need
'
Baseball
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
League Softball*
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
Youth Fields
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
Practice Fields
1
3
3
3
Tennis Courts
4
10
10
10
Basketball Goals
10
20
20
21
Football/Soccer Fields
7**
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swimming
0***
9,000 S.F.
9,000 S.F.
9,450 S.F.
'
N/A - No additional facilities required.
*All softball fields are leased from the school system.
* *Five soccer fields are leased from the school system.
***Private facilities serve approximately 2,000 residents.
r
The City of Washington has some significant cultural/recreational facilities. In 1997-98, the
North Carolina Estuarium was constructed along the Pamlico River Waterfront adjacent to the ,
east side of the City of Washington Central Business District. The 15,000 square foot
building is a visitor center and estuary educational facility. There are associated walkways
and a bulkhead along the river. This eco-tourism center provides a "gateway" for regional '
nature based tourism.
In 1986, the City of Washington converted the 1906 Atlantic Coastline Railroad Station to the
Washington Civic Center. The old passenger station portion of the facility, which houses the
Beaufort County Arts Council, was renovated in 1993. The Civic Center contains 14,000
square feet. An additional 4,000 square feet is available for events in the adjacent Senior
Resource Center. The Civic Center Complex accommodates a variety of cultural activities.
The existing and proposed recreational facilities are depicted on Map 15 which has been
copied from the Washington Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

LEGEND
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EXISTING
PROPOSED
CITY WIDE AREAS
0
Q
COMMUNITY SERVING AREAS
A
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING AREAS
SPECIAL USE AREAS
Fd
OPEN SPACE AREAS
PROPOSED GREENWAY SYSTEM
l
NEIGHBORHOOD '
PARK
Job
o
BEE -BEE
11
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
OPEN SPACE)
PARKi
OAKDALE SENIOR
0 CENTER
MAP 15
WASHINGTON, N.C.
MASTER PLAN
FOR
PARKS & RECREATION
gSHINGTON
'3H SCHOOL
IJ
a Cl
PAR-3 COURSE
& DRIVING RANGE
; ` SPARK �I JI 11.... _�'�© 7�§' �"!�� �l �^ .1/
0 „,Q� BRIDGE TJ©CEASTERN ELEMENTARY GREENWAY
JOHN COTTON �; CENTER rir-li 11
^tea 9th STREET FIELD���
` �.� TAYLOE ( -' BRIDGE ST.----
WILDLIFE RAMP ;' �"��V-3r
_._I FIELD[J�7th STREET ,
�� m 111.4�1n�CENTER B . ... FIELD--1r--��
,
TODD MAXWE
COMPLEX
r
I CIVIC CI
STEWARTS
1
©[ 3rd & PIERCES ,. 5th &� FIELD
STREET l VETERAN'S HARLOTTE
11L 11 ON PARK
BOAT LAUNCH jLj
z DOD BUG_ HOUSE
O - OF --.PARK`' HAVENS GARDENS-�F
KWAY ARMORY
b�' I
CASTLE ISLAND
CITY OF WASHINGTON
...w..cuaM.�
II-12
Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Washington.

1
1
7. Water System
The City of Washington Master Plan includes the following assessment of the City of
Washington's water distribution system:
"The existing water distribution system is generally adequate to meet the needs of the
City of Washington. The distribution of water in some areas within the corporate limits
may be improved. Water service to new areas can be readily provided, with the major
limiting factor being provision of adequate pressure, primarily west of the corporate
limits."
The following priorities for improvements to the water system were completed prior to
preparation of this plan.
-- Improvements necessary to deliver water from the proposed
groundwater treatment plant.
-- Improvements necessary to provide optimal fire protection
throughout the distribution system.
-- Evaluation of (1) a location for elevated storage and (2) the
provision of water service, east of the corporate limits.
With these improvements, the system is considered adequate to provide for the city's water
supply throughout the planning period.
Table 34 provides the forecast water demand.
Table 34
City of Washington
Water Demand Projections
Per
Commercial/
Line Leakage/
WTP
Average Day
Maximum Day
Capita
Residential
Industrial
Hydrant
Losses
Production
Production
Year Demand
(gpd)
(gpd)
Flushing (gpd)
(gpd)
(gpd)
(mgd)
2000 90
1,260,000
350,000
150,000
300,000
2,060,000
3.3
2010 90
1,800,000
400,000
200,000
400,000
2,800,000
4.5
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina.
For comparison, in the U.S., potable water consumption ranges from 70-150 gallons per day.
This range does not account for additional water use in offices, stores, or public buildings.
8. Wastewater
From 1990 to 1995, major improvements to the City of Washington's wastewater treatment
system were completed. The City of Washington is now in compliance with state standards
and providing a treatment capacity of 3.2 mgd.
' During the planning period, the sewer service area will include Washington Township (in and
around the corporate limits of the City of Washington) and the southern part of the Long Acre
Township. Although this limits the study to a relatively small geographical area, much of the
II-13

population of these townships is projected to be within the service area. The wastewater
system currently serves the City of Washington; the Long Acre Township is a projected future
service area. '
For the City of Washington's Wastewater Master Plan report, the average per capita water
demand is based on finished water production data for the period of July 1988 through June ,
1989. This information was provided by the City of Washington. Data for the following year
(July 1989 through June 1990) were not used because demand appeared to be affected by
recent concerns about water quality. The figures obtained appear below:
Water metered to all customers 437,943,236 gallons
Water metered to industrial customers 107,000,000 gallons '
Water metered to residential/commercial customers 330,943,236 gallons
Based on a current estimated service population of 10,000 people and 365 days a year, these
figures indicate a per capita average water demand of 90 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
,
Wastewater flows are based on the assumption that approximately 95 percent of the water
is returned to the collection system. Projected flows are presented in Table 35.
Table 35
City of Washington
Wastewater Flow Projections
Commercial/ Max. Month Max. Month
Per Capita Residential Industrial Chocowinity Infiltration/ Average Day
,
Year Flow (gpcd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) Inflow (gpd) Flow (gpd)
2000 85 1,190,000 150,000 140,000 1,050,000 2.5
2010 85 1,700,000 200,000 140,000 1,500,000 3.5
'
Source: City of Washington Wastewater Master Plan.
'
Additional r m
t eat ent capacity or an equallzatlon flow system will be required to serve the
growth that has been forecast. In addition, the provision of sewer capacity to the Town of
Chocowinity and the Weyerhaeuser Corporation reduces the capacity available for the City of
'
Washington by only 4.5 %.
9. Electrical System
The City of Washington Electric Utilities System Planning Report and Long -Range Plan
provides system load projections. System non -coincident peak load projections were prepared
'
for the City of Washington for the 20-year planning period. High, low, and probable forecasts,
as shown in Graph 1, were developed based upon historical delivery point data, circuit
ammeter readings, North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency Projections, and the latest
land use plan and zoning maps for the City of Washington. Historical breakdowns of each
consumer's classification contribution to the total system load were also analyzed and utilized
in the system load projections.
'

P.
140
--� 120
O
C T
c 100
Ln
CL
(n 80
City of Washington
Graph 1
System Non -Coincident Peak kW Demand
1988-1989 1990-1991 1992-1993 1998-1999
1989-1990 1991-1992 1993-1994 Years
Actual Probable Low
Source: Washington Electric Utilities System Planning Report and Long Range Plan.
2003-2004
High
2013-2014

11
' The recommended system Long -Range Plan is based upon an expected average annual growth
rate of 3.0 percent. A minimum growth rate of 2.5 percent, and a maximum growth rate of
' 5.0 percent was projected. These high and low scenarios account for variable growth rates
so that provisions are built into the Long -Range Plan to adequately serve extraordinary
development should the need arise. The City of Washington's forecast growth rate through
' the planning period is 4.3%.
Circuit load projections are based upon historical circuit ammeter readings for 1993 and 1994.
Average annual growth rates were derived from historical load growth in combination with
land availability for residential, commercial, and industrial load growth as outlined in the City
of Washington's latest land use plan. Circuits were evaluated on an individual basis with its
growth potential determined by the existing consumer mix, land availability and zoning
restrictions.
The substation projections reflect the sum total of individual circuit loads adjusted by a
diversity factor. The diversity factor accounts for the differential peak circuit load to circuit
load at the time of the substation peak. Circuit will peak at different times of the day due to
' varying consumer mixes on each circuit. Present system diversity factors were calculated
based upon the ratio of the sum of the circuit loads to corresponding ammeter readings taken
at the substation voltage regulators.
' 10. Storm Drainage
11
l
Management of stormwater runoff is an important issue in the City of Washington.
Improvement of water quality in the Tar/Pamlico River and adjoining tributaries is important
to the City of Washington's environment and economic development. Urban development,
industrial, and agricultural runoff are all contributors to water pollution. Street and highway
stormwater runoff is generally considered to be among the worst offenders of water quality.
There is no single culprit. The primary impact on stormwater runoff in the City of Washington
results from residential construction, commercial development, and agricultural uses.
As urban development continues in the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction, so will the
construction of impervious and semi -permeable surfaces, and the potential for surficial water
contamination will increase. Given that fact, the City of Washington may choose to
reevaluate its current policies regarding impervious surfaces. For example, the City of
Washington may choose to limit the total area covered by impervious surfaces on a given lot
to 20% of the total lot area or under some circumstances allow stabilized soil parking lots.
It is also recommended that the City of Washington strongly support existing water quality
section regulations (15 NCAC 2H.1000) during the planning period. The City of Washington
should also participate in and contribute to studies of storm drainage undertaken by public and
private agencies, support United States Department of Agriculture Best Management Practices
for croplands, and work closely with the Division of Marine Fisheries to protect fish spawning
areas which are located in the Tar/Pamlico River and its tributaries. Caution should be taken
to protect these areas from surficial water contamination.
A severe drainage problem exists in the Jack's Creek Drainage Area. A large portion of the
City of Washington's more densely populated residential and commercial areas lies within the
Jack's Creek drainage area. Jack's Creek is drained into the Pamlico River by means of an
existing pumping station that was originally built for the purpose of eliminating tidal effects
II-16

of the river on the water level in Jack's Creek. Continued development in the upper reaches
of the drainage area have resulted in increased runoff which has rendered the pumping station
inadequate to handle flows after significant rainfall events resulting in repetitive flooding
during heavy rainfall events.
The frequent flooding has resulted in conditions which include: permanent damage to public
streets; loss of publicly and privately owned land due to "sloughing" stream banks; flooding
of public sanitary sewer mains causing raw sewage spills; loss of public resources due to
manhours spent attempting to control the flooding and securing flooded areas; endangerment
of dwellings from flooding.
The City of Washington had studies of the drainage basin completed in 1965 and 1976. The
City of Washington has upgraded the Jack's Creek Pump Station twice since 1957 but the
pumping capacity is still inadequate. Other drainage improvements were constructed in the
Jack's Creek Drainage Basin in 1976 and 1980 but flooding still occurs. The project includes
constructing a larger stormwater pump station and dredging out the storage basin so that the
10-year storm can be contained without flooding. Some connecting culverts within the
storage basin may have to be upgraded.
A new larger pump station will be constructed adjacent to and similar to the existing pump
station. The silt buildup in the basin will be dredged out and hauled to the City of
Washington's demolition landfill to be used as cover. This is similar to the procedure used the
last time the basin was dredged out 20 years ago.
The project will control flooding from storms up to the 10-year event by a combination of
increased storage in Jack's Creek Basin and a larger deeper pump station. The project will
be designed to maintain the basin water level below 5 feet MSL which will minimize current
flooding. Lowered water levels in the Jack's Creek Basin will allow water to move more freely
in the upper reaches of the drainage basin and reduce localized flooding in those areas.
Construction of a new pump station in the floodway will not increase the flood level because
all the flow is pumped out of Jack's Creek until the water level overtops the adjacent road at
9.5 feet MSL and floods the entire area.
The storm water facilities including the Jack's Creek Pump Station are operated and
maintained by the drainage division of the Public Works Department. The crews are
continuously cleaning culverts and ditches and provide extra operation and maintenance on
the Jack's Creek pump station during and after major rainfall events. It is anticipated that the
pump station structure will last 50 years. The pumps could last 25 to 35 years before
needing replacements.
11. Police Protection, Fire Protection, and Emergency Medical Services
To estimate the impact of growth, planning standards for public services have been estimated;
the following figures are averages, and are intended to help quantify the impacts of growth:
Per 1,000 persons in population growth, a municipality is likely to need 2 additional staff
persons, .6 vehicles, and 200 square feet of facility space for police protection. Likewise, fire
protection will involve 1.65 new personnel, .2 vehicles, and 250 square feet of facility space
for every 1,000 persons. Increased demand on emergency medical services amounts to 36.5
[I
F�
II-17
Ll

i
calls per 1,000 population, 1 vehicle, and 4.1 full-time personnel per 30,000 persons. Table
36 provides a summary of the police, fire, and rescue additional staffing and facility needs.
' It is based on the population growth forecast in this plan.
Table 36
City of Washington
Police, Fire, and Rescue Additional Needs
2000
2005
Total
Police
Personnel
.5
.28
.78
Vehicles
.16
.08
.24
'
Sq. Ft. Building
53
28
81
Fire Protection
Personnel
.44
.23
.67
'
Vehicles
.05
.03
.08
Sq. Ft. Building
66
35
101
Emergency Medical
Personnel
0
0
0
Calls
9.7
5.1
14.8
Vehicles
.26
.14
.4
tSource:
Holland Consulting
Planners, Inc.
As indicated in Table 36, the increased demand for police, fire, and rescue services during the
planning period should be negligible.
However, the City of Washington
intends to evaluate its
water and shoreline public safety capability.
12. Schools
' All schools serving the City of Washington are at or above capacity. During the planning
period, the Beaufort County School System anticipates constructing one new elementary
school and one new high school. Neither facility is expected to be located within the City of
' Washington's planning jurisdiction. The addition of these two schools should aide in
alleviating the capacity problems within the City of Washington.
13. Solid Waste Disposal
The City of Washington will continue to dispose of its waste through the planning period at
the Bertie County Regional Landfill. No capacity problems are anticipated during the planning
period.
14. Redevelopment Issues
The City of Washington's greatest continuing redevelopment issue will be the preservation and
renovation of housing for its low -to -moderate income families and individuals. While housing
conditions improved during the '80s and early '90s, substantial problems still exist. It is
estimated that approximately 350 dwelling units remain which may be candidates for
renovation/rehabilitation. The City of Washington will undertake the following in support of
residential development:

-- Support applications for North Carolina Community Development housing rehabilitation '
funds.
-- Support applications for North Carolina Housing Finance Agency home improvement
funds.
-- Stress enforcement of its minimum housing code and update the minimum housing r
code in 1997.
The City of Washington is not normally subject to major coastal storm damage. Convectional
storms and tornadoes pose a more regular threat. However, wind and water damage could
result from the inland movement of a major hurricane. While storm related damaged is not
a significant redevelopment issue, the City of Washington will support the reconstruction of
all storm destroyed structures when reconstruction complies with all current local, state, and
federal regulations and the policies contained in this plan. '
15. Areas Likely to Experience Maior Land Use Changes
It is not anticipated that any major changes in the existing patterns of land use will occur i
during the planning period. The City of Washington's planning and zoning program should
continue to protect existing land uses and to minimize the development of conflicting land
uses. The City of Washington should carefully monitor development along both U.S. 264 and '
U.S. 17. Construction of the U.S. 17 Bypass may alleviate some of the existing development
pressure on these two traffic arteries. However, construction of the bypass is not expected
within the planning period.
A long range concern may be the issue of sea level rise. During the next 100-year period,
approximately 30% of the land area within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction could
be inundated by rising sea water. The City of Washington should begin planning for possible
sea level rise. Local ordinances should be reviewed for determination of changes which may
need to be made to protect developments from rising sea level and to accommodate the
movement of structures to higher ground.
16. Intergovernmental Coordination and Implementation I
This plan was reviewed by Beaufort County prior to certification by the Coastal Resources
Commission. This review was provided to help ensure consistency of this plan with Beaufort
County's planning efforts. Intergovernmental coordination and cooperation will continue
through the ten-year planning period. This will be essential to accomplish effective planning
for public facilities, thoroughfare projects, community facilities, housing needs, and
environmental protection. The City of Washington Planning Board will be responsible for
ensuring adequate coordination with Beaufort County and other government entities as
required. I

1
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The CAMA regulations require the establishment of a specific land classification system to
' support the local government's policy statements. This system should reflect developing land
use patterns within a community. The CAMA 15A NCAC 713 regulations state:
"The land classification system provides a framework to be used
by local governments to identify the future use of all lands. The
designation of land classes allows the local government to
illustrate their policy statements as to where and to what density
they want growth to occur, and where they want to conserve
natural and cultural resources by guiding growth."
The 15A NCAC 7H requirements provide for the following land classifications: developed,
urban transition, rural with services, and conservation. In applying these classifications, the
' City of Washington shall carefully consider where and when various types of development
should be encouraged. Additionally, the areas of environmental concern requiring protection
should be identified and mapped. Each applicable land classification must be represented on
' a land classification map.
The following land classifications will apply in the City of Washington's jurisdiction.
DEVELOPED: Areas included in the developed land classification are currently urban in
character, with no or minimal undeveloped land remaining. Municipal types of services are in
place or are expected to be provided within the next five to ten years. Land uses include
residential, commercial, industrial, and other urban land uses at high or moderate densities.
Residential densities are allowed in excess of an average of three dwelling units per acre, with
minimum single-family residential lot sizes ranging from 6,000 square feet to 20,000 square
feet.
URBAN TRANSITION: Areas included in the urban transition classification are presently being
' developed for urban purposes, or will be developed in the next five to ten years. These areas
should eventually require complete urban services within the planning period. The urban
transition areas include mixed land uses such as residential, commercial, institutional,
' industrial, and other uses approaching high to moderate densities. Residential densities are
allowed in excess of an average of three dwelling units per acre, with a minimum single-family
residential lot size of 10,000 square feet.
RURAL WITH SERVICES: Areas included within the rural with services classification are
developed at low density. Land uses include residential use where limited water services are
provided in order to avert existing or projected health problems. Lot sizes will be large and the
provision of services will not disrupt the primary rural character of the landscape. The
provision of services should not be designed to serve as a catalyst for development.
1

CONSERVATION: The following areas of environmental concern are included in the
conservation classification:
Natural Resource Fragile Areas: These area include the hardwood swamps along the
Tar/Pamlico River and its tributaries.
404 Wetlands: This classification includes areas of 404 wetlands which meet the
wetlands definition contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Only uses
consistent with the policy statements section of this plan will be allowed. These areas
are generally delineated on the Land Classification Map. Specific locations must be
determined in the field by representatives of the Washington office of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' standards. The City of Washington does not intend to develop
more restrictive standards.
Coastal Wetlands: This classification includes all areas of marsh subject to regular or
occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides. However, tidal flooding is
understood not to include hurricane or tropical storm tides. The existence of coastal
wetlands must be determined by the Division of Coastal Management. Development
which meets the minimum use standards of 15A NCAC 7H, the City of Washington
zoning ordinance, and the policies contained in this plan shall be allowed in areas
classified as coastal wetlands.
Estuarine Shorelines: All areas lying 0-75 feet landward of the mean high water level
of estuarine waters are classified as estuarine shorelines. Because of map size and
scale, these areas cannot be accurately mapped. Precise locations must be determined
in the field. Uses consistent with the policies contained in this plain and the 15A
NCAC 7H use standards shall be allowed in estuarine shoreline areas.
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters: All public trust areas and estuarine waters are
included in this classification. All waters in the City of Washington's planning
jurisdiction are classified as estuarine waters as described by 15A NCAC 711.0206 or
public trust areas as described by 15A NCAC 7H.0207. Uses permitted by the policies
contained in this plan and 15A NCAC 7H shall be allowed. The policies dealing with
floating structures, signs, and mooring buoys are more restrictive than the 15A NCAC
7H.
The land classifications are delineated on Map 16. The land classification map allows for the
development of the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction during the next five to ten years.
�I
H
1
0
III-2

F
I
1
]
e
E
I
I
1
LEGEND
DEV
DEVELOPED
URBAN TRAN
URBAN TRAI
RURAL WITH SERVICES
RURAL WITF
CON
CONSERVAI
Natural Resource Fragile Areas:
These area include the hardwood swamps along the Tar/Pamlicc
its tributaries.
404 Wetlands:
This classification includes areas of 404 wetlands which meet th
definition contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
consistent with the policy statements section of this plan will b
These areas are generally delineated on the Land Classlflc
Specific locations must be determined in the field by represental
Washington office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' stan
does not intend to develop more restrictive standards.
Coastal Wetlands:
This classification includes all areas of marsh subject to
occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides. However, tid
is understood not to include hurricane or tropical stone tic
existence of coastal wetlands must be determined by the I
Coastal Management. Development which meets the mini
standards of 15A NCAC 7H, the City of Washington zoning ordir
the policies contained in this plan shall be allowed in areas ch
coastal wetlands.
Estuarine Shorelines:
All areas lying 0-75 feet landward of the mean high water level of
waters not designated as Outstanding Resource Waters are el:
estuarine shorelines. Because of map size and scale, these are
be accurately mapped. Precise locations must be determined b
Uses consistent with the policies contained in this plain and the 1
7H use standards shall be allowed in estuarine shoreline areas
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters:
All public trust areas and estuarine waters are include
classification. All waters in the City of Washington's planning j
are classified as estuarine waters as described by 15A NCAC 7H.Ozw or
public trust areas as described by 15A NCAC 7H.0207. Uses permitted by
the policies contained in this plan and 15A NCAC 7H shall be allowed.
The policies dealing with floating structures• signs, and mooring buoys are
more restrictive than the 15A NCAC 7H.
Management Act of 197Z as amended, which
in administered by the Office of Ocean and
Costal Resource Mereganad, National
Oceanic ad Atinoepheric Administration.
III-3
Sao o Isoo 300o ago
FEET/INCH

'17
SECTION IV: INTRODUCTION TO POLICY STATEMENTS
This plan identifies issues dealing with growth, development, and the environment. This
section of the plan is intended to provide policies which will address growth management and
protection of the environment. The policies should be based on the objectives of the citizens
of the City of Washington and satisfy the objectives of the Coastal Resources Commission.
The policies should not restrict healthy, environmentally sound development essential to the
City of Washington's future development.
It should be emphasized that the policy statements are extremely important and have a
day-to-day impact on businesses and individual citizens within the City of Washington's
planning jurisdiction. The statements have an impact in three areas:
-- CAMA minor and major permitting as required by N.C.G.S. 1 13A-1 18 prior to
undertaking any development in any area of environmental concern.
-- Establishment of local planning policy.
-- Review of proposed projects requiring state or federal assistance or approval to
determine consistency with local policies.
For the issuance of CAMA permits within areas of environmental concern, the state's
minimum acceptable use standards are defined by 15A NCAC 7H. A local unit of government
must adopt policies which are, at a minimum, equal to and consistent with the state's
minimum use standards. The City of Washington may adopt policies which are more stringent
' than the minimum use standards. For example, the state standards allow marinas to be
located within primary nursery areas if some minimum conditions are met. The City of
Washington could adopt a policy stating that marinas will not be permitted within primary
nursery areas (This is only an example, not a recommendation). If this were to occur, a
CAMA permit for marina construction in a primary nursery area would not be issued. IT IS
CRUCIAL THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF ITS POLICIES
WITHIN AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AECs). Within the City of Washington's
planning jurisdiction, the AECs include: coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust
areas.
The second area of land use plan application is that of establishing policies to guide the
jurisdiction's local planning. This may apply both within areas of environmental concern
where CAMA regulations apply and in non-CAMA regulated areas of the county. Under North
Carolina legislation, land use plans are not regulatory controls. Non-CAMA related
recommendations must be implemented with local land use ordinances such as zoning or
subdivision ordinances. If this plan recommends that the average residential density should
be three dwelling units per acre within a particular area, then that density must be achieved
through local zoning ordinance or other regulatory control. (This should not be confused with
the interaction of the land use plan with the CAMA regulations and 15A NCAC 7H use
standards.)
IV-1
r

The final area of application is that of "Consistency Review." Proposals and applications for
state and federal assistance or requests for agency approval of projects are normally reviewed
against a jurisdiction's land use plan to determine if the project is consistent with local
policies. Inconsistencies of a project with local policies could serve as grounds for denial or
revision of a project. For example, an individual or agency may request state or federal
funding to construct a 30-unit low -to -moderate income housing project. If the proposed
location of the project is within an area in which this land use plan states that the residential
density should not exceed two dwelling units per acre, the project may be judged to be
inconsistent with the local land use plan.
The Coastal Resources Commission requires all governments to specify stated development
policies under each one of five broad topics as specified by 15A NCAC 7B. These topics
include:
-- Resource Protection
-- Resource Production and Management
-- Economic and Community Development
-- Continuing Public Participation
-- Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and Evacuation Plans
Based on the analysis of existing conditions and trends, suggestions from the citizens residing
within the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction, and substantial input and guidance from
the City of Washington Planning Board, the policies in the following sections have been
formulated to provide a guide for regulating development within the City of Washington's
planning jurisdiction. Policies which were considered, but not adopted, are provided in
Appendix V.
A. VISION STATEMENT
This vision statement is an expression of the type of community which the City of Washington
would like to become in the next ten years. The City of Washington desires to achieve
balanced residential, business, and industrial growth while enhancing its historical assets. The
City of Washington will pursue an annexation policy of expanding the City of Washington's
corporate limits when financially feasible. A primary objective will be protection of the City
of Washington's residential areas from noxious and/or conflicting land uses. It is also a
priority of the City of Washington to carefully control growth and development which is
expected to occur along the U.S. 17 and 264 Highway corridors.
In summary, the City of Washington desires to achieve the following:
-- Expand job opportunities through effective industrial development.
-- Enhance the City of Washington's waterfront and central business district.
-- Conserve natural areas, especially the hardwood swamps located south of the
Tar/Pamlico River.
-- Enhance the City of Washington's historic district.
-- Enhance housing inventory through effective housing rehabilitation.
-- Control strip commercialization.
-- Continue development of Warren Field.
E
0
I
H
9
1
IV-2

-- Adopt/implement a thoroughfare plan.
-- Expand/improve the City of Washington's infrastructure systems.
-- Increase tourism.
The following abbreviations are used within the Policy Statements Section: PD - Planning Department; PB - City of Washington
Planning Board; CC - City of Washington City Council; C - City of Washington; RD - City of Washington Redevelopment
Commission; PW - City of Washington Public Works Department; and CA - Continuing Activity.
B. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Community Attitude on Resource Protection
The City of Washington is supportive of resource protection, in particular protection of
conservation areas as defined by this plan. All 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards will be
supported, or in some cases exceeded, by the policies contained in this plan. In particular, the
City of Washington desires to preserve the hardwood swamp areas located south of the
Tar/Pamlico River and natural heritage priority areas (see Map 8, page 1-46).
Physical Limitations
Soils (Issue discussed, pages 1-50/1-54)
To mitigate septic tank problems and other restrictions on development posed by soil
limitations, the City of Washington will:
(a) Coordinate all development activity with appropriate Beaufort County, state, and
federal regulatory personnel, and in particular with the Beaufort County Sanitarian
when septic tank permits are required.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 1
(b) Rely on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the regulation/enforcement of the 404
wetlands permit process.
Implementation Responsibility: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Schedule: CA
(c) Support the development of public central water and sewer systems in all areas of the
City of Washington's planning jurisdiction.
Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA
(d) The City of Washington opposes the installation of package treatment plants and
septic tanks or discharge of waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands or
natural heritage areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 2
i IV-3

I
Flood Hazard Areas (Issue discussed, pages 1-40/1-44)
(a) The City of Washington will continue to coordinate all development within the special
flood hazard areas.
Implementation Responsibility: City of Washington's Inspections Division, NC Division
of Coastal Management, FEMA, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington will continue to enforce its existing zoning and flood damage
prevention ordinances and follow the storm hazard mitigation plan contained herein.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 3
1
Schedule: CA I
Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Supplies (Issue discussed, pages 1-40, 1-59, and II-
13).
The City of Washington's policy is to conserve its surficial groundwater resources by
supporting CAMA and N.C. Division of Water Quality stormwater runoff regulations, and by
coordinating local development activities involving chemical storage or underground storage
tank installation/abandonment with Beaufort County Emergency Management personnel and
the Groundwater Section of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. The
City of Washington Building Inspections Division will coordinate building inspections with state
and federal regulations governing underground storage tanks, and will endeavor to advise
building permit applicants of those regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: PD Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 4
Manmade Hazards (Issue discussed, pages 1-65, 1-67, and 1-70)
(a) The City of Washington will rely on the technical requirements and state program
approval for underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts 280 and 281), and any
subsequent state regulations concerning underground storage tanks adopted during the
planning period.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
(b) With the exception of fuel storage tanks used for retail and wholesale sales as
permitted by the City of Washington's zoning ordinance, the City of Washington
opposes the bulk storage of fuel as defined by the 1994 Standard Fire Prevention Code
with North Carolina amendments or other manmade hazardous materials within any
areas not zoned 1-1, heavy industrial.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington opposes the disposal of any toxic wastes, as defined by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Listing of Hazardous Substances and Priority
Pollutants (developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977) within its planning
IV-4

1
jurisdiction. The City of Washington's zoning ordinance will be amended to
accommodate this policy.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC
Schedule: Zoning Ordinance Amendment, 1998-1999; and opposition to disposal of
waste - CA.
(d) The City of Washington adopts the following policies concerning operation,
development, and expansion of Warren Field:
-- Any expansion plans for the airport must be consistent with the City of
Washington's Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan.
-- The City of Washington does not object to increased air traffic which will not
result in increased noise impact(s) on properties located within airport flight
patterns.
-- The City of Washington requests notification of, and the right to review and
comment on, all plans being prepared or amended for the airport.
-- Specifically, the following airport development projects are supported:
Phase/Year
Project Description
PHASE 1
1996-2000
1996-1
Height/Land Use Study
1996-2
Approach Survey R/W 17-35
1997-1
Rehabilitate Access Road
1997-2
T-Hangar Taxiway Site Prep
1997-3
DME; R/W 5
1997-4
Drainage Improvements
1997-5
Property Acquisition for FAR Part 77; R/W 5
1998-1
1998-2
Approach Survey
T-Hangar Taxiway/Access Road/Parking Paving
1998-3
Terminal Apron Expansion
1998-4
Automated Weather Station (AWOS-III)
1998-5
Rehabilitate/Strengthen Taxiways and Aprons
1998-6
Property Acquisition for Approach Lighting; R/W 5
I
1999-1
Glide Scope/Outer Marker; R/W 5
1999-2
T-Hangar Construction (two complexes - 10 bays)
2000-1
2000-2
Approach Lighting System (MALSF); R/W 5
High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL); R/W 5-23
2000-3
Rehabilitate R/W 17-35
NOTE: Refer to Page 1-65.
Implementation Responsibility:
Warren Field Airport Commission
Schedule: CA and installation of improvements as scheduled 1996 to 1997
IV-5

(e) The City of Washington opposes expansion of Aviation Military Restricted Areas or
Military Operations Areas in eastern North Carolina.
Implementation Responsibility: FAA Department
and of Defense Schedule: CA
(f) The City of Washington opposes any low level military training flights that are not in
compliance with the minimum safe altitudes for aircraft operation as described in the
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 91.
Implementation Responsibility: FAA Schedule: CA
Stormwater Runoff (Issue discussed, pages II-16/II-17)
(a) The City of Washington recognizes the value of water quality maintenance to the
protection of fragile areas and to the provision of clean water for recreational purposes.
The City of Washington will support existing state regulations relating to stormwater
runoff resulting from development (Stormwater Disposal Policy 15 NCAC
2H.001-.1003) through enforcement of the City of Washington's subdivision
ordinance.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington will rely on the Natural Resources Conservation Service "Best
Management Practices" program for control of agricultural runoff.
Implementation Responsibility: Private Farm Operators Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington will support the development of a comprehensive city-wide
stormwater drainage plan.
Implementation Responsibility: PW and CC Schedule: FY1998-1999
(d) The City of Washington will consider revising its zoning and subdivision ordinances to
reduce the areas covered during development by impervious surfaces. This will reduce
stormwater runoff. Changes may include, but not necessarily be 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.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY1999-2000
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 5
Cultural/Historic Resources (Issue discussed, pages 1-47, 1-48, and Appendix III)
(a) The City of Washington shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/redevelopment
projects with the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to ensure that any significant
architectural details or buildings are identified and preserved.
IV-6

IImplementation Responsibility: PD, RD, and CC Schedule: CA
�. (b) The City of Washington will coordinate all city public works projects with the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to ensure the identification and preservation of
significant archaeological sites.
Implementation Responsibility: PW and CC Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington will continue to enhance and protect the City of Washington's
historic district through enforcement of the Historic District Design Guidelines/
Regulations, and through local and state grant sources and technical assistance.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, RD, and CC Schedule: CA
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas (Issue discussed, pages 1-25 and II-8)
(a) Industrial development which can comply with the use standards specified by 15A
NCAC 7H, the City of Washington zoning ordinance, and federal regulations may be
located within conservation classified areas. The City of Washington aggressively
encourages the development of industry. The City of Washington does not want any
policies contained within this plan to prohibit industrial development which meets all
applicable state and federal regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, P13, and CC Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 6
(b) 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.
Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy options 7 and 8
Miscellaneous Resource Protection
Package Treatment Plant Use (Issue discussed, page 1-62)
(a) The City of Washington does not support the use of private package sewage treatment
plants within the City of Washington 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.
IV-7

11
• The City of Washington supports requirement of a specific contingency plan
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.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 9
(b) The City of Washington opposes the installation of package treatment plants and
septic tanks or discharge of waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands or
natural heritage areas.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 2
(c) Any request for the approval of a private package treatment facility must 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 will be
prepared in accordance with 15 NCAC 1 D.0201.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
(d) All development and subsequent construction of wastewater facilities shall be
consistent with the regulations set forth by the City of Washington zoning and
subdivision ordinances in conjunction with the adopted land use plan.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC
Schedule: CA
(e) The City of Washington supports the discharge of treatment plant effluent into wetland
areas constructed in compliance with applicable state and federal guidelines.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
Marina and Floating Home Development (Issue discussed, page 1-57/1-58)
(a) The City of Washington discourages the location of floating homes within its
jurisdiction and shall consider adoption of a local ordinance to regulate floating homes.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY1999-2000
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy options 10, 11, and 12
IV-8

(b) The City of Washington shall permit open water marina construction which is
consistent with the 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards and the City of
Washington's zoning ordinance.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Coastal Management, PD, PB, and CC
Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 13
(c) The City of Washington shall permit upland marina construction which is consistent
with the 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards and the City of Washington's zoning
and subdivision ordinances. ,Upland marinas are those constructed in excavated areas
on the landward side of the shoreline.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Coastal Management, PD, PB, and CC
Schedule: FY1998-1999
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy options 14 and 15
(d) The City of Washington supports the construction of drystack facilities which comply
with the City of Washington's zoning ordinance, the policies contained in this plan, and
15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Coastal Management, PD, PB, and CC
Schedule: CA
Mooring Fields (Issue discussed, page 1-57/1-58 )
The City of Washington opposes the establishment of mooring fields and will consider the
adoption of a local ordinance to regulate mooring fields.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY1999-2000
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 16
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands (Issue discussed, page 1-50)
Except for public recreational development, the City of Washington opposes the development
of sound and estuarine islands. The City of Washington will revise its zoning ordinance to
regulate such development.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY2000-2001
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy options 17 and 18
Bulkhead Construction (Issue discussed, page 1-44)
The City of Washington will rely on the use standards set forth in 15A NCAC 7H to regulate
bulkhead construction.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Coastal Management Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 19
IV-9

Sea Level Rise (Issue discussed, page 1-44)
The City of Washington recognizes the uncertainties associated with sea level rise. The rate
of rise is difficult to predict. Those factors combine to make it difficult, if not impossible, to
establish specific policies to deal with the effects of sea level rise.
The City of Washington will implement the following policies to respond to sea level rise:
In response to anticipated sea level rise, the City of Washington will review all local building
and land use related ordinances to establish setback standards, long-term land use plans,
density controls, bulkhead restrictions, buffer vegetation protection requirements, and building
designs which will facilitate the movement of structures.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY2001-2002
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 20
Water Quality Management (Issue discussed, pages 1-31 /1-32)
(see Appendix V, policy option 21)
(a) The City of Washington will enforce its ordinance to regulate swine production. The
City of Washington is also in favor of and fully supports adoption of such an ordinance
by Beaufort County.
Implementation Responsibility: PD and CC
Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington supports and will rely on state and local actions intended to
improve water quality within the Tranter's Creek and Pamlico River subbasins of the
Tar -Pamlico watershed.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington supports preservation of the natural heritage priority area
which is delineated on Map 9, page 1-48 of this plan through its zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance, and CAMA permitting program.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, CC, and NC Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: CA
C. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Community Attitude Toward Resource Production and Management
The City of Washington will implement policies which support resource production and
management. All policies will meet or exceed 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards.
Resource production should not be allowed to adversely affect the City of Washington's
conservation area. The hardwood swamps along the Tar/Pamlico River should be preserved.
IV-10

In addition, the City of Washington will pursue the attraction of industries which will have
minimal adverse environmental impact. While sensitive to environmental protection issues,
the City of Washington will strive to maximize its opportunities for economic growth and
development.
Recreation Resources (Issue discussed, pages 1-65/1-67)
(a) The City of Washington supports a comprehensive recreational program to provide a
broad range of recreational facilities for its citizens.
Implementation Responsibility: RD and CC Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington will seek donations of land, bargain sales, or grant funds in
order to obtain sites suitable for development as recreational facilities.
Implementation Responsibility: RD and CC Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington supports the recreational improvements which are identified
in Section II of this plan.
Implementation Responsibility: RD and CC Schedule: CA
(d) The Cityconsiders coastal wetland areas to be valuable of Washington g passive
recreation areas. These areas should be protected in their natural state. Only uses
which are permitted by 15A NCAC 7H will be allowed.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Coastal Management Schedule: CA
(e) The City of Washington will develop a shoreline access plan to define the need for
additional publicly -owned waterfront recreational facilities within its planning
jurisdiction. This effort should be closely coordinated with shoreline access planning
by Beaufort County.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY1997-1998
Productive Agricultural Lands (Issue discussed, page 1-55)
J� The City of Washington will rely on the Natural Resources Conservation Service "Best
Management Practices" program for the control of agricultural runoff.
Implementation Responsibility: Private Farm Operators Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 22
Productive Forestlands (Issue discussed, page 1-55)
The City of Washington will rely on the "Best Management Practices" in the area, while
encouraging the private forestry industry to implement such practices to the benefit of their
natural resource production activities.
IV-11

Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Forest Resources
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 23
Aquaculture (Issue discussed, page 1-58)
Schedule: CA i
Aquaculture is considered the cultivation of aquatic plants and animals under controlled
conditions. The following policies shall apply.
(a) The City of Washington encourages all aquaculture activities which meet applicable
federal, state, and local policies (see Aquaculture policies b) and c) and permit
requirements. The City of Washington's local ordinances should be revised to address
aquaculture.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY2000-2001
(b) The City of Washington objects to any discharge of water from aquaculture activities
which does not meet applicable water standards. The City of Washington objects to
withdrawing water from aquifers or surface sources if such withdrawal will endanger
water quality or water supply from the aquifers or surface sources.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington will support only aquaculture activities which do not alter
significantly and negatively the natural environment of conservation areas as shown
on the Land Classification Map.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered (a), (b), and (c): Appendix V, policy option 24
Off -Road Vehicles (Issue discussed, page 1-67)
The City of Washington supports regulation of off -road vehicles through adoption of a local
ordinance.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB,and CC Schedule: FY2001-2002
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy options 25 and 26
Solid Waste (Issue discussed, pages 1-62 and II-18)
(a) For regional waste disposal, the City of Washington will rely on support of the
Albemarle Solid Waste Authority. I
Implementation Responsibility: Albemarle Solid Waste Authority
Schedule: Continuing throughout the planning period. ,t
(b) The City of Washington favors the siting of recycling centers, transfer stations, and
solid waste collection sites within all land classifications, except those within the
conservation category, when the facility(ies) is(are) consistent with the City of
Washington's zoning ordinance.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
IV-12

1
Marine Resource Areas/Water Quality (Issue discussed, pages 1-55/1-57) (see Appendix V,
policy option 27 and 28)
(a) The City of Washington will rely on the use standards for public trust areas as specified
in 15A NCAC 7H.0207.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Coastal Management Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington will support enforcement of current state, federal, and local
regulations to improve water quality.
Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate state, federal, or local agencies
Schedule: CA
Peat or Phosphate Mining (Issue discussed, page 1-57)
There are no significant peat or phosphate deposits located within the City of Washington's
planning jurisdiction. A policy statement is not required.
Implementation Responsibility: None
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 29
Schedule: None
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Impacts on Resources (Issue discussed,
pages 1-25 and II-8)
(a) Residential, commercial, and industrial development which is consistent with local
zoning and meets applicable state and federal regulations will be allowed in
conservation areas.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, CC, NC Division of Coastal Management, and
appropriate federal regulations
Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington opposes the construction of any signs, except public
regulatory signs, in public trust waters.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Coastal Management Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 30
ID. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Attitude on Economic and Community Development
The City of Washington desires to increase its economic assets. An annexation policy will be
developed. In addition, rehabilitation and preservation of existing residential areas will be
encouraged. The City of Washington will continue to carefully coordinate development of the
central business district shoreline areas with the valuable natural assets provided by the
Tar/Pamlico River. Locational decisions should be influenced by the following:
IV-13

-- Encourage renovation of commercial buildings in the Central Business District.
-- Encourage location of new commercial/retail uses in the Central Business District.
-- Encourage new residential, commercial, and recreational development to take the form
of infill in the Central Business District area.
-- Continue to encourage a variety of choice in existing neighborhoods through a balance
of preservation, rehabilitation, and new development.
-- The City of Washington emphasizes the importance of locating new economic
development in and around the existing urban area where public infrastructure and
systems can be reasonably extended.
-- Industrial development should be concentrated in one or more areas.
Water Supply (Issue discussed, pages 1-40 and II-13)
(a) The City of Washington supports the following priorities for improvements to its water
supply system:
-- Improvements necessary to provide optimal fire protection throughout future
annexation areas.
Implementation Responsibility: CC
Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington will extend water services beyond its extraterritorial area if an
adequate demand for service exists.
Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington supports the construction of waterlines to and through
conservation areas to serve development which meets all applicable local, state, and
federal regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PW, CC, and NC Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: CA ■
(d) The City of Washington is aware that inappropriate land uses near well fields increase
the possibility of well contamination. Land uses near groundwater sources are
regulated by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management through NCAC
Subchapters 2L and 2C.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
(e) The City of Washington supports all efforts to secure available state and federal
funding in order to expand and improve the city's water system.
Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA I
IV-14
Is

ISewer System (Issue discussed, pages 1-61 /1-62 and II-13/II-14)
(a) The City of Washington will support the development of central sewer service
throughout its incorporated area and its unincorporated planning jurisdiction.
Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington supports the discharge of effluent into constructed wetland
areas.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Division of Water Quality Schedule: CA
(c) The City of Washington supports all efforts to secure available state and federal
funding for the construction and/or expansion of public and private sewer systems.
Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA
(d) The City of Washington supports rehabilitation of older sections of wastewater
collection lines as needed.
Implementation Responsibility: PW and CC Schedule: CA
(e) The Cityof Washington supports construction of sewer lines through conservation
9 pp
areas to serve development which meets all applicable local, state, and federal
ry regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, CC, and NC Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: CA
(f) The City of Washington will plan for a 2010 peak day flow of 8.8 mgd.
# Implementation Responsibility: PD, PW, and CC Schedule: FY1997-2002
Stormwater (Issue discussed, pages II-16/II-17)
(a) The City of Washington will rely on the NCDOT, the North Carolina Division of Water
i
Quality, and other state agencies in minimizing the impact of stormwater runoff on all
conservation classified areas. The City of Washington will support the stormwater
runoff retention permitting process through its zoning permit system.
Implementation Responsibility: PD and appropriate state agencies Schedule: CA
(b) 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.
Implementation Responsibility: CC
Schedule: FY1997-2002
(c) The City of Washington will develop a comprehensive master drainage plan.
IV-15

Implementation Responsibility: PW and CC
Schedule: FY1999-2000 I
Energy Facility Siting and Development (Issue discussed, pages 1-67/1-69 and II-14/II-16)
(a) There are no electric generating plants located in the City of Washington's planning
jurisdiction. 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. (This policy does not apply to energy peaking
units).
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
(b) The City of Washington does not oppose offshore exploratory drilling for oil or gas. In
the event that oil or gas is discovered, the city will not oppose drilling operations and
onshore support facilities for which an Environmental Impact Statement has been
prepared with a finding of no significant impact on the environment. Washington
supports and requests full disclosure of development plans, with mitigative measures
that will be undertaken to prevent adverse impacts on the environment, the
infrastructure, and the social systems of the city. The city also requests full disclosure
of any adopted plans.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 31 and 32
Redevelopment of Developed Areas (Issue discussed, pages II-18/II-19)
The most important redevelopment issue confronting the City of Washington may be
reconstruction following a hurricane or other natural disaster. The City of Washington will
allow the reconstruction of any structures demolished by natural disaster which will comply
with existing state and local codes. An additional redevelopment problem would be the
preservation of housing. The City of Washington will enforce its minimum housing code to
ensure that minimum housing standards are met. Residential revitalization projects will be
pursued where substandard housing exists. State and federal housing rehabilitation grants will
be sought.
During the planning period, the City of Washington will attempt to address its redevelopment
through the following actions:
(a) The City of Washington will be pro -active in pursuing state and federal assistance and
other methods of funding to be utilized for revitalization and other improvements as
deemed appropriate.
Implementation Responsibility: PD and CC Schedule: CA
(b) All redevelopment efforts will be coordinated with the City of Washington Planning
Department and Planning Board.
1
Implementation Responsibility: PD and PB Schedule: CA
IV-16

(c) Promote funding for downtown revitalization and implementation projects in an effort
to attract new development to the Central Business District.
Implementation Responsibility: PD and RD Schedule: CA
(d) The City of Washington may apply for Community Development Block Grant
Community Revitalization/Housing Development and North Carolina Housing Finance
Agency funds.
Implementation Responsibility: PD and CC Schedule: FY1997-2002
Estuarine Access (Issue discussed, pages II-1 1 /II-12)
The City of Washington supports the state's shoreline access policies as set forth in NCAC
Chapter 15A, Subchapter 7M. The City of Washington will conform to CAMA and other state
and federal environmental regulations affecting the development of estuarine access areas.
The City of Washington will support development of a detailed shoreline access plan during
the five-year planning period.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC
Schedule: Shoreline Access Plan FY1997-1998; support CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 33
Community Facilities (Issue discussed, page 1-72)
The City of Washington supports the community facilities improvements which are detailed
in Section II of this plan.
Implementation Responsibility. CC Schedule: CA
Types and Locations of Desired Industry (Issue discussed, page II-8)
1_ The following industrial development policies will be applied:
(a) Industrial sites should be accessible to municipal/central water and sewer services.
(b) Industries which are noxious by reason of the emission of smoke, odor, dust, glare,
noise, and vibrations, and those which deal primarily in hazardous products such as
explosives, should not be located in the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction.
(c) Industrial development and/or industrial zoning should not infringe on established
residential development.
(d) Industrial sites should be concentrated in one or more areas within the City of
Washington's planning jurisdiction.
(e) Industries having minimal adverse environmental impact will be sought by the City of
Washington.
IV-17

Policies (a) through (e) - Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
Commitment to State and Federal Programs (Issue discussed, numerous references to state
and federal programs throughout the plan)
The City of Washington is receptive to state and federal programs, particularly those which
provide improvements to the City of Washington. The City of Washington will continue to
fully support such programs, especially the North Carolina Department of Transportation road
and bridge improvement programs, which are very important to the City of Washington.
Examples of other state and federal programs that are important to and supported by the City
of Washington include: dredging and channel maintenance by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; federal and state projects which provide efficient and safe boat access for sport
fishing; community development block grants, housing for the elderly, low -to -moderate income
housing, housing rehabilitation, programs which help remove impediments to the handicapped,
and North Carolina Housing Finance Agency housing improvement programs.
1
Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 34
Affordable Housing (Issue discussed, pages 1-13, 1-22, and 1-39) Ar.
The City of Washington will implement the following to aid in providing affordable housing:
(a) Support low to moderate income housing in conformance with the City of
Washington's zoning ordinance.
(b) Apply for Community Development Block Grant Community Revitalization and North
Carolina Housing Finance Agency funds.
(c) Pursue state and federal funding of projects to improve and increase low to moderate
income housing consistent with the City of Washington's zoning ordinance.
(d) Support state and federal programs which assist with housing rehabilitation.
(e) When economically feasible, the City of Washington will extend water and sewer lines
to serve new residential developments.
Policies (a) through (e) - Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, PW, and CC Schedule: CA
Assistance in Channel Maintenance (Issue discussed, page 1-58)
The City of Washington supports state and federal efforts to maintain channels for navigation
if they comply with local regulations. The City of Washington also supports the private
maintenance of channels providing that such action is in accordance with all local, state, and
federal environmental regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate state and/or federal agencies Schedule: CA
IV-18

IAssistance in Interstate Waterways (Issue discussed, page 1-58)
The City of Washington is not adjacent to or directly affected by the Intracoastal Waterway.
However, the City of Washington supports continued maintenance of the waterway.
Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate state and/or federal agencies Schedule: CA
Tourism (Issue discussed, pages 1-17 and II-1)
The City of Washington will implement the following policies to further the development of
tourism:
(a) The City of Washington will support North Carolina Department of Transportation
projects to improve access to the City of Washington.
(b) The City of Washington will support projects that will increase public access to
shoreline areas.
(c) The City of Washington will continue to support the activities of the North Carolina
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.
(d) The City of Washington will enhance its historic district.
j(e) The City of Washington will continue to preserve the Tar/Pamlico River as a valuable
asset which aids in the development of tourism.
Policies (a) through (e) - Implementation Responsibility: CC Schedule: CA
Alternative Considered: Appendix V, policy option 35
Transportation (Issue discussed, pages 1-63/1-65 and II-8/11-9)
The City of Washington supports the following transportation projects/improvements:
a-- Adoption of a thoroughfare plan.
-- Construction of the U.S. 17 Bypass as close to Washington as possible on the west
side (City of Washington resolution dated May 18, 1998).
-- The widening of Highland Drive to five lanes from East 12th Street to Slatestone Road.
-- Careful planning of commercial and industrial development along U.S. 264 and U.S.
17 is encouraged.
- Relocation of Spring Road to the north.
-- Lengthening of the Warren Field primary runway to 6,000 feet.
-- Widening of Brick Kiln Road to four lanes.
IV-19

-- Construct a feeder road from U.S. 264 to Old Bath Highway.
-- Protection of the approaches to Warren Field.
-- Widening of River Road to four lanes from Christian Service Camp Road to Broad Creek
Road.
-- Construction of new rest area at intersection of U.S. 264 and new alignment of U.S.
17.
-- Construction of left turn lanes on 15th Street at Market Street in both directions of
travel and revision of signal.
-- Interconnection of subdivisions in order to develop an adequate feeder street system.
-- Coordinating with NCDOT to ensure that city streets are adequately maintained.
-- Improving U.S. 264 and U.S. 17 to improve the City of Washington's regional
accessibility.
-- Developing a pedestrian friendly environment within the Central Business District.
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: FY1997-2002
Land Use Plan/Zoning Ordinance Coordination (Issue discussed, this subject is not specifically
discussed elsewhere in this plan)
The City of Washington Planning Board and City Council will consider the following in
deliberation of all zoning petitions:
-- All uses which are allowed in a zoning district must be considered. A decision
to rezone or not to rezone 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.
-- 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.
Although changing the zoning classification of any parcel of land to permit a
more intensive use could possibly constitute spot zoning, the test lies in its
relationship to the existing zoning pattern and guidelines of the local
comprehensive plan. Spot zoning is based on the arbitrary and inappropriate
nature of a rezoning change rather than, as is commonly believed, in the size
of the area being rezoned.
-- Zoning which will result in strip development will be discouraged. Strip
development is a melange of development, usually commercial, extending along
IV-20

both sides of a major street. Strip development is often a mixture of auto -
oriented enterprises (e.g., gas stations, motels, and food stands), truck -
dependent wholesale and light industrial enterprises along with the once -rural
homes and farms that await conversion to commercial use. Strip development
may severely reduce traffic -carrying capacity of abutting streets.
-- The concept of uniformity will 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 treatment must be justified
by showing different circumstances.
-- Zoning regulations will be made in accordance with the City of Washington
Comprehensive Plan and designed to lessen congestion in the streets; 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, schools, parks, 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 of
Washington planning jurisdiction.
-- Specifically, the Planning Board and City Council should ask the following
questions:
• Does the City of Washington need more land in the zone class
requested?
• Is there other property in the community that might be more appropriate
for this use?
• Is the request in accordance with the City of Washington's
comprehensive plan?
• Will the request have a serious impact on traffic circulation, parking
r space, sewer and water services, and other utilities?
• 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?
Implementation Responsibility: PD, PB, and CC Schedule: CA
IV-21

E. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES I
As the initial step in the preparation of this document, the City of Washington prepared and
adopted a "Public Participation Plan." The plan outlined the methodology for citizen
involvement (see Appendix VI). Public involvement was to be generated through public
information meetings, advertising in local newspapers, establishment of a land use planning
advisory committee to work with the City Council and Planning Board on the development of
the plan.
A public information meeting was conducted at the outset of the project. This meeting was
held on December 9, 1996, at 4:30 p.m., at the City of Washington Municipal Building and
was advertised in the Washington Daily News. Subsequently, meetings of the Planning Board
were held on: March 3, 1997; April 8, 1997; April 29, 1997; May 13, 1997; June 19, 1997;
July 24, 1997, and August 13, 1997. All meetings were open to the public. The City Council
conducted a public information meeting for review of and comment on the plan on December
8, 1997. The meeting was advertised in the Washington Daily News on December 1, 1997.
The preliminary plan was submitted to the Division of Coastal Management for review and
comment on April 20, 1998. Following receipt of DCM comments, the plan was amended,
and a formal public hearing on the final document was conducted on November 9, 1998. The
public hearing was advertised in Washington Daily News on October 7, 1998. The plan was
approved by the City of Washington City Council on November 9, 1998, and submitted to the
Coastal Resources Commission for certification. The plan was certified on January 29, 1999.
Citizen input will continue to be solicited, primarily through the Planning Board, with advertised
and adequately publicized public meetings held to discuss special land use issues and to keep
citizens informed.
F. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY, AND EVACUATION
PLANS I
The purpose of a storm hazard mitigation plan is to assist the City of Washington in managing
development in potentially hazardous areas through establishing storm hazard mitigation
policies and to reduce the risks associated with severe storms and hurricanes by developing
post -disaster reconstruction/recovery policies. The following provides the City of Washington
Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and Evacuation policies. r,
STORM HAZARD MITIGATION POLICIES
The effect of storm related flooding in the City of Washington is discussed on pages 1-40
through 1-44 of the Land Use Plan, and areas subject to flooding are shown on Maps 6 and
7, pages 1-42 and 1-43. The most severely affected section of the City of Washington during
a major storm would be the City of Washington's shoreline areas where a Category 3 storm
could inundate approximately fifty percent of the City of Washington's planning jurisdiction.
However, all developed areas of the City of Washington's jurisdiction are subject to wind
damage.
IV-22

k
Hazard mitigation, or actions taken to reduce the probability or impact of a disaster, could
involve a number of activities or policy decisions. The starting point, however, is to identify
the types of hazards (including the relative severity and magnitude of risks), and the extent
of development (including residential, commercial, etc.) located in storm hazard areas.
Hurricanes are extremely powerful, often unpredictable forces of nature. The four causes of
fatalities and property damage are high winds, flooding, wave action, and erosion. Two of
these, high winds and flooding, could apply to the City of Washington.
a. High Winds
High winds are the major determinants of a hurricane by definition, i.e., a tropical disturbance
with sustained winds of at least 73 miles per hour. Extreme hurricanes can have winds of up
to 165 miles per hour, with gusts up to 200 miles per hour.
These winds circulate around the center or "eye" of the storm. Although the friction or
impact of the winds hitting land from the water causes some dissipation of the full force,
there is still a tremendous amount of energy left to cause damage to buildings, overturn mobile
homes, down trees and power lines, and destroy crops. Also, tornadoes are often spawned
by hurricane wind patterns. Wind stress, therefore, is an important consideration in storm
dill hazard mitigation planning.
b. Flooding
The excessive amounts of rainfall and the "storm surge" which often accompany hurricanes
can cause massive coastal and riverine flooding causing excessive property damage and
deaths by drowning. (More deaths are caused by drowning than any other cause in
hurricanes.) Flooding can cause extensive damage in inland areas, since many areas of the
City of Washington have low elevations. Approximately 50% of the City of Washington's
total area could be subject to storm related flood damage. Consideration of potential flood
damage is important to the City of Washington's efforts to develop storm mitigation policies.
C. Policy Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation
In order to minimize the damage potentially caused by the effects of a hurricane or other major
storm, the City of Washington proposes the following policies:
High Winds
The City of Washington supports enforcement of the N.C. State Building Code. The
City of Washington will continue to enforce the State Building Code on wind resistant
construction with design standards of 110 mph wind loads.
Floodinq
The City of Washington is an active participant in the National Flood Insurance program
and is supportive of hazard mitigation elements. The City of Washington is
participating in the regular phase of the insurance program. This program is
administered locally by the City of Washington Building Inspections Department. The
City of Washington also supports continued enforcement of the CAMA and 404
wetlands development permit processes in areas potentially susceptible to flooding.
IV-23

When reviewing development proposals, the City of Washington will work to reduce
density in areas susceptible to flooding. In addition, the City of Washington will
encourage the public purchase of land in the most hazardous areas.
Mitigation Policies Related to Redevelopment of Hazard Areas After a Storm
Reconstruction of damaged properties in the City of Washington after a storm will be
subject to the following:
The North Carolina Building Code requires any building damaged
in excess of 50 percent of its value to conform with code
requirements for new buildings when repaired. (This will be
particularly beneficial in the event of wind damage.)
The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance requires that all existing
structures must comply with requirements related to elevation
above the 100-year floodplain elevation and floodproofing if they
are substantially improved. A substantial improvement is defined
as "any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a building, the
cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value
of the building either before the improvement or repair is started,
or before damage occurred if the building has been damaged."
Evacuation Plans
The City of Washington will coordinate evacuation planning for localized flooding with
all county agencies and municipalities. However, during hurricanes, the City of
Washington provides evacuation shelter for residents of coastal communities located
east of the City of Washington in lower elevation coastal areas.
Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation
(a) The City of Washington supports the efforts of the Beaufort County Emergency
Management Coordinator to facilitate and encourage the safe evacuation of
vulnerable areas of the county during storm events.
(b) The City of Washington officials will continue to actively participate in various
scheduled activities of coordination among municipalities in the county for
storm preparedness, evacuation, and post -disaster recovery.
(c) The City of Washington will discourage property owners from rebuilding
damaged structures without taking mitigative precautions during the
construction phase. The City of Washington will also work with the Federal
Flood Insurance Rate Program to include all areas flooded by storm into the
FFIRP maps.
(d) The City of Washington will continue to support enforcement of state and
federal programs which aid in mitigation of hurricane hazards, including CAMA
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit process, FEMA, as well as
local ordinances such as zoning and flood damage prevention regulations.
IV-24

1
1
I
1
1
r
(e) The City of Washington will discourage high density development in high hazard
areas through implementation of the City of Washington's zoning and
subdivision ordinances.
(f) The City of Washington supports the public acquisition of high hazard areas
with state and federal funds when voluntary acquisition can be accomplished.
The City of Washington discourages condemnation of land for this purpose.
(g) Developed structures which were destroyed or sustained "major damage" and
which did not conform to the City of Washington's building regulations, zoning
ordinances, and other storm hazard mitigation policies, i.e., basic measures to
reduce damage by high winds, flooding, wave action, or erosion, must be
repaired or redeveloped according to those policies. In some instances, this
may mean relocation of construction, or no reconstruction at all. Building
permits to restore destroyed or "major" damaged structures which were built
in conformance with the City of Washington's building code and City of
Washington storm hazard mitigation policies shall be issued automatically. All
structures suffering major damage will be repaired according to the State
Building Code and City of Washington flood damage prevention ordinance. All
structures suffering minor damage, regardless of location, will be allowed to be
rebuilt to the original condition prior to the storm.
POST -DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION POLICY
The City of Washington participates in and supports the Beaufort County Emergency Operation
Plan. This plan is managed/implemented by the Beaufort County Department of Emergency
Management.
1
IV-25

1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
As required by 15A NCAC 713 planning guidelines, the City of Washington land use plan must
relate the policies section to the land classification map and provide some indication as to
which land uses are appropriate in each land classification. The City of Washington's zoning
ordinance is consistent with the land classification map and supports the distribution of land
uses shown on that map.
A. DEVELOPED
The City of Washington's primary growth should continue to occur within the corporate limits,
along U.S. 17 north and south of the City of Washington, and along U.S. 264 west and east
of the City of Washington. Those areas are classified as developed. The areas will require
basic urban services. The developed class is specifically designated to accommodate intense
development and land uses, including single and multi -family residential, commercial, industrial
parks and open space, community facilities, and transportation. Industrial development should
occur in concentrated locations. Population densities will remain moderate at an average of
approximately two persons per acre. The greatest demand for urban services will exist within
this classification. The classification is located in and adjacent to the corporate limits and
along the U.S. 17 and 264 corridors.
B. URBAN TRANSITION
Urban transition areas will provide lands to accommodate future urban growth within the
planning period. The average development densities will be less than the developed class
densities. Development may include mixed land uses such as single and multi -family
residential, commercial, institutional; industrial, and other uses at high to moderate densities.
Uses will be allowed which are consistent with the City of Washington's zoning ordinance.
Urban services may include water, sewer, streets, police, and fire protection. The urban
transition class is located in the portions of the City of Washington's ETJ which are not
classified as developed. During the planning period, population density may be expected to
increase.
C. RURAL WITH SERVICES
The rural with services classification is to provide for low density land uses including
residential use where limited water services are provided in order to avert an existing or
projected health problem. Areas meeting the intent of this class are appropriate for low
density residential uses where lot sizes are large and where the provision of services will not
disrupt the primary rural character of the landscape. Most development may be supported by
a closed water system. The only rural with services classified areas lie in the City of
Washington's north central ETJ between U.S. 17 and Market Street Extension and east of the
Market Street Extension.
I
V-1

D. CONSERVATION
The conservation class is designated to provide for effective long-term management of
significant limited or irreplaceable areas which include Areas of Environmental Concern and
404 wetlands. Development in the AECs should be restricted to uses which satisfy,15A
NCAC 7H use standards. The conservation class policies and standards included in this plan
are not more restrictive than the 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards.
i
E. SUMMARY I
The City of Washington enforces both zoning and subdivision ordinances. The zoning
ordinance is consistent with this land use plan and includes separate zoning categories. The
developed and urban transition land classes are appropriate locations for the following zoning
categories:
RA20
Residential Agricultural District
R15S
Residential Single Family
R9S
Residential Single Family
R6S
Residential Single Family
RMF
Residential Multi Family
RMH
Residential Mobile Home
RHD
Residential Historic District
PUD
Planned Unit Development
0&1
Office and Institutional District
B1 H
Central Business Historic District
B2
General Business District
B3
Shopping Center District
B4
Neighborhood Business District
11
Heavy Industrial District
12
Light Industrial District
AP Airport District I
The rural with services classification should be primarily limited to the RA20 residential
agricultural district. I
1
1

APPENDIX 1
1991 CITY OF WASHINGTON LAND USE PLAN
POLICY STATEMENTS
CAMA planning guidelines require that the existing (1991) policy statements be summarized
as part of this update. The following is a summary of those policy statements.
IRESOURCE PROTECTION
Constraints to Development
The approach shall be conservation. The policy shall be to support and strictly enforce
Federal, State, and local regulations governing septic tank installation or other waste treatment
alternatives and building requirements in floodprone areas.
ILocal Resource Development Issues Relative to Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs
The approach shall be conservation. The city recognizes that floodplains and wetlands
possess the values of groundwater recharge and discharge, floodwater alteration, nutrient and
waste retention and transformation, habitat protection, and recreation enhancement; and that
these values make floodplains and wetlands worthy of protection for ecological and economic
1 reasons. The policy shall be to support current Federal, State, and local restrictions with
regard to development in areas of environmental concern. Only "water dependent" uses are
permitted by the State in wetlands, estuarine waters, or public trust areas.
Other Hazardous or Fragile Land Areas
I The general approach for all fragile or hazardous area policies is conservation. The policy for
swamps, marshes, 404 wetlands and water supply areas shall be to support State and Federal
development restrictions in those areas. Historic resources are regulated locally by the Historic
District Commission, and the policy shall be to support locally adopted restrictions in the
Historic District. Manmade hazards are not currently recognized in local zoning or other
planning tools. The policy shall be conservation. Water supply areas are currently adequate
from the standpoint of quantity and land use impacts. The challenge lies in upgrading the
city's treatment system. The land use policy shall be to protect areas which impact water
supply.
Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs
Hurricane and flood evacuation needs will adhere to procedures described in the Beaufort
County Land Use Plan Update or other plans as may be adopted by the City Council.

Means of Protecting Potable Water Supply 1
The approach shall be conservation. The policy shall be to protect potable water supplies from
negative land use impacts. The city is currently investigating possible future well fields.
Use of Package Treatment Plants for Sewage Disposal
The city's policy on any future proposals shall be to support State Environmental Management '
standards. I
Stormwater Runoff and Its Impact on Coastal Wetlands, Surface Waters, or Other Fragile
Areas
The chosen policy shall be to continue existing procedures until a need is shown based on
negative impacts.
Marina and Floating Home Development and Dry Stack Storage Facilities for Boats
The policy shall be conservation. The city desires protection from random marina development
along its waterfront. The city supports CAMA regulation of marinas but believes that those
restrictions should apply to something less than ten slips in this particular estuarine area. The
local definition of marinas, shown in the zoning ordinance, is not currently specific enough and
will be reviewed and revised through formal process as soon as possible. The city asks that
when such revision occurs, the State use the local definition of marinas for project requests
in the Washington jurisdiction. Dry stack storage facilities would be regulated by the local
zoning ordinance and may be acceptable under certain conditions. Floating home development
is discouraged at this time.
Industrial Impact on Fragile Areas
The policy shall be conservation. I
Development of Sound or Estuarine System Islands
The policy shall be conservation. The city questions whether these islands could meet the
minimum standards for building or septic permits and does not encourage general
development. A zoning review is currently underway which may change current zoning and
restrict allowable uses on the islands.
Restriction of Development Within Areas Up to Five Feet Above Mean High Water That Might
Be Susceptible to Sea Level Rise and Wetland Loss
The policy shall be conservation.
Upland Excavation for Marina Basins
The policy shall be conservation.

IDamage to Existing Marshes by Bulkhead Installation
The policy shall be conservation. The applicable north shore areas are already developed.
South shore areas should be protected by restrictions.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
Productive Agricultural Lands
The policy shall be conservation.
Commercial Forest Lands
The city believes it is not economically feasible nor federally allowable to commercialize
forestry in this jurisdiction, therefore, no policy is required.
Existing and Potential Mineral Resource Areas
The approach shall be conservation. The policy shall be to carefully consider development
projects near sand deposits.
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
The approach shall. be conservation. The policy shall be to encourage recreational fishing of
local waters and to support State agency regulations with regard to commercial operations.
Off -Road Vehicles
According to the Washington Police Department, complaints about off -road vehicles have
stopped within the past year. Formerly, the city received numerous complaints. These
vehicles have no impact in areas of concern to CAMA and therefore, no policy is required.
Development Impacts on Resources
The policy shall be regulated development.
Peat` and Phosphate Mining's Impact on Resources
This issue does not apply within the Washington Planning Area aside from the regional
economic impact of Texasgulf's phosphate mine in nearby Aurora. No natural resource in this
jurisdiction is affected by the mine in such a way that the city could control it.
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Types and Locations of Industries Desired
The city supports high wage, non-polluting industrial development.
a

Local Commitment to Providing Services
The city supports the extension of electric, water and sewer services in conformance with
section 25-17 (electric) and section 25A (water and sewer) of the City Code.
Types of Urban Growth Patterns Desired
As growth occurs away from the existing urban cluster, the city will rely on sound zoning
practices to guide development types into appropriate areas. The city foresees the area east
of Runyon Creek between US 264 and the River remaining residential. North of US 264 to
Keysville Road is projected to be an area where development pressure will increase because
of the new Washington High School facility. This area includes the city's groundwater site
which should be considered in development decisions. Secondary state roads currently in
place will need upgrading as the area develops. The city prefers low intensity land uses in this
area, with residential being the preference.
Commercial development is likely to continue the current trend of radiating outward along
primary transportation routes.
The western sector along US 264 outside the current city limits has potential to develop as
a bedroom community for people who work in Greenville. The city would encourage such
development in the area between US 264 and US 17.
Redevelooment of Developed Areas
Existing zoning does not allow more intense redevelopment than current uses and that practice
would be supported.
Commitment to State and Federal Programs
The city supports the following programs:
-- State Sedimentation and Erosion Control Regulations.
-- Division of Coastal Management Estuarine and Ocean Access.
-- Department of Transportation Highway Improvements. ,
The city opposes expansion of the military operating area if the expansion would negatively
impact the municipal airport.
Assistance of Channel Maintenance and Beach Nourishment Proiects
This issue is not applicable. j
Energy Facility Siting and Development
Electric generating plants are regulated by State and Federal agencies and are usually sited in
very rural areas. Any potential project would be subject to local zoning regulations, however
it is believed that the likelihood of such a proposal in the Washington jurisdiction is very
remote.
4

Offshore and inshore exploration for possible oil or natural gas is an issue elsewhere in North
Carolina but is believed to present no significant impact on the Washington planning area.
Tourism
Generally, the city is supportive of activities, including advertising, which promote tourism.
Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access
An estuarine beach access point for the public would be supported by the city if an appropriate
site control could be found within the jurisdiction.
Types Densities Location, Units per Acre of Anticipated Residential Development and
Services to Support This Development
As mentioned above, residential development is anticipated to dominate the entire eastern
portion of the jurisdiction over the next five to ten years, and is encouraged in the western
portion between US 264 and US 17. Mobile home and site -built development have been
almost equal over the past five years, and mobile home development is likely to remain
significant as affordable housing. Multi -family units have increased in the past five years and
are generally acceptable to the city in locations where municipal services are available and
zoning restrictions can be met. Densities of development are influenced by the availability of
services but tend to blend from the most dense R-6 zones near the center of the city to the
A-20 zones outlying. Future services to support development will be based on written
extension policies within the City Code.
The city has no sites which are suitable for landfills. They are dependent on the county to
provide such a site. The current county facility's permit expires in two years. Currently there
is investigation into a regional landfill concept. In terms of sheer land area, the county landfill
site has an estimated capacity to last another ten years. Regulatory requirements will surely
necessitate improvements to the facility if it is used over the long term. City and county
recycling efforts are intensifying and the number of permanent sites is increasing.
ICONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The city supports continuing public participation in the land use planning process.
STORM HAZARD MITIGATION
The importance of a sound storm mitigation plan cannot be over emphasized. There are three
major reasons for such planning:
-- To save lives;
== To save capital investments;
To save irreplaceable natural resources.
Washington will always face a strong threat from hurricanes, northeasters, and other major
storms. As the city has grown, and continues to grow, its potential loss increases. Due to
this ever-increasing severity of loss, it is important to plan now to be prepared for tomorrow.
5

The purpose of the mitigation plan is to offer guidelines toward planning for a major storm.
The mitigation plan includes four subsections which contain the guidelines the city intends to
follow in preparation for a major storm and the reconstruction to occur afterwards (for
complete plan refer to 1991 City of Washington CAMA Land Use Plan).
1
I

I
1
I
APPENDIX II
RATING OF 1990 CITY OF WASHINGTON
LAND USE PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS
Each policy statement is rated on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being lowest and 10 being highest.
1. Resource Protection
a. Constraints to Development ................................. 9
Permits are not issued if flood zone requirements and Health Department well and
septic tank requirements are not met.
b. Local Resource Development Issues ........................... 10
The City has strictly enforced CAMA permitting requirements, in conjunction with the
Division of Coastal Management. In addition, density provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and design guidelines in the Historic District have been strictly enforced and
violations corrected immediately.
C. Other Hazardous or Fragile Land Areas ......................... 9
Historic resources have been protected through strict enforcement of the Historic
District Design Guidelines. Persons undertaking development in wetlands or other
environmentally sensitive areas have been made aware of state and federal regulations
and directed to the appropriate agency. The water and wastewater treatment plants
have been upgraded and City water supply has shifted to groundwater.
d. Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs .......................... 5
The City still relies on the County Emergency Management Director for disaster and
evacuation planning, although more effort has begun by City staff to develop City
specific plans. City staff were heavily involved in planning for and assessing damage
from the two hurricanes in the summer of 1996. No formal evacuation plan has been
adopted by City Council.
e. Means of protecting potable water supply ....................... 8
The City put a new water treatment plant in operation in 1994, switching to
groundwater sources of potable water. With this shift, it is no longer necessary for the
City to protect watersheds, since these are not sources of potable water.
f. Use of package treatment plants for sewage disposal .............. 9
The City took over sewage treatment for National Spinning when they were annexed
in 1994. This eliminated the only package treatment plant in the City's jurisdiction.
Any future proposals for package treatment plants will be required to meet or exceed
' State Environmental Management standards.
1

g. Stormwater Runoff ....................................... 6
The City has begun to address stormwater runoff and drainage issues through the
Public Works Department. Review of development for compliance with stormwater
runoff regulations is still primarily left to the State, although the Public Works
Department does review larger projects and their stormwater impacts. No significant
regulations have been adopted by the City to address stormwater runoff, although the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance revisions, effective in 1996, do require Public Works
Department review of all significant projects in the City's jurisdiction.
h. Marina and Floating Home Development ........................ 9
The City has revised its treatment of marinas to precisely define and strictly regulate
all marinas with more than 4 boat slips. This has greatly limited the potential for future
marina development along the river. The Zoning Ordinance has also limited placement
of dry stack boat storage and does not allow in any case floating homes.
i. Industrial Impact on Fragile Areas ............................. 8
No new industries have been permitted in or near fragile environmental areas.
Expansion of existing industry has been closely reviewed through the building permit
process and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance for compliance with state and
federal regulations to ameliorate any possible negative impact on the environment.
j. Development of Sound or Estuarine System Islands .............. 10
The zoning of Castle and Grandpap's Islands was reviewed during the 1996 Zoning
Ordinance revision. The Zoning of these islands was changed to RA-20 Residential
Agricultural, which eliminated any possible commercial uses. Any possible
development plans would be strictly reviewed for compliance with Zoning Ordinance,
Historic District, state, and federal regulations.
k. Restriction of Development within Areas Susceptible to Sea Level Rise and
Wetland Rise ............................................ 7
Development in areas with contour levels of five feet or less above mean high water
is not prohibited, but is closely monitored to ensure compliance with FEMA flood zone,
Zoning Ordinance, State Building Code, and other federal and state regulations. In
general, all developments in this type of area must be elevated to at least one foot
above the base flood elevation.
I. Upland Excavation for Marina Basins ........................... 7
The City has revised its treatment of marinas to precisely define and strictly regulate
all marinas with more than 4 boat slips. This has greatly limited the potential for future
marina development along the river. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows marinas
as a permitted use in the RA-20 district, and in the B-IH and B-2 districts with a special
use permit.
2

ip
IM. Damage to Existing Marshes by Bulkhead Installation ............... 8
The City actively notifies property owners of state and federal regulations in this area
to ensure compliance. The City enforces CAMA permit requirements. Local policies
do not set any additional stricter requirements.
' 2. Resource Production and Management
a. Productive Agricultural Lands ................................ 9
The 1996 Zoning Ordinance revision rezoned most land used for agricultural purposes,
especially in the northern sector of the ETJ, to RA-20, and limited the permitted uses
to single-family residential and agricultural uses. Commercial uses were specifically
eliminated as permitted uses in this district, along with mobile home parks. Growth has
not been encouraged in this area.
b. Commercial Forest Lands ................................... 9
The City continues to believe that it is neither economically feasible nor allowable under
federal law to undertake forestry activities on wetland forest areas on the south shores
of the Pamlico and Tar Rivers, and on the northwest shore between the Tar River and
Tranter's Creek. There being no other large forested areas in the jurisdiction, no active
policy has been needed, other than to monitor these areas for any wetlands violations.
C. Existing and Potential Mineral Resource Areas ..................... 9
The 1996 Zoning Ordinance revision increased restrictions on mining activities to
protect adjoining properties and environmentally sensitive areas. Sand mining appears
to be the only type of mining activity practical within the jurisdiction.
d. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries .......................... 7
Enforcement of fisheries regulations is almost solely a state activity, so no local
enforcement is needed. However, the City continues to support state efforts and has
actively sought to increase tourism along the river, as evidenced by the ongoing
construction of the 14,000 square foot N.C. Estuarium on the waterfront. To make the
river area safer for boaters, the City had a local bill passed in the General Assembly,
setting up a no -wake zone in the river between the railroad trestle and Highway 17
bridge.
e. Off -Road Vehicles ...................................... N/A
There have been no reported problems with this type of activity. Therefore, no policy
has been needed.
f. Development Impacts on Resources ............................ 8
The 1996 Zoning Ordinance revision rezoned most land along the southern shore of the
river to RA-20, and limited the permitted uses to single-family residential and
agricultural uses. Commercial uses were specifically eliminated as permitted uses in
this district, along with mobile home parks. Growth has not been encouraged in this
3

3.
area and the City does not believe any will occur, due to federal wetlands regulations.
The City did receive a gift of a 200-acre parcel of land on the south shore of the Tar
River. This tract will be maintained by the City for conservation purposes.
g. Peat or Phosphate Mining ................................. N/A
This issue does not apply within the jurisdiction; therefore, no policy is needed.
Economic and Community Development
a. Types and locations of Industries Desired ........................ 8
No additional areas have been zoned industrial since the 1990 Land Use Plan, other
than the site of the existing Fountain Powerboats plant, which was rezoned to allow
for future expansion. The City continues to maintain significant amounts of vacant
industrially zoned land south of Highway 264 West. Density controls remain in place
along Tranter's Creek, although this is no longer the source of City water supply.
Provisions have been added to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a wider range of
industrial uses around the Airport.
b. Local Commitment to Providing Services ........................ 9
The City's provisions for service extensions have not appreciably changed since 1990.
The City continues to bear labor and equipment costs for certain water and sewer
extensions, when there is some advantage for the City. The City is generally
committed to extending services when called on to do so by property or business
owners.
C. Types of Urban Growth Patterns Desired ....................... 10
The City has targeted and identified desired development areas through the revised
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Areas have been targeted for development and
placed into appropriate zones. In addition, the City has begun a pattern of phased
annexations for the first time ever, starting with the annexation of the Macswoods,
Slatestone Hills, and Runyon Hills areas in 1996, and is in the process of planning for
and identifying future target areas, utilizing cost/benefit analysis.
d. Redevelopment of Developed Areas ........................... 10
While current Zoning Ordinance provisions typically do not permit more intense
redevelopment than current uses, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, the City
has begun systematic revitalization of certain sectors of the City. Through Community
Development Block Grants and Housing Demonstration Grants, the City has undertaken
community revitalization projects in several low-income neighborhoods, most notably
the West Fourth and West Fifth Street areas. In addition, the City has actively been
involved in supporting and promoting downtown revitalization, and has completed a
Downtown Master Plan, recommending $4.7 million in phased public capital
improvements. The City has promoted repair and revitalization of downtown buildings
through its Facade Improvement Grant Program, has undertaken extensive renovation
of downtown municipal buildings and properties, and led the effort to construct the
N.C. Estuarium on the waterfront.
4

�J
Ie. Commitment to State and Federal Programs ...................... 8
The City has supported a wide range of State and Federal Programs, including
wetlands, sedimentation and erosion control, and CAMA. The City has continued to
participate in the State's CAMA Access Grant Program to improve public access to the
river. The City actively participates in the N.C. Department of Transportation TIP
Planning Process and seeks to provide local input in setting priorities for state highway
funding. The City works closely with the State Department of Cultural Resources to
promote and protect local historic resources. The City maintains communication and
a good working relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers; the State Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Department of Transportation,
Department of Cultural Resources; and Department of Commerce.
f. Assistance to Channel Maintenance and Beach Nourishment Projects .. N/A
IThis issue is not applicable to the jurisdiction.
g. Energy Facility Siting and Development ......................... 7
This issue is not applicable to the jurisdiction, but would be very strictly regulated
by the Zoning Ordinance.
h. Tourism...............................................9
The City led the effort to construct the N.C. Estuarium on the waterfront, which will
serve as the first major tourist attraction for the City. The Downtown Strategic Plan
was adopted with a major goal of promoting tourism in the area. The Zoning Ordinance
revision has made allowances for beds and breakfasts, and has increased landscaping
and sign regulations, to improve the aesthetic quality of the City. Billboards and
junkyards have been amortized, and Zoning Ordinance provisions and Historic District
design guidelines strictly enforced to further this effort. In addition, the City has made
the cutting of weeded lots and the removal of junked vehicles a priority and has been
involved in the Department of Transportation Thoroughfare Tree Planting Program and
the Federal Urban Forestry Grant Program to improve the visual quality of the City. The
City has supported the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce to promote tourism
through the creation of a room occupancy tax and a Tourism Development Authority
to use the tax money to promote tourism. Special events, such as the Summer
Festival, Christmas Parade, July 4th Celebration, and Bayou Bash have been supported
to promote the City.
i. Coastal and Estuarine Water/Beach Access ....................... 8
There remains no public beach access to the river, but efforts have been made through
the State CAMA Access Grant Program to improve public access to the river along
Stewart Parkway and at Haven's Gardens. An additional public boat ramp was put into
operation on Tranter's Creek in 1993. Future access points have been planned in
conjunction with the N.0 Estuarium and as part of the $4.7 million downtown capital
improvement program.

4.
conjunction with the N.0 Estuarium and as part of the $4.7 million downtown capital
improvement program.
j. Types, Densities, Locations, Units per Acre of Anticipated Residential
Development and Services to Support this Development ............. 8
The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance revisions have continued to encourage
controlled residential growth at appropriate densities. The City has specifically
promoted in -fill housing development, both multi -family and single-family, in areas
within the City which already have full access to all City services. This type of
development can be served on a much more cost effective basis and serves to
revitalize blighted areas of the City. The City also works with developers to make sure
that residential developments in fringe areas can be adequately served. The recent
Subdivision Ordinance revision required new subdivisions to tap on to public water and
sewer, if available. The landfill issue was addressed with the opening of a regional
landfill in Bertie County in 1994, and the opening of a landfill transfer station just to
the west of the contiguous ETJ.
Continuinq Public Participation
a. Public Education ......................................... 7
The City hired a full time Public Affairs Director in 1993, which has greatly improved
public education efforts. The City maintains a good working relationship with the
Washington Daily News and is able to publicize issues of public concern, such as the
Land Use Plan process. Typically, however, public input is low.
b. Continued Public Participation ................................ 7
City staff regularly make presentations to local civic groups on issues of local concern.
Questionnaires were used in 1995 to obtain public input on recycling and in 1996 to
gauge public input on the proposed Downtown Strategic Plan. They have also been
used as a regular part of the City budget process, to determine the public's funding
priorities. News releases are typically sent to area newspapers and radio and television
stations to seek to inform the public of important issues such as the Land Use Planning
process.
C. Method of Obtaining Citizen Input ............................. 7
City staff regularly make presentations to local civic groups on issues of local concern.
Questionnaires were used in 1995 to obtain public input on recycling and in 1996 to
gauge public input on the proposed Downtown Strategic Plan. They have also been
used as a regular part of the City budget process, to determine the public's funding
priorities. News releases are typically sent to area newspapers and radio and television
stations to seek to inform the public of important issues such as the Land Use Planning
process.
Total Score: 268
Number of Policy Statements: 33
Average Score: 8.12
1.1

� � M = M M M MAPPMIX I"
Page No. 1 Beaufort County
05/10/96
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
NR Number / Survey Site Number Owner Information SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
Property/HD Name SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
Town/vicinity _ REMOVED
** County: Beaufort
NR# SS#:BF 287 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
/ /
List: 4
Institute -for Intnat'l Maritime Research
Ada Mae Shad Boat
Mr. G. P. Watts
04/13/95
Post Office Box 2454
Washington
Washington NC 27889
Conditn:
NR# 68 SS#:BF 1 LOCAL STATUS:
Date:
/ / President
List: 1
North Carolina National Bank
Bank of Washington
09/19/69
12/11/70
02/18/71
216 Main Street
P. O. Box 792
12/11/70
12/22/70
Washington
Washington NC 27889
Conditn:
NR# 2 SS#: LOCAL STATUS: D Date:
/ /
Mayor
List: 1
Town of Bath
Bath Historic District
The Honorable Jim Richardson
09/19/69
01/06/70
02/26/70
P.O. Box 6
/ /
01/12/70
Bath
Bath NC 27808
Conditn:
NR# SS#:BF 289 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Expansion of Bath (Structures 1,2,3) Historic
District
E sd of King St N of Craven St
/ /
/ /
06/29/95
Bath
Conditn:
NR# 74 SS#:BF 3 LOCAL STATUS:
Date:
/ / Chairman
List: 1
Beaufort County Historic Properties Com.
(former) Beaufort County Courthouse
09/19/69
12/18/70
03/31/71
Corner W. Second and Market sts.
W. Second & Market Sts.
/ /
12/29/70
Washington
Washington NC 27889
Conditn:
/ /

Page No. 2
05/10/96
NR Number / Survey Site Number
Property/HD Name
Town/vicinity
Beaufort County
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
Owner Information
NR# 479 SS#:BF 4 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Belfont Plantation
W. side SR 1411, 0.3 mi. N. of jct. w/SR 1410
Latham vicinity
NR# 721 SS#:BF 24 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Belhaven City Hall
Main Street
Belhaven
NR# SS#: LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Belhaven Historic District HUD
NR# 3 SS#:BF 5 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Bonner House
Front Street
Bath
NR# SS#:BF 217 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Bower -Tripp House
1040 N. Market Street
Washington
Mr. and Mrs. Grover Boyd
Rt. 3, Box 463
Washington NC 27889
Mayor
Town of Belhaven
The Honorable Charles O. Boyette
P.O. Box 220
Belhaven NC 27810
Director
N.C. Division of Archives and History
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh NC 27601-2807
Mr: Richard W. Tripp
1040 North Market Street
Washington NC 27889
SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
REMOVED
List: 1
09/19/74 09/27/76 12/12/76
08/13/76
Conditn:
List: 1
07/15/80 11/07/80 01/27/81
10/16/80 11/12/80
Conditn:
List: 3
08/09/95
Conditn:
List: 1
09/19/69 01/06/70 02/26/70
/ / 01/12/70
Conditn:
List: 4
10/14/93
Conditn:
= M a air M� M M M M M r M r M M� M r

Page No. 3 Beaufort County
05/10/96
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
NR Number / Survey Site Number Owner Information SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
Property/HD Name
Town/vicinity
NR# SS#:BF 81 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Havens Warehouse
S side Main St b/t Bridge & Van Norden Sts
Washington (In Washington HD)
NR# 4 SS#:BF 6 LOCAL STATUS:
Palmer -Marsh House (NHL)
E. side Main Street
Bath
NR# 982 SS#:BF 18 LOCAL STATUS:
Pantego Academy
Academy Street
Pantego
Date: / / Director
N.C. Division of Archives and History
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh NC 27601-2807
Date: / /
NR# SS#:BF 168 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Pantego Historic District
US 264
Pantego
NR# SS#:BF 169 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
(former) Pantego Jail
W of US 264 beside Pantego Town Hall
Pantego
Pantego Alumni Association, Inc.
Mrs. Emaline Winfield
P.O. Box 66
Pantego NC 27860
Mayor
Town of Pantego
The Honorable John Jefferson
P. O. Box 87
Pantego NC 27860
Mayor
Town of Pantego
The Honorable John Jefferson
P.O. Box 87
Pantego NC 27860
SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
REMOVED
List: 8
04/16/71
Conditn:
List: 1
09/19/69 01/06/70 02/26/70
/ / 01/12/70
Conditn:
List: 1
09/20/78 09/25/84 10/25/84
07/12/84 10/01/84
Conditn:
List: 4
07/15/80
Conditn:
List: 4
10/14/82
Conditn: / /

Page No. 4
05/10/96
NR Number / Survey Site Number
Property/HD Name
Town/vicinity
Beaufort County
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
Owner Information
NR# 724 SS#:BF 54 LOCAL STATUS: Date: / /
Rosedale
NW. of Washington off SR 1407
Wharton vicinity
NR# SS#:BF 173 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Rutlege House
SE. corner Main and Third sts.
Aurora
Mr. J.D. Briley
Rt. 5, Box 2728
Greenville NC 27858
Mayor
Town of Aurora
The Honorable Grace H. Bonner
P.O. Box 86
Aurora NC 27806
NR# 47 SS#:BF 7 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
S. side Craven Street Craven Street
Bath Bath NC 27808
NR# SS#:BF 215 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Ware Creek Community School
SR 1103 - Maul's Point Rd
Blounts Creek vicinity
Trustees of the Ware Creek Comm. School
Mr. Chairman et al
Route 1, Box 195 A
Blounts Creek NC 27814
NR# 575 SS#:BF 69 LOCAL STATUS: D Date: / / Mayor
City of Washington
Washington Historic District The Honorable J. Stancil Lilley
P.O. Box 1988
Washington Washington NC 27889
SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
REMOVED
List: 1
09/30/75 11/07/80 04/29/82
10/16/80 11/12/00
Conditn:
List: 4
09/22/77
Conditn:
List: 1
09/19/69 09/16/70 11/20/7(
/ / 09/22/70
Conditn:
List: 4
10/14/93
Conditn:
List: 1
09/19/74 07/13/78 02/09P
Conditn: / /

m m s m r m===�- m m i w m r m m r
Page No. 5
05/10/96
NR Number / Survey Site Number
Property/HD Name
Town/vicinity
NR# SS#: LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Woodstock Town Site (Archaeology)
NR# SS#:BF 182 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Zion Episcopal Church
S side US 264, 0.2 mi E of jct w/ SR 1601
Jessma vicinity
Beaufort County
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
Owner Information
Zion Episcopal Church Trustees
Rt. 2, Box 501
Washington NC 27889
SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
REMOVED
Conditn:
10/08/92
Conditn:
List: 4
List:
4

r� �r r� r� rr rr rr r rr rr� �r r rr rr r ■r it rr AM -
Page No. 1
08/23/96
Version : 0101
PROPERTY SCHEDULE 1996-97 FUND YEAR
INTERLOCAL RISK FINANCING FUND OF NORTH CAROLINA
Parks With No Buildings Not Included - Refer to Recreation Master Plan
Contributions and Limits of Coverage shown on the Declarations of Coverages for your Property coverages and Boiler and Machinery coverage (if covered) are
based on the following schedule of locations and values indicated. The values shown should be 100% of the replacement cost values. Actual Cash Value (ACV)
option is available and must be indicated on the form. Any changes or corrections may require adjustment to the Contributions.
All changes must be reported within 30 days of acquisition and/or new construction and additional contribution charged from the date of acquisition or start of
new construction. Our liability for unreported acquisitions or new construction will be in accordance with the Coverage Document provisions.
ENTITY NAME, CONTRACT NO. : WASHINGTON (62084)
SEO NO.
ADDRESS
OCCUPANCY
---------------------
---- -7
1
-------------------------------------------
210 E. 15TH
REC. CENTER
2
1501 N. BONNER ST.
OFFICE
3
1501 N. BONNER ST.
STORAGE
4
901 EAST 5TH ST
STORAGE
5
901 EAST 5TH ST
CONCESSION
6
901 EAST 5TH ST
TICKET BOOTH
7
901 EAST STH ST
CONCESSION
8
901 EAST 5TH ST.
PRESS BOX
9
HAVEN'S GARDENS
SHELTER
10
HAVEN'S GARDENS
SHELTER
11
HAVEN'S GARDENS
SHELTER
12
231 E. 7TH
REC CENTER
13
1013 N. BRIDGE ST.
REC CENTER
14
410 N. MARKET ST.
FIRE/RESCUE DEPT
15
420-422 N. MARKET ST.
TRAINING/BOAT SHED
16
201 W. 3RD ST.
POLICE STATION
17
217 E. 3RD
SHOWROOM
18
RESPESS ST.
WAREHOUSE
19
223 WATER STREET
STORAGE
20
122 VAN NORDEN
LIBRARY
21
N. GLADDEN ST.
CIVIC CENTER
22
GLADDEN ST
ART COUNCIL
23
310 W. MAIN
PETERSON BUILDING
24
PLYMOUTH STREET
CONCESSION
25
1205-1209 W. 3RD ST
TIRE STORAGE
26
1205-1209 W. 3RD ST
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
27
1205-1209 W. 3RD ST
GARAGE
28
1205-1209 W. 3RD ST
VEHICLE SHELTER
29
1205-1209 W. 3RD ST
OFFICE/GARAGE
30
1205-1209 W. 3RD ST
STORAGE
31
1205-1209 W. 3RD ST
OFFICE/GARAGE
32
203 GRIMES ROAD
SHELTER
33
203 GRIMES ROAD
STORAGE SHELTER
34
203 GRIMES ROAD
WAREHOUSE
35
203 GRIMES ROAD
SHELTER
36
102 E. 2ND ST
CITY HALL
37
TARBORO STREET
LIFT STATION
38
4TH i KINSTON STREET
LIFT STATION
39
MAIN 4 HACKNEY STREET
LIFT STATION
40
WASHINGTON ST. i SHORT DRIVE
LIFT STATION
41
WATER i BONNER ST.
LIFT STATION
42
5TH i RESPESS ROAD
PUMP HOUSE
43
5TH i RESPESS ROAD
LIFT STATION
44
7TH i HARVEY
LIFT STATION
45
HUDNELL i 4TH
LIFT STATION
46
HAVEN i 7TH
LIFT STATION
47
264 EAST
LIFT STATION
48
NORTHWOOD ROAD
LIFT STATION
49
13TH i BRIDGE STREET
LIFT STATION
50
HWY 17 i 15TH STREET
LIFT STATION
51
COW SPRINGS ROAD
LIFT STATION
52
COW SPRINGS ROAD
500,000 GAL
53
2650 W. 5TH STREET
LIFT STATION
54
HWY 264 WEST
LIFT STATION
55
HWY 264
LIFT STATION
56
GRIMES ROAD
LIFT S?' ^ION
CONSTRUCTION PROTECTION
CODE CLASS
-- ------------ ----------
VALUATION
VALUE
VALUE
BASIS
---------
BUILDING
CONTENTS
REPL
COST
--------------
52,387
--------------
9,382
REPL
COST
123,318
44,212
REPL
COST
19,574
1,895
REPL
COST
85,508
1,579
REPL
COST
19,115
0
REPL
COST
3,616
0
REPL
COST
19,632
0
REPL
COST
12,399
2,210
REPL
COST
23,695
2,632
REPL
COST
13,393
2,632
REPL
COST
1,624
790
REPL
COST
546,598
106,446
REPL
COST
649,924
104,824
REPL
COST
893,052
348,487
REPL
COST
14,580
1 0
REPL
COST
656,693
235,994
REPL
COST
311,693
0
REPL
COST
191,870
0
REPL
COST
113,530
0
REPL
COST
642,382
463,176
REPL
COST
813,387
115,794
REPL
COST
257,386
0
REPL
COST
901,628
243,454
REPL
COST
27,998
7,369
REPL
COST
16,484
4,842
REPL
COST
103,413
47,370
REPL
COST
91,763
51,581
REPL
COST
97,840
5,263
REPL
COST
178,918
76,845
REPL
COST
46,864
7,369
REPL
COST
18,909
4,632
REPL
COST
130,104
0
REPL
COST
56,971
12,106
REPL
COST
1,136,593
736,870
REPL
COST
12,047
7,369
REPL
COST
4,890,965
610,550
REPL
COST
2,376
17,791
REPL
COST
5,269
24,316
REPL
COST
4,121
22,632
REPL
COST
5,786
17,791
REPL
COST
5,311
17,791
REPL
COST
21,699
41,370
REPL
COST
39,264
52,107
REPL
COST
7,082
27,369
REPL
COST
9,894
31,580
REPL
COST
8,539
39,686
REPL
COST
5,476
27,369
REPL
COST
5,476
21,053
REPL
COST
6,097
27,369
REPL
COST
4,959
22,106
REPL
COST
4,030
27,369
REPL
COST
714,414
0
REPL
COST
6,923
27,369
REPL
COST
5,476
24,316
REPL
COST
5,476
21,369
REPL
COST
5,476
27,369
0
m
Z
a

Version : 0101
PROPERTY SCHEDULE 1996-97 FUND YEAR
INTERLOCAL RISK FINANCING FUND OF NORTH CAROLINA
Page No. 2
08/23/96
Contributions and Limits of Coverage shown on
the Declarations of Coverages for your
Property coverages
and Boiler and Machinery
coverage (if covered) are
based on the following schedule of locations
and values indicated. The values shown should be 100% of the
replacement
cost
values.
Actual Cash
Value (ACV)
option
is available and must be indicated on
the form. Any changes or corrections may
require adjustment to
the Contributions.
All changes
must be reported within 30 days of acquisition and/or new construction and
additional contribution
charged
from the date
of acquisition
or start of
new construction.
Our liability for unreported
acquisitions or new construction will be in accordance with
the Coverage
Document provisions.
ENTITY NAME,
CONTRACT NO. : WASHINGTON (62084)
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECTION
VALUATION
VALUE
VALUE
SEQ NO.
ADDRESS
OCCUPANCY
CLASS
BASIS--
BUILDING---
------
It
------- ---------------------
-------
---------- ----------------
----CODE
----
----------
-
--
---CONTENTS---
57
PONTIAC DRIVE
LIFT STATION
2
5
REPL
COST
5,993
24,316
58
3RD STREET
300,000 GAL
6
5
REPL
COST
531,874
0
59
3RD STREET
STORAGE
6
5
REPL
COST
3,332
737
60
SLATESTONE RD
500,000 GAL
6
5
REPL
COST
714,414
0
61
W. 3RD STREET
WORKSHOP
3
5
REPL
COST
87,993
45,265
62
W. 3RD STREET
SUBSTATION
3
5
REPL
COST
2,173,629
0
63
HWY 17 SOUTH
SWITCH STATION
3
5
REPL
COST
243,656
0
64
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
SUBSTATION
6
5
REPL
COST
171,834
0
65
HWY 264 EAST
SUBSTATION
6
5
REPL
COST
505,089
0
66
HWY 264 EAST
SUBSTATION
6
5
REPL
COST
347,730
0
67
SLATESTONE ROAD
WATER TREATMENT
6
5
REPL
COST
131,219
344,119
68
SLATESTONE ROAD
PUMP STATION
2
5
REPL
COST
7,388
33,686
69
CLARK'S NECK ROAD
PUMPING STATION
2
5
REPL
COST
7,233
29,475
70
HWY 264 WEST
PUMPING STATION
1
5
REPL
COST
2,164
76,319
71
2ND i PLYMOUTH
CONTROL BUILDING
6
5
REPL
COST
32,805
19,370
72
2ND i PLYMOUTH
STORAGE
6
5
REPL
COST
31,555
31,265
73
2ND i PLYMOUTH
CONTROL BUILDING
6
5
REPL
COST
49,468
92,109
74
2ND i PLYMOUTH
STORAGE
2
5
REPL
COST
11,883
14,000
75
2ND i PLYMOUTH
WASTEWATER PLANT
6
5
REPL
COST
230,987
5,370,133
76
1201-1203 W. 3RD
WATER PLANT
6
5
REPL
COST
829,700
816,769
77
JACK'S CREEK PARK DRIVE
CONTROL BUILDING
2
5
REPL
COST
11,366
51,476
78
1011 EAST HAIN STREET
HAVENS GARDENS BATHROOM
2
5
REPL
COST
18,528
0
79
RESPESS AND MAIN STREET
SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
1
5
REPL
COST
0
17,791
80
FLANDERS FILTERS INDUSTR SITE
CATERPILLAR 3512 GENERATOR
3
5
REPL
COST
248,834
0
81
BEAUFORT COUNTY HOSPITAL
CATERPILLAR 3412 GENERATOR
3
5
REPL
COST
156,479
0
82
UTILITIES OPERATIONS CENTER
1994 OLYMPIAN GENERATOR
3
5
REPL
COST
20,541
0
83
550 WELLS AVENUE (WATER PLANT)
CATERPILLAR 3512 GENERATOR
3
5
REPL
COST
233,253
0
84
HAMILTON BEACH
2 CATERPILLAR 3512 GENERATORS
3
5
REPL
COST
398,446
0
85
STANADYNE
2 CATERPILLAR 3512 GENERATORS
3
5
REPL
COST
398,446
0
86
DONNELLY MARKETING
CATERPILLAR 3412 GENERATOR
3
5
REPL
COST
145,157
0
87
ATWOOD MORRILL
CATERPILLAR 3412 GENERATOR
3
5
REPL
COST
140,853
0
88
3RD i PLYMOUTH/PLANT YARD
RECREATION MAINTENANCE BLDG
3
5
REPL
COST
41,120
8,224
89
550 WELLS AVENUE
REGIONAL WATER PLANT
2
5
REPL
COST
4,205,541
3,748,550
90
DOUGLASS CROSS ROADS
WELL SITE
2
5
REPL
COST
16,699
23,130
91
FOREST SERVICE
WELL SITE
2
5
REPL
COST
16,699
23,130
92
TANKARD FARM
WELL SITE
2
5
REPL
COST
16,699
23,130
93
MIDWAY
WELL SITE
2
5
REPL
COST
16,699
23,130
94
HASSELL
WELL SITE
2
5
REPL
COST
16,699
23,130
95
GARRIS
WELL SITE
2
5
REPL
COST
16,699
23,130
96
WINSTEAD
WELL SITE
2
5
REPL
COST
16,699
23,130
97
250 PLYMOUTH STREET
UTILITIES OPERATIONS CENTER
2
5
REPL
COST
553,745
61,680
98
ATWOOD MORRILL
WESCO 750 KVA TRANSFORMER
3
5
REPL
COST
11,550
0
99
2ND 6 PLYMOUTH/WASTEWATER PLT
CATERPILLAR 3412 GENERATOR
3
5
REPL
COST
176,549
0
100
550 WELLS/REGIONAL WATER PLANT
WESCO 750 KVA TRANSFORMER
3
5
REPL
COST
11,550
0
TOTAL VALUES
--------------
27,129,694
--------------
14,727,589
== M M M M = = = = = M M M r M M = =

' APPENDIX V
CITY OF WASFIINGTON
POLICIES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADOPTED
IB. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Physical Limitations
Soils
1) The approach shall be conservation. The policy shall be to support and strictly enforce
Federal, State, and local regulations governing septic tank installation or other waste
treatment alternatives and building requirements in floodprone areas. (90) *
2) Washington does not oppose the installation of package treatment plants which meet
all applicable state regulations.
Flood Hazard Areas
3) The approach shall be conservation. The city recognizes that floodplains possess the
values of groundwater recharge and discharge, floodwater alteration, nutrient and
waste retention and transformation, habitat protection, and recreation enhancement;
and that these values make floodplains worthy of protection for ecological and
a economic reasons. The policy shall be to support current Federal, State, and local
restrictions with regard to development. (90)
Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Supplies
4) The approach shall be conservation. The policy shall be to protect potable water
supplies from negative land use impacts. The city is currently investigating possible
future well fields. (90)
' Stormwater Runoff
5) The chosen policy shall be to continue existing procedures until a need is shown based
on negative impacts. (90)
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas
6) Industrial development shall not be located within conservation classified areas.
7) The City of Washington, in cooperation with Beaufort County, will continue to support
an active industrial recruitment program, seeking low pollution industries.
8) The policy shall be conservation. (90)
*NOTE: All policies which are followed by (90) are policies which were included in the 1990 City of
Washington Land Use Plan.
1

Miscellaneous Resource Protection '
Package Treatment Plant Use
9) The city's policy on any future proposals shall be to support State Environmental
Management standards. (90)
Marina and Floating Home Development
10)
Floating homes have not been an issue within Washington's planning jurisdiction.
However, the city would oppose the location of floating structures within its
jurisdiction and will consider adoption of an ordinance to regulate floating homes if they
become a problem.
11)
Floating home development is discouraged at this time. (90)
12)
The City of Washington will permit floating homes which are consistent with the 15A
NCAC 7H minimum use standards.
i
13)
The policy shall be conservation for marina development. The city desires protection
from random marina development along its waterfront. The city supports CAMA
regulation of marinas but believes that those restrictions should apply to five or more
slips in this particular estuarine area. The local definition of marinas is shown in the
,
zoning ordinance. The city asks that the state use this local definition of marinas for
project requests in the Washington jurisdiction. Dry stack storage facilities would be
regulated by the local zoning ordinance and may be acceptable under certain
conditions. (90)
14)
The City of Washington opposes upland marina construction.
,
15)
The policy shall be conservation. (90)
Mooring Fields
16)
The City of Washington will allow all mooring fields which comply with minimum state
standards.
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands I
17) The City of Washington does not oppose the development of sound and estuarine
islands. 1
18) The policy shall be conservation. The city questions whether these islands could meet
the minimum standards for building or septic permits and does not encourage general '
development. A zoning review is currently underway which may change current zoning
and restrict allowable uses on the islands. (90)
h

Bulkhead Construction '
19) The policy shall be conservation. The applicable north shore areas are already
developed. South shore areas should be protected by restrictions. (90)
Sea Level Rise
20) Washington encourages migrating shorelines in coastal wetland areas in order to
preserve coastal wetlands. The city supports establishment of a state policy which will
protect the natural migration of coastal wetlands. Any state policy addressing
migrating shorelines should provide for the protection of developed areas.
Water Quality Management ,
21) The City of Washington will undertake a review of all local land use regulation
' ordinances to determine if revisions should be undertaken to respond to specific water
quality management problems.
C. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
' Productive Agricultural Lands
22) The policy should be conservation. (90)
Productive Forestlands
23) The city believes it is not economically feasible nor federally allowable to commercialize
forestry in this jurisdiction; therefore, no policy is required. (90)
Aguaculture
24) The City of Washington supports the development of aquaculture and mariculture
facilities.
1 Off -Road Vehicles
' 25) The use of off -road vehicles has not been an issue or problem within Washington's
planning jurisdiction. Therefore, a policy is not required. (90)
261 The City of Washington does not object to the use of off -road vehicles.
Marine Resource Areas
27) Washington reserves the right to comment on the individual policies and requirements
of the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries.
28) The approach shall be conservation. The policy shall be to encourage recreational
fishing of local waters and to support State agency regulations with regard to
' commercial operations.
3

Peat or Phosphate Mining '
29) This issue does not apply within the Washington Planning Area aside from the regional
economic impact of the PCS phosphate mine in nearby Aurora. No natural resource
in this jurisdiction is affected by the mine in such a way that the city could control it.
(90)
Residential Commercial and Industrial Develo ment Im acts on Resources
30) Washington does not oppose the construction of signs in public trust areas.
D.
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'
Energy
Facility Siting and Development
31)
Washington has some concerns over offshore drilling. In the event that oil or gas is
discovered, Washington will not oppose drilling operations and onshore support
facilities for which an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared with a
finding of no significant impact on the environment. Washington supports and
�.
requests full disclosure of development plans, with mitigative measures that will be
undertaken to prevent adverse impacts on the environment, the infrastructure, and the
social systems of Washington and Beaufort County. The city also requests full
'
disclosure of any adopted plans. Offshore drilling and the development of onshore
support facilities may have severe costs for the city and county as well as advantages.
The costs should be borne by the company(ies) which profits from offshore drilling and
onshore support facilities.
32)
Electric generating plants are regulated by State and Federal agencies and are usually
sited in very rural areas. Any potential project would be subject to local zoning
regulations, however it is believed that the likelihood of such a proposal in the
Washington jurisdiction is very remote.
Offshore and inshore exploration for possible oil or natural gas is an issue elsewhere
in North Carolina but is believed to present no significant impact on the Washington
planning area. (90)
Estuarine Access
,
33)
An estuarine beach access point for the public would be supported by the city if an
appropriate site could be found within the jurisdiction. (90)
,
Commitment to State and Federal Programs
34)
The city supports the State's Sedimentation and Erosion Control regulations and will
cooperate with the Army Corps of Engineers with regard to runoff. The north shoreline
is largely stabilized by bulkheads and the south shoreline is generally 404 wetlands
west of the Whichard's Beach area.
'

To date, public access has not be initiated beyond the local level. The city is interested
in providing more public access and would welcome State assistance. A recent grant
from the State's Division of Coastal Management Estuarine and Ocean Access Program
helped to fund marine bulkheading at Haven's Gardens.
The city is dependent on the State Department of Transportation for highway
improvements and makes efforts to influence their decisions with regard to placement
of new roadways.
' Port facilities and military facilities do not apply to the Washington planning area, and
no dredging has been done in the Washington area since the 1960s. The city opposes
any expansion of the military operating area if the expansion would negatively impact
the municipal airport. (90)
Tourism
35) The overall policy shall be to promote the city and to maintain orderly development and
' attractiveness through application of local ordinances. (90)
Water Supply
' 36) Evaluation of (1) a location for elevated storage and (2) the provision of water service,
east of the corporate limits.
L
h

fl
APPENDIX VI
CITY OF WASHINGTON
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
PREPARATION OF LAND USE PLAN
FISCAL YEAR 1996-97
The City of Washington has received a FY96-97 Coastal Area Management Act grant for the
update of its existing Land Use Plan. 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
Washington. To ensure such input, the following citizen participation program will be utilized by
the city.
The Planning Board will work with the city's planning consultant to ensure that the final product
will survey existing land use, identify policies, recommend strategies/actions, and identify Areas
of Environmental Concern. The plan will focus on issues expected to occur during the planning
period, including infrastructure needs, housing needs, transportation planning, and environmental
concerns. A completely new land classification map will be provided. Specifically, the planning
consultant and the Planning Board will be responsible for ensuring accomplishment of the
following:
— Establishment of policies to deal with existing and anticipated land use issues.
— Preparation of a land classification map.
-- Preparation of hurricane mitigation and post -disaster recovery plans and policies.
— Assessment of opportunities for participation in state and federal programs.
-- An updated Land Use Plan based on an effective citizen participation process.
The following schedule will be utilized:
December, 1996 -- Conduct initial meeting with the Planning Board, and review the
Citizen Participation Plan.
2. December, 1996 -- The City Council will conduct a public information meeting and adopt
the Citizen Participation Plan. The meeting will be advertised in a local newspaper. The
city will specifically discuss the policy statements contained in the 1992 City of
Washington Land Use Plan. The significance of the policy statements to the CAMA land
use planning process shall be described. The process by which the City of Washington
will solicit the views of a wide cross-section of citizens in the development of the updated
policy statements will be explained.
3. January, 1997 -- complete identification of existing land use problems, develop
socioeconomic base data, and review community facilities needs.
4. February - May, 1997 -- Continue preparation of a draft Land Use Plan and conduct
meetings with the Washington Planning Board.
5. June, 1997 -- Present complete draft sections of the plan and preliminary policy
statements to the Washington Planning Board.

6. July, 1996 — Review draft Land Use Plan with City Council, conduct a public information '
meeting for review of the proposed plan, and submit draft of completed Land Use Plan
to the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources staff for review and '
comment.
7. Following receipt of Coastal Resources Commission comments (estimate October or
November, 1997) — Present proposed Land Use Plan to City Council for adoption, and
conduct a formal public hearing.
All meetings of the City of Washington Planning Board and City Council at which the update of '
the Land Use Plan will be discussed will be advertised in a local newspaper in a non -legal ad
section. In addition, public service announcements will be mailed to local radio stations and
posted in the Municipal Building. 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 Washington.
Any questions concerning this Citizen Participation Plan should be referred to the Planning
Director at [phone], or TDD #1-800-735-2692.
11/15196 '
Ll