Land Use Plan-1985-1995

i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Washington, North Carolina
`The Original Washington'
Land Use Plan
1985 1995
Preliminary Draft: August 1Z 1985
Adopted by City of Washington: December 9, 1985
Certified by Coastal Resources Commission: May 29, 1986
Prepared by.
City of Washington,N.C.
P.O.Box 1988
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[phone]
and
PLANNING 8LDIESIGNASSOCIATESZAL
"PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS"
3515 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh,North Carolina 27612
[phone]
PROPERTY OF
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

J
Cover drawing reproduced
from "Downtown Plan", prepared
for City of Washington,1979 '

1
I
n
1
The Washington Land Use Plan: 1985-1995
Washington, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Washington City Council
J. Stancil Lilley, Mayor
Floyd G. Brothers, Mayor Pro Tern
J. R. Jones
Ursula F. Loy
Richard Cherry
Alton L. Ingalls
Prepared by:
Ralph Clark, City Manager
Louis Taylor, Director of Community Development/Planning
Buddy Cutler, Zoning Administrator
and
Washington Planning Board
Doug Mercer, Chairman Joe Toler
Stewart Everett, Vice Chairman Billie Joe Arnold
Jane Alligood
Clay Carter
Jim Bilbro
Robert M. Thomas
Robert Culler
Consultant assistance provided by:
Planning and Design Associates, P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
Terry W. Alford, MRP, AIA, Planner -in -Charge
Dale Downes, Associate Planner
with staff assistance from:
Rex H. Todd, MRP, AICP, Consultant Planner;
Greg Miller, BPD; Larry Underwood, M. Arch.;
Astrid Blades, BVD; Sandy Fitzgerald,
Debbi Wall, Carolyn Cobb, and Janet Roberts
The preparation of this report 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 197Z as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The City of
Washington also contributed cash and in -kind services.

Washington Land Use Plan: 1985 — 1995
I N D E %
page
I.
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1
II.
The
Importance of Planning
A.
What is a CAMA Land Use Plan?
3
B.
How is the CAMA Land Use Plan utilized?
3
C.
Why plan for Washington's future? . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 5
III.
Description of Present Conditions .
A.
Establishment of Information Base . . . . . .
. . 9
1
B.
Population, Economy, and Housing : : : : :
10
C.
Existing Land Use Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 13
D.
E.
Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations . . : . . . . .
Constraints: Land Suitability . .
. . 17
21
F.
Capacity of Community Facilities and Estimated
Future Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 23
IV.
Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies: Overview .
. . 28
A.
Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 29
B.
Resource Production and Management . . . . . . . . . . .
. 32
C.
Economic and Community Development . . . . . . :
34
D.
Storm Hazard Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 38
E.
F.
Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intergovernmental Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 39
. 41
V.
Storm Hazard Mitigation
A.
Overview
43
B.
Storm Hazards
43
C.
Description of Types and Severity of Risk in
Hazard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 45
D.
Recommended Policies Regarding Storm Mitigation :
47
E.
Reconstruction . . . .
. 48
F.
Intergovernmental Coordination . . . .
. 50
VI.
Land
Classification Map
A.
Land Classification and Policy Relationship . . . . . . .
. 52
B.
Developed and Developed Sub —Districts . . . . . . . . . .
. 52
C.
Transition I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 54
D.
Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 55
E.
F.
Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : . . .
Intergovernmental Coordination
. 56
56
1

IEXHIBITS
A.
Land Classification Map: Growth Policy Guidelines . .
. . . 59
B.
Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 60
C.
.Map
Flood Plain Map. : : : : :
: 61
D.
Components of Population Change . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 62
E.
Components of Employment Change . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 63
F.
Major Employers.
64
G.
Components of School Enrollment Change . . . . . . . .
. . . 65
H.
Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 66
I.
Prioritized Issues: Results of Public Response. . .
. . . 71
J.
Region Q - North Carolina. . . :
75
K.
Evacuation Shelters and Planning Sub -Districts . . . .
. . . 76
L.
Population and Housing Units by Planning Sub -Districts
. . . 77
APPENDIX
A.
City Council Members
B.
Planning Board Members
C.
Notice of 3/11/85 Public Hearing
D.
Letter of Invitation to 3/11/85 Public Hearing
E.
List of Persons Invited to 3/11/85 Public Hearing
F.
Problems and Issues Rating Survey
G.
Results of Problems and Issues Rating Survey
H.
News Clipping on Public Hearing, Washington Daily News,
3/12/85
I.
Bibliography
J.
CAMA Regulations
1
1
11
1

I
I. Executive Summary
This document provides guidelines for the future growth and development of
the City of Washington through the year 1995. Recommendations on accommodating
Washington's population growth, conserving valuable resources, and sustaining
the quality of life sought by its citizens are based on extensive research,
previous plans, and citizen input.
Previous limits on Washington's future, imposed by needed improvements
to the city's wastewater and roads are now being or have been addressed
since the 1980 Land Use Plan. These improvements are cited in this Land Use
Plan.
The City's capacity for growth is now, or soon will be, much improved.
The challenge ahead for the City of Washington is to direct this growth,
maintaining the quality of life and physical environment sought by both
citizens and City officials providing input into this report.
With the physical infrastructure for growth in place, Washington must
look to the public policy and regulatory instruments used by coastal cities
to direct and manage growth. This Land Use Plan serves to direct city use
of tools such as the Zoning Ordinance, the Thoroughfare Plan, the Water and
Wastewater Plan, the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation, and The Coastal
Area Managment Act of 1974.
The City of Washington recognizes the importance of protecting and
developing its resources, both natural and man-made. In accordance with the
Coastal Area Managment Act of 1974, this Land Use Plan contains policy
statements and implementation strategies regarding the protection,
production, and management of the City's resources as well as providing
guidelines for economic and community development to 1995. A special
-1-

section on Storm Hazard mitigation provides a plan for addressing
Washington's high vulnerability to hurricanes. Methods for insuring ongoing
public participation and intergovernmental coordination of this plan are
also provided.
This plan serves as an update to previously adopted Washington Land Use
Plans and provides an overview of public policies for the future of
Washington, North Carolina.
1
1
1
1
t
f

III. The Importance of Planning
IA. What is a Land Use Plan?
A Land Use Plan is a collection of policy statements which serve as
guidelines for local state and federal officials when making decisions
g > > g
affecting development. It is also intended to be used by private individuals
when they make decisions regarding development.
The Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 requires all local governments
in Coastal North Carolina Counties and municipalities to develop a land use
plan. The plan is to assure the orderly growth of North Carolina's coastal
area and to protect important natural resources.
The land use plan is to be developed to serve the City of Washington
for a period of 10 years. It is required however, by CAMA, that the plan be
updated every five years.
B. How is a Land Use Plan Utilized?
Land use plans which are prepared by local governments in the coastal
area are distributed widely, and have many uses. Those reviewing and using
the plans are local governments, regional councils of government, state and
federal permitting agencies and public and private funding and development
groups.
The discussion of policies, the land classification map and the
relationship between the two serve as the basic tools for coordinating
policies, standards, regulations and other government activities at the
local, state and federal levels. This coordination is described by three
applications:
(a) The policy discussion and the land classification map encourage
coordination and consistency between local land use policies and
-3-

I
1
Il
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
the state and federal governments. The local land use plans are
the principal policy guides for governmental decisions and
activities which affect land uses in the coastal area.
(b) The local land use plans provide a framework for budgeting,
planning, and for the provision and expansion of community
facilities such as water and sewer systems, schools and roads.
(c) The local land use plans will aid in better coordination of
regulatory policies and decision by describing local land use
policies and designating specific areas for certain types of
activities, thus directing other city tools such as zoning
and subdivision ordinances.
Local Government Uses - Counties and municipalities should use the
local land use plans in their day to day decision making and in
planning for the future. The land use plans should provide guidance
in local policy decisions relating to overall community development.
The plans also provide the basis for development regulations and
capital facility planning and budgeting. By identifying how the
community prefers to grow, land use plans help to assure the best use
of tax dollars for extension of public utilities and services to areas
designated for development.
Regional Uses - The regional councils of government on planning and
regional development commissions use the local land use plans as the
basis for their regional plans and in their function as regional
clearinghouse (A-95) for state and federal funding programs. The
local plans indicate to these regional agencies what types of
development the local community feels are important and where the
aC

1
1
1
E
1
1
development should take place.
State and Federal Government Uses - Local land use plans are used as
one major criteria in granting or denial of permits for various
developments within the coastal area. State and federal agencies must
be sure that their decisions consider the policies and land
classification system which are described by the local governments in
their plans. The Coastal Area Management Act stipulates that no
development permit may be issued if the development is inconsistent
with the local land use plans. Similarly, decisions relating to the
use of federal or state funds within coastal counties, and towns and
projects being undertaken by state and federal agencies themselves
must also be consistent with the local plans. State agencies also use
the plans in their A-95 review. It is thus vitally important that
local governments take the opportunity to be as definitive as possible
in developing their policy statements and land classification system
to minimize interpretive decisions on the part of state and federal
review, permit, and funding agencies.
C. Why Plan for Washington's Future?
Planning for the future is of particular importance to Washington,
North Carolina. Washington has played an important role in North Carolina's
history since it was founded in 1775 by James Bonner. It grew to be one of
the State's most important ports by the end of the 19th century and early
20th century as well as becoming the county seat of Beaufort County.
With the advent of railroad construction, hard -surface road
construction, and modern trucking, Washington's importance began to
diminish. The once thriving waterfront came only to serve one steamboat
-5-
[_J

line by 1950. The wharves became dilapidated and a general economic
downturn was experienced.
Washington first recognized the need for planning during the early
19601s. The City Council appointed a Citizen's Committee to investigate the
possibility of initiating urban renewal projects which eventually led to the
Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Project. The execution of this project
resulted in a complete renovation of the waterfront area. Abandoned
warehouses, and dilapidated buildings and piers were cleared out. The land
was built up and the Stewart Parkway was constructed. A park -like
waterfront area for the public was also created. The bulk -head was
furnished with free water and metered electricity to accommodate overnight
docking.
Other notable planning achievements soon followed. The Washington
Square shopping center was developed as an alternative commercial and retail
center to the Central Business District. Main and Market Streets were
renovated in an effort to create an amenable atmosphere downtown.
The most recent planning achievements include the continuation of
community development/redevelopment projects and the development of housing
for low and moderate income groups using Community Development Grants, the
creation of a National Register District, and the creation of a local
historic zoning district which approximates the National Register District.
Thus far, Washington has been tremendously successful in responding to
' its changing economic base. It now must meet the challenges of the future.
In order to adequately provide for its present and future citizens,
Washington must address many problems. These problems include:
11
-6-

1
1) How best to expand wastewater treatment and collection systems to
accommodate present and future demand.
2) How best to revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow for expanding
development and assuring orderly growth?
3) How best to develop the waterfront area using the river to continue
reviving economic development in Washington?
4) How best to continue enhancing the visual qualities of Washington?
5) How best to improve the water quality of the Pamlico —Tar River?
In light of these problems, and others, Planning and Design Associates,
P.A. (PDA) and the citizens and staff of the City of Washington have
prepared the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan Update. The plan is divided into
six sections and an appendix. The different sections include: Executive
Summary, The Importance of Planning, Description of Present Conditions,
Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies, Storm Hazard Mitigation,
and Land Classification Map.
The Description of Present Conditions outlines the demographic and
economic aspects of Washington and provides an existing land use map. This
section summarizes current plans, policies, and regulations reviewed during
the Plan update process, discusses existing constraints to Washington's
development, provides estimates of future growth in Washington, and provides
estimates of future community facilities demand that will accompany the
projected growth.
The section on Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies is
organized into categories of resource protection, resource production,
economic and community development, public participation, storm hazard
mitigation, and other specific issues. This section also discusses the
increasingly important role of intergovernmental coordination in regard to
those policy statements.
MAC

The fourth section of this plan presents the Land Classification Hap
and discusses the criteria used to determine the classification of the
Washington Planning Area as well as the intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation necessary for successful utilization of this land classification
system.
The fifth section is a relatively new aspect of the CAMA Land Use
Plans, Storm Hazard Mitigation. This section identifies what the City of
Washington has to lose in the event of a storm, how the City should best
minimize its potential losses, and how the City should reconstruct in the
' event of a storm.
F
M:C

n
l7
fl
III. Description of Present Conditions
A. Establishment of Information Base
Data for the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan Update was collected through
a combined effort of city officials and Planning and Design Associates, P.A.
The data assembly began with assessments of the 1976 Washington Land Use
Plan, the 1980 Washington Land Use Plan Update, and other public policy
documents, technical plans and studies, and published information on the
Town. A Bibliography of Literature reviewed is contained in Appendix I.
Published data were collected from local, county, state and federal
agencies as needed. These included consultant collection of data via visits
with the N.C. State Office of Budget and Management, N. C. Office of the
U.S. Geological Survey, N.C. State Archives, N.C. Department of
Transportation, N.C. Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, City of Washington School
System, City of Washington Chamber of Commerce, and the UNC-Chapel Hill
Department of City and Regional Planning Library.
Telephone and on -site interviews were conducted with the NRCD regional
office and Washington City Staff, including:
John Crew, Coastal Land Use Planner, NRCD, Ruth Leggett,
Coastal Land Use Planner, NRCD; Louis Taylor, City Community
Development Coordinator; Buddy Cutler, City Zoning Administrator,
and Ralph Clark, City Manager. Other initial guidance was
provided by Jonathon Philips, of the Pamlico Tar River
Foundation, Keith Hackney of Hackney Industries, Inc., and Frank
Lewis, of the Washington Chamber of Commerce.
Information regarding location of Areas of Environmental Concern, and
general field data on all policy issues outlined in this Plan were collected
through field surveys (windshield and on foot) by Planning and Design
Associates, P.A. and City Staff, as well as through personal interviews with
-9-

I
citizens, including local land surveyors using maps and photographs as
references.
The Consultants made extensive use of previous adopted Land Use Plans,
as well as other published documents listed in the Bibliography in Appendix
I.
B. Population, Economy, and Housing
Population
' The population of Washington is moving from the core of the City to
near, or out of, the city limits, making annexation a necessary means for
1 the City to both substain its tax base, and keep up with the demands for
City Services.
This is not a new trend. Both the 1976 and 1980 Washington Land Use
' Plans made the same observation.
Exhibit D (page 62) outlines the components of population change in the
City of Washington and Beaufort County. It is important to note that the
County population increased by 12.2% while the city population decreased by
6.1%. It is apparent that much of the counties growth is attributable to
' the City of Washington, in areas just outside its City Limits.
Much of the City's population decrease is in the under 5 age group
' (18.6%), which corresponds to low birth rate trends exhibited statewide
during the early 19801s. The 25-34 year old population did increase
' significantly (28.3%) and the child-bearing years (15-44) showed only a
' slight decrease.
The 1970-1980 population increase of the 25-34 year age group is
significantly less than the state-wide increase of 49.5% and the nation-wide
rate of 48.7% during the same time -frame. The overall decrease of the
-10-

I
1
population in the child-bearing years (15-44) is discouraging compared to
the state-wide increase of 25.9% and the nation-wide increase of 25.9%
between the years 1970-1980.
Some of the increase experienced by the 25-34 year age group is
' attributable to migration. The net migration (out and in) of Beaufort
County between the years 1970-1980 was 6.2%, slightly more than twice the
Istate-wide rate of 3.0%.
Economy
Washington is a community with the majority of its workers employed in
the wholesale & retail trade industry and the service industry. Being the
county seat and area retail trade center, it attracts many workers from
' outlying areas - Chocowinity, Bath, etc. Despite this advantage, Washington
is losing workers at slightly less than the rate at which it is losing
population. Exhibit E (page 63) shows that it lost 5.4% of its workforce
between the years of 1970-1980. Much of this job loss may be attributable
to new industrial job location just outside the city limits. The only
increase inside the city limits occurred in the categories of public
' administration and manufacturing. Increase in public administation follows
national trends. People are getting more government. The increase in
manaufacturing is due to the increased workload of the City's prominent
manufactures, e.g. Hackney and Sons.
' Washington's industrial base has shown a gradual growth since the first
CAMA Land Use Plan. Between 1976-1980 three major new employers located in
the Washington area: Gregory Poole, Inc. (40 Employees); Lowe's, Inc.; and
' Stanadyne, Inc. (345 Employees). Since 1980, however, only one major
employer has located in the area - Donnelly Marketing (300 Employees). A
-11-

list of Washington's major industries is contained in Exhibit F (page 64).
The impact of tourism on the economy of Washington is difficult to
guage. Washington does not have a significant number of "second houses."
Only 6% of Washington's total year-round housing units were unoccupied
during 1980, compared to a 8.2% unoccupied housing unit rate for the whole
state in 1980.
Telephone interviews with several area hotels indicate that occupancy
rates are significantly highest during the summer months. This indicates
that a tourism base exists, giving the City something to expand upon, as
discussed in Section IV.0 of this plan.
Housing
' Adequate housing for the population of Washington has been one of the
City's chief concerns in the past decade. Urban renewal projects began
revitalizing Washington's housing market in the 1960's with recent Community
rDevelopment Block Grant programs being very successful in continuing the
revitalization of Washington's low and moderate income housing market.
The City of Washington is still much more attractive to single-family
home owners than is the extraterritorial jurisdiction, as the 1980
Washington Land Use Plan concluded. That conclusion was derived from a
' study of building permit activity during the years 1975-79 within City
limits and outside City limits within the 1.5 mile extraterritorial
jurisdiction. Building permit data from the years 1980-1984 was not
available for inclusion in the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan.
The conclusion that the City of Washington is more attractive to
single-family homeowners is derived from an interview with William Cochran
of the Washington Housing Authority. Cochran estimates that approximately
-12-

98% of housing units within City limits are conventional single-family
dwellings as opposed to mobile homes. Within the entire Washington Planning
Area, including extraterritorial jurisdiction, Cochran estimates that
approximately 75% of the housing units are conventional single-family
dwellings as opposed to mobile homes.
Single-family detached housing units are available for low income
persons through the public sector. As of May 1985, the City of Washington
had 483 publicly financed low income housing units available. There are
currently no additional units under bid solicitation, however; there are 15
building lots scheduled for demolition and future development.
Apartment units for low income persons are available through the
private sector. Two rental unit complexes exist in Washington. Clifton
Meadows, located on W. Tenth Street near the John Cotten Tayloe School has
approximately 50 rental units available, and The Village, located on Avon
' Avenue has approximately 70 rental units available.
Demand for middle and upper middle income units could not be accurately
' determined from available data; however, consultant interviews and
observations suggest potential middle income housing demand as a bedroom
community for the adjacent Greenville and Texas Gulf/Aurora employment
centers.
C. Existing Land Use Analysis
Land use activities within the Washington Planning Area include areas
that are devoted to Agricultural, Forest Wetlands, Commercial/Residential,
Cultural/Recreational, Residential, Institutional/Governmental, and
' Industrial uses. All areas with these uses are identified in Exhibit B -
Existing Land Use Map (page 60).
-13-

I]
1
Agricultural
The largest land use activity in the Washington Planning Area is
devoted to agricultural use. Agricultural land comprises vast tracts of
land in the northern and western portions of the Washington Planning Area.
Other tracts of land used primarily for agricultural purposes are found
dispersed throughout the eastern portion of the planning area. The major
crops include corn, tobacco, and soybeans.
Agricultural land use is affected by activities/trends occurring in the
Washington Planning Area. Much of the land currently being used for
agricultural purposes inside the City Limits is the most suitable land for
development purposes. The City of Washington will have to pay careful
attention to the development of agricultural land, being sure to protect as
much of it as possible while developing those areas most appropriate for
other uses. Guidelines for this growth are contained in Section IV.A -
Resource Protection, and in Section VI.C, which discusses the classification
of Transition lands. (See Table of Contents for page references.)
Forested Wetland
Forest Wetlands are found primarily on the southern shore of the
Pamlico and Tar Rivers.
Those areas are not suitable for development, as they have poor
drainage and are highly susceptible to erosion.
Future use of these areas is discussed in Sections IV.A - Resource
Protection, and in Section VI.0 which discusses the classification of
conservation lands. (See Table of Contents for page references.)
-14-

1
a
Commercial/Residential
Commercial/Residential uses of land are found within the City Limits.
The designation of these two uses together was done primarily because this
is how they are found, mixed. These areas are primarily commercial but have
mixed residential use among them as well. The residential use is in the
form of detached single-family dwellings and second/third floor apartments.
The primary retail development is found in the downtown area. Planned
neighborhood shopping centers are also located on Fifteenth Street
(Washington Square and K-Mart).
The most highly visible highway business development is located on
U. S. 17 between Ninth and Fifteenth Streets. This area is becoming a strip
commercial district. Additional strip development could occur along the new
bypass (page 67) if not guarded against now. The city must take appropriate
zoning measures to protect that area soon.
Other major commercial districts are located along West Fifth Street
from Hackney Avenue to Wilson Street, and from Seventh Street to Avon Avenue
along U.S. 264. The City recognizes the caution it must take to protect
this area from excessive strip development.
Previous land use plans and the Downtown Plan have cited many
constraints to the development of the commercial district, none of which
have been rectified to date. The primary constraints include poor vehicle
circulation and inadequate parking.
Policies regarding the development of the commercial district are
contained in Section IV.0 - Economic and Community Development.
-15-

1
L
Cultural/Recreational
Areas and facilities devoted to cultural and/or recreational use are
identified in Exhibit B - Existing Land Use Map (page 60). The largest
single use, as identified in Exhibit B, is the cemetary.
Washington has a large historic district which is included in the
National Register of Historic Places. The historic district comprises the
area on the waterfront from Hackney Street to Simmons Street. The northern
border is primarily Third Street. At Market, Bonner, and Harvey Streets ,
the northern border extends as far north as Fifth Street. The southern
border is the south bank of the Pamlico and Tar Rivers.
Approximately 95 acres of land are devoted to recreational use.
Washington's Recreation Department administers recreational activities at
the following sites: Seventh St. Park, Charlotte Street Center, Kugler
Field, Todd Maxwell Field, Stewart Park, Oakdale Park, Washington Docking
Facilities, Jack's Creek, Bridge Street Center, Beebe Park, Carver's
Landing, Haven's Gardens, Water Tank Property Area, and all public schools.
Public water access is currently located at Jack's Creek. Fishing is a
popular activity at this site, as well as being popular off of the Stewart
Parkway and Highway 17 Bridge.
Residential
Residential development patterns in Washington have not changed since
1976. Residential development is dispersed (as noted earlier in this
section) among commercial and industrial development, creating incompatible
neighborhoods.
Areas south of the Pamlico -Tar Rivers (Whichard's Beach) continue their
same development trends. The homes being constructed are primarily
-16-

0
L
1
1
recreational and second homes. There is, however, substantial mobile home
development occurring as permanent residences. All homes in this area are
served by individual wells and septic tanks.
Institutional/Government
These areas are identified in Exhibit B - Existing Land Use Map (page
60). These areas include city and county government buildings and the
airport.
Industrial Land Use has not increased substantially since the previous
land use plan. Development of industrial lands has occurred immediately
adjacent to or within commercial/residential areas.
Changes which have occurred since 1980 are primarily on the western
side of the city. Gregory Poole, Inc. has located at the intersection of
U.S. 17 and N.C. 1509.
Discussion pertaining to the future industrial land use is contained in
Section IV.0 - Economic and Community Development. Much of that discussion
relates to plans by the Washington Chamber of Commerce and its efforts to
develop an industrial park east and/or west of the City Limits.
D. Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations
A comprehensive list of plans and policies for the Washington Planning
Area are contained in the bibliography (Appendix I) of this plan. Local
ordinances pertaining to development include the City's zoning code and
building code regulations.
-17-

1
1
1
I
A list of state and federal regulations pertaining to development
follows:
STATE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Agency Licenses and Permits
Department of Natural Resources and - Permits to discharge to surface
Community Development waters or operate wastewater
treatemnt plants or oil discharge
permits; NPDES Permits, (G.S. 143-
215).
Division of Environmental Management
- Permits for septic tanks to be used
for industrial purposes (G.S. 143-
215.3).
- Permits for withdrawal of surface
or ground waters in capacity use
areas (G.S. 143-215.15).
- Permits for air pollution
abatement facilities and sources
(G.S. 143-215.108).
- Permits for construction of
complex sources; e.g. parking
lost, subdivisions, stadiums, etc.
(G.S. 143-215.109).
- Permits for construction of a well
over 100,000 gallons/day (G.S. 87-
88).
I- - -------------- -
Department of Natural Resources and
1 Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
' -18-
- Permits to dredge and/or fill in
estuarine waters, tidelands, etc.
(G.S. 113-229).
- Permits to undertake development
in Areas of Environmental Concern
(G.S. 113A-118).
NOTE: Minor development permits
are issued by the local
government.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency
Licenses
and Permits
---------------------------------------
----------------
-- ------------------
Department of Natural Resources and
- Permits to
alter or construct a
Community Development
dam (G.S.
143-215.66).
Division of Land Resources
- Permits to
mine (G.S. 74-51).
- Permits to
oil or gas
drill an explanatory
well (G.S. 113-391).
Permits to conduct geographical
exploration (G.S. 113-391).
- Sedimentation erosion control
plans for any land disturbing
activity of over one contiguous
acre (G.S. 113A-54).
Department of Natural Resources and - Permits to construct an oil
Community Development refinery.
Secretary of NRCD
IDepartment of Administration
IDepartment of Human Resources
I
-19-
- Easements to fill where lands are
proposed to be raised above the
normal high water mark of
navigable waters by filling (G.S.
146.6 (c)).
- Approval to operate a solid waste
disposal site or facility (G.S.
130-166.16).
- Approval for construction of any
public water supply facility that
furnishes water to ten or more
residences (G.S. 130-160.1).

11
1
FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Licenses and Permits
Army Corps of Engineers
(Department of Defense)
- Permits required under Section 9
and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
of 1899; permits to consturct in
navigable waters.
- Permits required under Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
- Permits required under Section 404
of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972; permits to
undertake dredging and/or filling
activities.
Coast Guard
- Permits for bridges, causeways,
(Department of Transportation)
pipelines over navigable waters;
'
required under the General Bridge
Act of 1946 and the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899.
Geological Survey
- Permits required for off -shore
Bureau of Land Management
drilling.
(Department of Interior)
- Approvals of OCS pipeline corridor
rights -of -way.
'
------ --------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Licenses for siting, construction
and operation of nuclear power
plants; required under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 and Title II of
the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Permits for construction,
operation and maintenance of
interstate pipeline facilities
required under the Natural Gas Act
of 1938.

Agency Licenses and Permits
' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Orders of interconnection of
(continued) electric transmission fact lites
under Section 202 (b) of the
Federal Power Act.
- Permission requred for abandonment
of natural gas pipeline and
associated facilities under
Section 7C (b) of the Natural Gas
Act of 1938.
E. Constraints: Land Suitability
In accordance with CAMA regulations, the following is a brief analysis
of the general suitability of the undeveloped lands in the Washington
Planning Area. The analysis presented here plus related sections of policy
discussion (Section IV) were the basis for the design of the Land
Classification Map (Section VI). Land suitability is analyzed in terms of
three different types of constraints --Physical Limitations, Fragile Areas,
and Areas of Resource Potential.
Physical Limitations
' There are two major physical limitations to development in the
Washington Planning Area --Flood Prone/Storm Hazard Areas and Areas with Soil
Limitations.
Hazard Areas
As shown on the Flood Prone Areas Map, Exhibit C (page 61), almost 50%
of the land in the Washington Planning Area is subject to inundation.
Development should either be directed away from those areas or be undertaken
so as to withstand the likelihood of inundation.
IFlood -prone areas are also subject to erosion. As an example,
according to data contained in the Beaufort County Storm Mitigation Plan,

'—J
1
during a 32 year period (1951-1983) Beaufort County lost 968.1 acres due to
erosion. Had these shorelines been developed in 1951 at an average of 2
' units per acre and assuming an estimated value of $30,000 per unit,
approximately $60 million worth of property would have been lost to the
ICounty during that 32 year time period.
Soil Limitations
rSoil must be suitable for both construction and septic fields.
' Development in soils not suitable for construcion and septic fields should
not be permitted.
' Soil found in the northern half of the Washington Planning Area is of
the Norfolk-Wagram-Goldsboro association. Drainage is moderate to good in
rthis area.
The southern half of the Washington Planning Area comprises two soil
associations: Conetoe-Wando-Dragston and Dorovan Johnston. Both are poorly
drained. Dorovan-Johnston is inundated throughout much of the year, making
it the worst of the two.
rThe most recent soil analysis of the area was completed in 1976. This
analysis included with this plan, is availabel for inspection with Beaufort
County.
Fragile Areas
Fragile Areas, or Areas of Environmental Concern, are identified in
rSection IV.A - Resource Protection, of this plan. These areas are easily
' destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned development. Development of
these areas must be consistent with CAMA guidelines.
There are other areas, not defined as AEC's, which nonetheless are
fragile. These areas include all Wooded Swamps found on the south side
r
-22-
r

of the river.
rAreas With Resource Potential
As noted in various sections of this plan, much of the Washington
Planning Area is agriculturally productive. The growth guidelines offered
' in Section IV.B - Resource Production and Management should be followed.
The most productive agricultural land should be identified and protected as
agricultural land in accordance with Executive Order 95.
' Areas on the southwest shore of the Tar River have been identified as
having mineral resource potential. Any mineral resource production must be
consistent with State guidelines.
There are no publicly owned forests, fisheries, or gamelands in the
' Washington Planning Area.
F. Capacity of Community Facilities and Estimated Future Demand
Population Projections
The population within the City Limits of Washington in 1980 was 8418,
6.1% less than what it was in 1970, however, another 782 people have been
' added since 1980 to bring the 1985 estimate to 9200.
The City of Washington is however, growing, by engaging in a continuing
' program of annexation of residential, commercial, and industrial lands.
Annexations since 1980 have increased the City's population from 8418 to
9200, a 9.3% increase during the last five years. This represents a 1.86%
' annual population growth rate. Being somewhat conservative and using a 1.5%
annual population growth rate, the population of the City of Washington will
be 10,073 in 1990, and 10,864 in 1995. These projections assume that the
City will maintain its current rate of growth.
An assumed 1.5% annual population growth rate may be optimistic. There
' -23-

E
u
�7,
1
are, however, several factors which should be cited when considering the
growth in population of the City of Washington. They are:
1) The N.C. Office of State Budget and Management estimates that the
population of Beaufort County has increased by approximately 7%
between 1980 and 1985, representing a 1.4% annual population growth
rate.
2) The N.C. Office of State Budget and Management estimates that the
population of Pitt County has increased by 8% between 1980 and 1985,
representing a 1.6% annual population growth rate.
3) Scheduled transportation improvements in the Washington Planning Area
(Exhibit H), to be discussed in following narrative, will increase
the accessibility of Washington to Greenville, making the Washington
Planning Area very attractive as a residential community serving the
Greenville employment center.
Housing
In 1980 there were 3,395 housing units in the City of Washington
(within City Limits) for a population of 8418 persons. This is
approximately 2.5 persons per housing unit. Assuming the same ratio and a
1.5% annual population growth rate, growth in housing stock would be as
follows:
ADDITIONAL
YEAR
UNITS REQUIRED
1985
285
1990
349
1995
317
TOTAL
UNITS
3680 housing units
4029 housing units
4346 housing units
1980 housing unit data is from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. A housing unit is described as a house, apartment, group of
rooms, single room, or mobile home. Vacant housing units are included in
the inventory. Vacant mobile homes not intended for occupation are not
included.
In 1980, 6% of the 3395 available housing units were vacant.
-2 4-

F1
' Water Services
The City of Washington has two water stations with a combined capacity
to pump 2.92 million gallons per day. The surface water plant, located on
Plymouth Street, has a 2.2 million gallons per day capacity and the ground
' water plant, located at Slatestone Hills, about five miles east of the
surface water plant, has a 0.72 million gallon per day capacity.
' The 1985 average daily demand on both plants is about 1.5 million
gallons per day, or about 163 gallons per day per person.
rAssuming the same ratio and a 1.5% annual population growth rate, Total
'
City Demand to 1995 would be as follows:
- 1.64 million gallons per day demand in
1990
- 1.74-million gallons per day demand in
1995
'
- 1.90 million gallons per day demand in
2000
Based on the projections above, the City
of Washington will have no
'
limitations on municipal water services during the projected time -frame
'
required by CAMA in this plan.
Wastewater Service
'
Construction on improving the wastewater
treatment plant began in
January, 1985. Upon completion, the wastewater
treatment plant will have
'
the capacity to handle 2.25 million gallons per
day.
'
The most recent data available (1983) indicates that the existing
demand on the wastewater treatment plant is 1.81 million gallons per day, or
197 gallons per day per person. Assuming the
same ratio and a 1.5% annual
population growth rate, the City will have a:
'
- 2.00 million gallons per day demand in
1990
- 2.14 million gallons per day demand in
1995
- 2.30 million gallons per day demand in
2000
'
Based on the projections above, the City
of Washington will not have
MIM

any limitations on municipal wastewater services until after the year 1995.
Schools
The City of Washington has five schools. Exhibit G (page ) lists
those schools, the grades each serves, the 1984-85 enrollment, the capacity,
and the percent of design capacity each is currently being used. Though the
population study discussed earlier in this plan showed a decrease in the
three school age sub -groups, enrollment is increasing, indicating that the
City's schools are serving a greater number of persons outside City limits
yet in the school jurisdiction.
The high use rates all the schools are currently exhibiting is
sufficient evidence that the City of Washington must construct another
school. An interview with the City's Superintendant of Schools revealed
that a site has been purchased and that the City does intend to pursue bond
referendum. Also discovered during this planning process is the controversy
regarding the structural quality of some of the schools, which only
heightens the urgency in which the City must act to resolve this issue.
Transportation
Past Washington Land Use Plans and Transportation Plans have all cited
the conditions of Washington roads as one of the major obstacles to the
City's growth. Those obstacles will be diminished by 1986 as the N.C.
Department of Transportation completes highway improvements in Washington
and Beaufort County. Maps identifying the location of all scheduled
improvements are contained in Exhibit H (page 66). These improvements will
-26-

'
have a tremendous
impact on the City of Washington.
They are:
- Widen U.S.
264 from Greenville to Washington.
- Construct an
East-West Bypass, connecting U.S.
264 and Fifteenth Street.
- Widen N.C.
32 to four lanes and install curbs
and gutters.
Note: The
future of this improvement is still
uncertain as it has been
'
involved in
litigation.
- Widen U.S.
264 heading east out of Washington.
' Improvements are also scheduled for Warren Field, as the Airport Layout
Plan Report cited in 1982. Runway lights and other improvements to the
airport are being planned by the N.C. Department of Transportation.
-27-

' IV. Policy Discussion and Implementation Strategies: Overview
"Policy" may be most simply defined as an expressed set of adopted
statements which are to be used to guide future decisions. Taken together,
' the following policies therefore constitute a broad development direction
for charting the City of Washington's future.
These policies serve to update those provided by the 1980 Land Use Plan
and are derived from a careful analysis of policies contained in previous
plans and studies, published data, interviews with citizens and city staff,
' public hearings, and direction provided by the City Planning Commission. A
more detailed discussion of Citizen Participation in formulation of these
policies is contained in Section IV.E.
' The following policy discussion is presented in the five major
categories of policy development outlined by the Coastal Resources
Commission plus a sixth category, "Intergovernmental Coordination" which
briefly describes the relationship between the City of Washington and
' Beaufort County and the relationship between the City of Washington and
Washington Park.
A complete listing of all policies/issues considered for inclusion in
' this section is contained in Exhibit I.
A. Resource Protection
B. Resource Production and Management
C. Economic and Community Development
D. Citizen Participation
' E. Storm Hazard Mitigation
F. Intergovernmental Coordination
' For each major policy category, an overview discussion and its relevance to
local conditions in the Washington planning area is provided. This is
followed by a summary of Policy Objectives with recommended strategies for
implementation.
-28-

1
1 A. Resource Protection
' Protection of Washington's resources --both natural and historic, is in
the best interest of all citizens -of Washington. These are the City's
heritage and future. The Resource Protection section of the 1985 Washington
Land Use plan offers broad objectives and implementation strategies for
achieving objectives. Previous land use plans have identifed four types of
' Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in the Washington Planning Area.
These are Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shoreline, and
' Public Trust Waters. The number and location of Washington's AEC's have
remained unchanged and are discussed below.
Coastal Wetlands are defined under 15 NCAC 7H as any salt marsh or
other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding. Washington's coastal
wetlands are found on the south side of the Pamlico - Tar Rivers near
Rodman's Creek and also on the north side of the river near the mouth of
Jack's Creek, within the City Limits.
' Estuarine Waters are defined by the State as "all water of the Atlantic
' Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all the waters of the bays,
sounds, rivers, and tributaries thereto seaward. Estuarine waters are the
' bonding element of the entire estuarine system, integrating aquatic
influences from the land and the sea. They are the most productive natural
environment in North Carolina. They support the commercial and sport
fishing industry. Washington's Estuarine Waters are the Pamlico - Tar
Rivers east of the railroad bridge.
' The issue of urban run-off and storm drainage is of major concern to
the protection of Estuarine Water quality as well as being a major
' constraint to development.
1 -29-

I
The City of Washington recognizes the current emphasis that the Coastal
' Resources Commission (CRC) is placing on water quality. Like the CRC, the
citizens of Washington consider water a high -priority issue. (See Section
IV.E--Public Participation.)
The third type of AEC in the
Washington Planning Area is
Estuarine
Shoreline. Estuarine shorelines are characterized as dry land
especially
vulnerable to erosion, flooding,
or other adverse effects of wind and water.
The estuarine shorelines found in
the Washington Planning Area
are those
shorelines bordering the estuarine waters described above for
a distance of
75 feet landward of the mean water line.
The last type of AEC found in the Washington Planning Area is the
' Public Trust Area. The public trust waters are all navigable inland waters
to which the public has the rights of access include Estuarine Waters.
Another important resource which Washington must continue to protect is
' its Historic District. The Historic District is essentially the entire
downtown area bordering the waterfront. The district is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. A Historic District Commission has
been established to oversee the protection and development of the Historic
' District.
' The following objectives and implementation strategies provide public
policy guidelines for the protection of Washington's Natural and Cultural
' Resources.
Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation
1. Protect Water Quality of a. Restrict installation of Septic
Pamlico and Tar Rivers and Tanks in areas of Forested
potabel water supplies at the Wetlands, and/or flood prone areas
surface water plant on w/Dorovan Johnston Assoc. and/or
Plymouth St. and the ground Bibb Assoc. Soils.
water plant at Slatestone Hills.
-3 0-

Policy Objective
I
-31-
Strategies for Implementation
b. Insure integrity of filtering
capability of Forested Wetland
systems via:
(1) Establish Conservation buffer
zones in areas of Dorovan-
Johnston Assoc. and Johnston -
Bibb Assoc. soils, within
flood -prone areas and
forested wetlands.
c. Develop and Implement an area
program for urban run-off and
drainage. Plan for phased
improvement of municipal storm
drainage system. Use zoning
policies to improve urban run-off
and drainage, e.g. restrict uses
and density.
d. Protect Tranters Creek, Kennedy's
Creek, Runyons Creek and other
freshwater creeks as present and
future sources of fresh water.
(1) Establish conservation buffer
zones around creeks as per
criteria above.
(2) Assure maximum compliance
with DEM standards for
industry adjacent to or
included in conservation
zones.
(3) City should sponsor education
and training workshops for
industry in coordination
w/NRCD/DEM and other industry
education agencies and
groups.
e. Revise subdivision regulations and
adopt and enforce sedimentation
and erosion control ordinance to
reduce surface run-off and erosion
related water quality problems.

1
Policy Objective
Strategies for Implementation
f.
Study the annexation of areas
adjacent to the Pamlico River that
lack sewerage systems to reduce
infiltration from septic tanks.
g.
Moniter all existing industry for
negative impact on AECS.
2. Protect Areas of a.
Continue enforcement of permit
Environmental Concern
authority by the CAMA permit officer.
'
b.
List specific appropriate and
inappropriate uses for each AEC in
the City Zoning Ordinace.
c.
Conduct field studies to re —affirm
AEC's within the extraterritorial
planning jurisdiction in accordance
with section 15 NCAC 7H of the CAMA
Regulations.
d.
Sudy potential uses of Castle
Island which conform to CAMA
guidelines and guard these islands
'
against all non —conforming uses.
3. Protect Cultural and a.
Continue the implementation of
Historic Resources
downtown improvement plans.
b.
Support current efforts of the
"Downtown Committee" and "Committee
'
of 100" to stimulate private
investment in downtown.
B. Resource Production and Management
The purpose of this section is to discuss areas in the Washington
be
Planning Area that offer production potential and which must effectively
'
managed to realize their fullest potential.
Washington's most important area of
resource production potential is
land used primarily for agriculture. Beaufort County is annually among the
leaders in North Carolina in corn, grain, and soybean production. Though
' this plan is for a growing city, much of the Washington Planning Area is

F,
used for agricultural purposes. Fortunately, the City of Washington has
! zoned those areas in the Washington Planning Area which are prime for
agricultural production. The challenge the City must meet now is to allow
for orderly growth, maintaining those areas most productive as
' agricultural, and rezoning those areas most appropriate for other uses.
There currently is no commercial forestry in the Washington Planning
Area. The Land Use Map (Exhibit B, page 60) indicates wide tracts of land
which are heavily wooded. Commercial forestry, however, has not been raised
as an issue.
Another area of resource production potential is the southwest shore of
the Tar River. Some restricted and appropriately guided sand mining may
warrant consideration from the City.
The final source of resource production potential are the Pamlico and
Tar Rivers. The maintenance of water quality is essential in order for the
' rivers to continue supporting the commercial and recreational fishing
industries and other water based recreational uses.
' The importance of Washington's waterfront is also discussed in Section
IV.0 - Economic and Community Development.
The following Policy guidelines are recommended for continued
production and management of Washington's Resources:
Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation
1. Reduce the municipal tax a. Identify agricultural lands most
burden on agricultural lands suited for urban development and
within the planning juris- annexation within the planning
diction. district and re -zone
appropriately.
-33-

Policy Objective
Strategies for Implementation
'
b.
Identify most productive
agricultural lands not required
for future city growth and
restrict non-agricultural uses on
'
these lands.
2. Commercial Forest Lands
(N.A.)
3. Moniter restricted mining of a.
The City will consider pro -
mineral resources on the south-
viding technical assistance
'
west shore of the Tar River.
for projects that are com-
patible with the City's goal
of maintaining water quality.
'
4. Promote water quality a.
Support Water Quality programs
in the Pamlico and Tar Rivers
listed under "Resource
to insure continued support of
Protection."
commercial and recreational
fishing industries.
C. Economic and Community Development
The City of Washington has a tremendous
opportunity before it --the
waterfront. Waterfront development has long
been a goal of the City.
Washington initiated the development of
its waterfront in the 196O's
'
and is now facing the challenge to continue development
that will promote
tourism and recreation. Washington has the opportunity
to develop its
tourism industry greatly, drawing persons primarily
from Greenville, one of
' the fastest growing areas in the State.
The waterfront is not Washington's only economic development
opportunity. The proximity to Greenville and the four-laning of U.S. 264
offer the City improved accessibility. Construction on U.S. 264 to
Greenville is expected to be completed within two years. Once construction
' is complete, Washington is only a 20-minute ride from Greenville --a close
enough proximity that many people may wish to live in Washington and work in
' Greenville.
The low tax base in Washington and Beaufort County make it advantageous
-34-

' for industries to locate in or near Washington. The Greater Washington
Chamber of Commerce currently plans to create an industrial park east and/or
west of the City (making accessibility to Greenville easy). Its plans
should be supported. Washington has been very successful in its community
' development efforts to address problems of concentrated blight and
substandard housing. It is hoped that these successes can continue.
The need for continued development of both community and tourist
recreational and park resources to is recognized in this plan, as are other
types of community facilities such as a farmers market, increased water
' access points, and waterfront parks.
All of Washington's opportunities will require careful management to
' assure "orderly growth." The Economic and Community Development policy
' objectives and implementation strategies listed below should serve the City
as a guideline for "orderly growth."
The need for improvements to basic city services such as water, sewer,
' and streets is of paramount importance to the city, based on ranking of
priorities from citizen input at the March 11 public hearing.
' The issues of downtown revitalization and historic preservation,
summarized in Resource Protection, are also essential to the continued
economic development of Washington. Consistency between Economic and
Community Development policies and Resource Protection policies is ensured
' through careful consideration of every policy category issue as it was
addressed.
-35-

�I
1
u
r
Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation
1. Provide for Water and Sewage a. Extend sewerage and waterlines
system expansion to accommodate in accordance with 201 Facilities
future growth. Plan Capital Improvement Plan,
and Land Classification map.
2. Provide adequate streets and
roads to accommodate future
growth.
3. Promote tourism and
recreational industry
development.
4. Provide recreation
facilities and Programs
for all present and
future residents of the
Washington Planning Area.
a. Update Thoroughfare Plan,
coordinating planning with up—
dated Land Classification Map
(1985).
a. Establish a special waterfront
development district. Solicit
competitive development proposals
for restricted lease of public
waterfront.
b. Establish additional points of
public access to the water.
Solicit funding and technical
assistance from Division of
Coastal Management and other
sources.
c. Continue to support programs and
plans of the Historic District
Commission.
d. Establish Scenic Corridor
Districts for public and private
improvements to major city access
routes (e.g. tree planting).
e. Continue enforcement of and
improvements to a Signage
Ordinance.
f. Investigate potential uses of
Castle Island.
a. Work toward adoption of a
Master Plan for Municipal Parks
and Recreation programs.
5. Support expansion of a. Work with industrial recruitment
existing industry and staff of the N. C. Department of
recruitment of new industry. Commerce and the Greater
Washington Chamber of Commerce
to:
-36-

11
1
Policy Objective
6. Support continued growth
' in utilization of the
Municipal airport for
economic development.
1
' 7. Continue Washington's
role as a commercial,
retail center for farmers.
' 8. Accommodate the City's
projected growth and current
need for an additional
' school.
—37—
Strategies for Implementation
(1) Identify types of new
industry desired.
(2) Identify specific sites for
future industry requiring
support from City Services.
(3) Support expansion of
existing industry.
a. Create an Airport Restricted
District at end of runways to
insure future installation of
Instrument Landing Equipment.
b. Continue generating area and
regional support in opposition to
airport use restrictions being
proposed by U. S. Department of
Defense.
c. Oppose all plans by the
FAA/Department of Defense to
expand military flight training
areas.
d. Update 1982 Airport Master Plan
in accordance with 1985 Land Use
Plan Update.
e. Amend zoning ordinance so that
growth around the airport is
restricted.
a. Provide planning assistance to
the Greater Washington Chamber of
Commerce and/or the Downtown
Washington Association for
location and development of a
Farmer's Market.
a. Pursue bond referendum.
b. Identify type of school needed
based on population, by age
group, projections.
c. Solicit proposls upon receiving
bond referendum.

Policy Objective
9. Provide a location for potential
energy facility sitings as
opportunities present themselves.
10. Accommodate potential development
of marinas as opportunities present
themselves.
Strategies for Implementation
a. Examine potential energy
facility siting proposals
thoroughly before authorizing
construction.
b. Oppose all proposals for
potential location of a
nuclear energy facility.
c. Permit energy facility sitings
only in locations zoned I-1,
permitted Special Use.
a. All marina development must
strictly adhere to CAMA
standards set forth in 15 NCAC
7B and outlined on pages 54
and 55 of A Handbook for
Development in North Carolina's
Coastal Area, published by the
Division of Coastal Management
of the NRCD.
b. Proposed locations of marina
development must conform to
zoning ordinances in effect at
the time of the application.

D. Storm Hazard Mitigation
The importance of a sound storm mitigation or hurricane planning cannot
be over -emphasized. There are three major reasons for such planning:
1) To save lives.
2) To save capital investments.
3) To save irreplaceable natural resources.
Long-time residents of Washington can well remember past hurricanes and
their results.
1972: Hurricane Ginger brought Washington's waters to a 6.2 feet level.
1960: Hurricane Donna brought Washington's waters to a 6.5 feet level.
1955: Hurricanes Connie, Diane, and lone brought Washington's waters up
to a 6.4 feet, 7.7 feet, and 7.8 feet level, respectively.
1954: Hurricane Hazel brought Washington's waters to a level of 7 feet.
Washington will always face a strong threat from hurricanes,
northeasters, and other major storms. As the town has grown, and continues
to grow, the severity of loss has become greater. Due to this ever-
increasing severity of loss it is important to plan now to be prepared for
tomorrow.
The purpose of this section is to offer guidelines towards planning for
a major storm. These broad guidelines are elaborated upon in accordance
with CAMA guidelines, in Section V of this plan --Storm Hazard Mitigation.
Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation
1. Identify areas most likely a. Compile a hazards map that out -
to be damaged and the extent lines all areas subject to flood
to which they will be and/or wind damage.
damaged.
b. Compile an inventory of existing
land use and structures in the
Washington Planning Area.
c. Estimate monetary value of
structures subject to loss due
to storm damage.
-38-

Policy Objective
2. Create an evacuation plan to
be followed by all residents of
the Washington Planning Area in
the event of a storm.
3. Prepare a post -recovery plan
that best meets the needs of
the community and makes most
efficient use of time.
Strategies for Implementation
a. Evacuation must be consistent
with Beaufort County Plan.
b. Coordinate all plans with the
Division of Emergency Management,
the Federal Emergency Agency,
and the N. C. Department of
Transportation.
a. Prioritize all clean-up efforts.
b. Create a "Recovery Task Force."
c. Allocate responsibilities among
Recovery Task Force Members.
d. Establish guidelines for repair
and reconstruction.
e. Coordinate all efforts with
necessary county, state, and
federal agencies.
E. Public Participation
A variety of techniques were used in an effort to gain as much public
input as possible into this plan. The following narrative describes those
techniques and offers objectives and implementation strategies for
continuing the public participation plan.
Planning for the public input began in December after the City's
consultants, Planning & Design Associates, P.A., had researched all past
plans available from the City and had interviewed City administrative
officials regarding the current land use issues. Preliminary findings were
then presented to City Planning Commission at their March 4 meeting.
Issues derived from previous plans are documented in Appendix F.
Priority consideration was given to policies previously adopted through a
public participation process and/or policy documents approved by elected
officials (e.g. EPA 201 Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Airport Master
-39-

Plan, etc.).
' All of the issues were then compiled into one list, and a rating scale
was established for use at a Public Hearing. (See Appendix F.)
On March 11, 1985 a Public Hearing was conducted. Prior notice was
' advertised in the Washington Daily News (Appendix C), and letters inviting
civic and industry leaders were mailed. (See Appendices D and E.) News
icoverage of the hearing was provided in the Washington Daily News (Appendix
' II)
Each person in attendance, including the City Council were asked to
' rate the issues on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being most important, and to list any
issues, not previously listed, in the provided space. (Appendix F.)
' The results of that Public Hearing are found in Appendix G. A scoring
system was devised to allow for analysis of the results. Each issue
received a numeric score based on priority assigned by each respondent and a
' Total Net Score was calculated for each issue. Using the Net Score the
issues were then prioritized into categories of importance.
The priority categories and recommended implementation strategies are
' found in Exhibit I (page 71).
Draft sections of the plan a working draft of "Policy Objectives and
Implementation Strategies" and the Land Classification Map were made
available for the Planning Board's review and input in mid -June, to solicit
' input before the July 1 Planning Board meeting, at which the City's
consultants, Planning & Design Associates, P.A., were present.
The City of Washington must now continue soliciting public
participation. The following objectives and implementation strategies
should be followed.
-40-

Policy Objectives
1) Encourage active participation
in land use discussion by all
sectors of the population.
2) Educate the citizens of
Washington about issues
facing the area regarding
matters of resource protection,
resource production, and
community and economic
development.
F. Intergovernmental Coordination
Strategies for Implementation
a) Develop a roster of civic
organizations and key
individuals to be notified of
public meetings regarding land
use issues.
b) Publicize notices of meetings
in local newspaper preceded by
feature articles on specific
issues to be discussed during
upcoming meeting.
a) Distribute brochures currently
available in annual tax bills
or in utility bills.
b) Prepare public information
programs for presentation to
civic groups, churches, and
school classes.
The preceding discussion of policies are to serve as the basic tools
for coordinating numerous policies, standards, regulations, and other
governmental activities at the local, state, and federal level.
The City of Washington and Beaufort County have long made cooperation a
standard practice. The cooperation discussed in the 1976 Washington Land
Use Plan still exists today. The cooperative efforts made in the interim
have included the planning of rescue squad service, transportation planning,
storm mitigation, and collection of taxes.
,Washington has also maintained a long—standing cooperative
relationship with Washington Park. The two municipalities share many common
services, recognizing the need to work together. Washington also
administers Washington Park's zoning on a fee basis.
The need for coordination between the City and County the most crucial
—41—

new element of this plan - Storm Mitigation, is particularly evident.
The storm mitigation plan is perhaps the most crucial new element of
this plan because the hurricane season begins with city review of this plan
Iin August 1985.
1
F,
1
-42-

V. Storm Hazard Mitigation
A. Overview
The importance of a sound storm mitigation plan cannot be over-
emphasized. There are three major reasons for such planning:
1) To save lives.
2) To save capital investments.
3) 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.
The purpose of this section is to offer guidelines towards planning for
a major storm. Following this overview are five sub -sections which contain
the guidelines the City intends to follow in preparation for a major storm
and the reconstruction to occur afterwards.
B. Storm Hazards
The first step in this storm mitigation plan is to identify and map all
areas of the community which are most vulnerable to hurricane damages and to
identify the damaging forces each area is subject to.
The areas most vulnerable to hurricane or other major storms are all
AECs, found within the Washington Planning Area. These areas are coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shoreline, and public trust waters.
AECs are defined and identified in Section IV.A of this plan. These areas
have been classified as conservation.
Other areas vulnerable to hurricane or other major storms are those
areas with an elevation below the 100 year flood plain. The 100 year flood
plain elevation for the City of Washington is 10 feet. A map of areas with
-43-

I
LL
' an elevation below 10 feet is contained in Exhibit C (page 61). These areas
have a 1% chance of flood inundation in any given year.
The entire Washington Planning Area is also vulnerable to hurricane
' damages.
The areas listed above are subject to damaging forces that include high
winds, flooding, erosion, and wave action/battering. The chart below ranks
the severity of risk in each hazard area according to the damaging forces
which are likely to occur there.
rSeverity of Risk in Hazard Areas
i !
Exposure to
Damaging Forces
Hazard Arpa !Severity ; High
!Flooding ; Erosion ; Wave
'
Rank Winds
Action
=Coastal Wetlands !
1 ! H
!
H ! H
! H !
!Estuarine Waters !
1 ! H
!
H H
H !
;Estuarine Shoreline!
1 ! H
!
H ; H
! H !
!Public Trust Waters!
2 ! H
;
H ! M
; M !
---,
-M-, --
r
!Flood Prone Areas
s !
3 ! H
!
H ! M
H M
_ _-,
! L !
_
!Rest of Community !
4 ! H
!
M ! L
! L !
Exposure Levels: High,
Moderate, Low
Disk: Allan
File: Risk
The Washington Planning Area is subject to high wind damage.
A map outlining flood -prone areas is contained in Exhibit C (page 61).
A map locating areas subject to erosion and wave action - the AECs, is
located in Exhibit A (page 59).
r -44-
1

C. Description of Types and Severity of Risk in Hazard Areas
A key component of this storm mitigation plan is the following
' description of what is at risk in the Washington Planning Area. This
description risk includes, in accordance with CAMA guidelines, an inventory
rof land uses and an inventory of structures within the planning area. Also
' provided, as per CAMA guidelines, is an indication of the monetary value of
the losses that the planning area might sustain in the event of a major
' storm.
A narrative description of the inventory of land uses in the Washington
Planning Area is contained in Section III.0 and an existing land use map is
contained in Exhibit B (page 60) of this plan. The land use map enables the
City to measure the severity of what the city has at risk in terms of
' commercial, industrial, and institutional structures. The potential capital
loss in these areas is self-evident. The figure would be hundreds of
' millions of dollars, an amount so staggering that it could not be replaced.
Data and maps provided by the N.C. Office of State Budget and
Management and the N.C. State Archives enabled this plan to divide the City
' of Washington into nine "Planning Sub -Districts." The division of the City
into planning sub -districts was derived from Enumeration District
boundaries. Exhibit K (page 76) outlines the boundaries of each planning
sub -district and lists the groupings of Enumeration Districts where
' necessary.
Exhibit L (page 77) lists what Washington has at risk in each of the
planning sub -districts. Data contained in this exhibit includes two
' planning areas encompassing Long Acre Township and Chocowinity Township.
These Townships are not included in the Washington Planning Area. The use
-45-

of Enumeration District Data therefore includes a small population at risk
outside the existing planning jurisdiction.
' What Washington has at risk is considerable - both in terms of
population and in housing structures. There is a total population of
' approximately 15,086 in the planning area with an estimated housing
structure value of $162,739,200. The counts of population and number of
housing units within each planning sub -district enable the City to measure
' the severity of risk for each individual planning sub -district, both in
terms of human lives and in terms of monetary value.
' The evacuability of the Washington Planning Area is discussed in
' Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way, the County's
storm mitigation plan. Eight evacuation zones have been established in the
' County. Parts of the Washington Planning Area lie within three of these
zones - Zones IV, V, and VIII.
' Surge Inundation Points have also been identified in Before the Storm
' in Beaufort County. Inundation Points in the Washington Planning Area
include: a portion of SR 1300 that feeds U.S. 264, and all State roads that
feed SR 1300, from Broad Creek to Washington across Runyon's Creek Bridge;
and on U.S. 264 from Oak Drive and Hil lcrest Drive due west, intersecting
' U.S. 17, south to and including the Pamlico River Bridge.
' The analysis provided in Before the Storm in Beaufort County provides
evidence that the entire City of Washington is well within the standard
' warning time of 12 hours provided by the National Weather Service. The
principle roads in Washington, U.S. 17, U.S. 264, and N.C. 32, are all
icapable of transporting 455 vehicles per hour at 35 miles per hour. During
' a 12 hours period the three roads together could transport 16,380 vehicles,
-46-

11
1
allowing the City ample room for growth and still maintaining good
evacuability.
The City of Washington has three evacuation shelters available to
residents of its planning area. They are: John C. Tayloe Elementary
School, eastern Elementary School, and the National Guard Armory. (See
Exhibit K, page 76)
D. Recommended Policies Regarding Storm Mitigation
Policy statements and implementation strategies offered in this section
of the Land Use Plan will decrease the City's risk of hurricane damage:
Policy Objective Strategies for Implementation
1. Protect Areas of Enviromental a. Continue enforcement of permit
Concern authority by CAMA permit officer.
b. List specific appropriate and
inappropriate uses for each AEC
in the City Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maintain or strengthen a. Enforce the State Building Code
existing policies known to taking maximum advantage of its
decrease the risk of hurricane construction standards which deal
damage. with the effects of high wind.
b. Support the local CAMA Permit
Officer in monitering the
construction of hotels,
restaurants, and similar large
commercial structures in erosion -
prone areas.
c. Assist the County in preparing an
Erosion and Sedimintation Control
Plan to be filed with the
Env iromental Management Commission.
3. Increase public awareness of a. Conduct a risk -avoidance
hurricane preparation. education program through the
Office of Emergency Management to
advise current and prospective
developers of existing storm
risks in Washington.
-47-

L
Policy Objective
E. Reconstruction
Strategies for Implementation
b. Conduct hurricane education
program through the Office of
Emergency Management in all
public schools to instruct
youngsters what to do in the
event of a storm.
According to Before the Storm: Managing Development to Reduce
Hurricane Damages by William D. McElyea, David J. Brower, and David R.
Godschalk, a reconstruction plan has four purposes. It should:
1. Expedite community recovery by outlining procedures and requirements
before damages occur.
2. Establish a procedural framework for putting storm mitigation measures
into effect after disaster strikes the community and buildings and
utilities are being repaired and rebuilt.
3. Gather and analyze information concerning the location and nature of
hurricane damages in the community.
4. Assess the community's vulnerability to hurricane damages and guide
reconstruction to minimize this vulnerability.
Beaufort County has a post disaster reconstruction plan, the Beaufort County
Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan, which was adopted in September 1982.
That plan addresses post disaster reconstruction, fulfilling all four
purposes cited in Before the Storm: Managing Development to Reduce
Hurricane Damages. The Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan
outlines all of the steps the County will take to serve all of its
communities during the recovery phase of a major hurricane. That plan is
available in the regional office of the N.C. Division of Emergency
Management in Washington.
The City of Washington should follow the guidlines set forth in that
plan, paying particuliar attention to Annex F (Beaufort County Damage
-48-

Assessment Plan), Annex G (Disaster Assistance Program Summary), and Annex I
(Beaufort County Plan for Temporary Housing).
In addition to following the guidelines of the Beaufort County Disaster
Relief and Assistance Plan, there are several courses of action the City
should take that will complement the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and
Assistance Plan. These courses of action will also expedite the successful
delivery of the Beaufort County Plan. The following policy objectives and
implementation strategies further define the policy statments offered in
Section IV of this plan.
Policy Objective
1. Prioritize all clean-up
efforts.
-49-
Strategies for Implementation
a. Service facilities (electricity,
water, sewer, etc.) should be
repaired first.
b. Public facilities which could be
used for additional shelter
should be repaired next.
c. A "worst damage" approach should
follow afterwards.
d. The City should be prepared to
adopt a temporary moratorium on
all new development until
reconstruction is complete.
e. Redevelopment will occur at a
controlled pace. Structures
not conforming to zoning
ordinances in place at the
time which have experienced
50% or greater destruction (to
be evaluated by Planning
Board) will not be
reconstructed.

11
Policy Objective
2. Create a "Recovery Task
Force" and allocate respon-
sibilities among members.
3. Coordinate all efforts with
necessary County, State, and
Federal agencies.
F. Intergovernmental Coordination
Strategies for Implementation
a. The task force should include the
following members or representatives:
1. City Manager
2. Building Inspector
3. City Council
4. Planning Board
5. Public Works Superintendant
6. Police/Fire Departments
a. Upon establishment of the
"Recovery Task Force" and
allocation of responsibilities,
notify agencies listed under
Intergovernmental Coordination.
The City of Washington is responsibile for reporting all of its
activities concerning storm hazard mitigation and hurricane preparedness
with the following agencies:
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
State Office: Office of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Field Office: Office of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
1502 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
-50-

N.C. Division of Emergency Management
g Y
' State Office: Division of Emergency Management
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(91 9) 733-3867
' Regional Office: Area Emergency Management Coordinator
N.C. Division of Emergency Management
607 Bank Street
Washington, NC 27889
' [phone]
N.C. Division of Community Assistance
(National Flood Insurance Program Information)
Flood Insurance Coordinator
' Division of Community Assistance
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
' [phone]
Federal Emergency Management Agnecy
National Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, S.W.
' Washington, D.C. 20472
Public Information [phone]
Publications - [phone]
Regional Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
' 1375 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Public Information - [phone]
Disaster Assistance Program - [phone]
Flood Insurance Program - [phone]
11

VI. Land Classification leap
' A. Land Classification and Policy Relationship
The Land Classification Map is included in this Plan (Exhibit A. page
' 59) as a framework for local government to utilize when identifying future
land use. The map accompanying the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan was based
on documentation from previous plans, studies, and existing published data,
worksessions with the City Staff, and public participation, including
interviews with local land surveyors, and meetings between the Planning
Board and it's consultants.
' The purpose of the land classification map is to illustrate City policy
statements provided in this land use plan. The areas shown on the land map
' serve as a guideline for Washington's official Growth Policy, and, as such,
serves as a visual reference for use in policy implementation. It is not a
' strict regulatory mechanism.
The CAMA land classification system contains five broad classes:
developed, transition, community, rural, and conservation. In the City of
Washington's Planning Area, the community classification is not applicable.
The following narrative describes the classification of the 1985
' Washington Land Use Map.
' B. Developed and Developed Sub -Districts
The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued intense
development and re -development of existing incorporated areas.
The land designated as developed indicates an area that is provided
water and sewer services as well as the other usual municipal services such
as police and fire protection.
Areas included as developed on the 1985 Washington classification map
-52-

are four sub -categories identified for special consideration. These
subcategories are explicitly referred to in Section IV of this plan - Policy
Objectives and Implementation Strategies. The special designation of these
areas indicates that these are the areas the City may consider special
' protection for in the future.
The "Developed" sub -categories are Historic District, Waterfront
' Development District, Scenic Corridor, and Airport Restricted.
The Historic District comprises the area on the waterfront from Hackney
Street on the west side of the City to Simmons Street on the east side of
' the City. The southern border is the south bank of the Pamlico -Tar Rivers.
The northern border is primarily Third Street. At Market, Bonner, and
Harvey Streets the northern border extends up to Fifth Street. Policy
objectives pertaining to the Historic District are contained in Sections
IV.A-Resource Protection, and IV.C- Economic and Community Development.
' The Waterfront Development District comprises the area on the
waterfront from Bridge Street to Harvey Street. The northern most border is
one block off the waterfront and the southern border is extended to
encompass the Pamlico Islands. The purpose of the Waterfront Development
.District is summarized in Section IV.0 and is a response to the City's
' desire to complete work initiated in the 19601s. The establishment of this
special district and the pursuit of competitive development proposals for
restricted lease of the public waterfront is based on the City's desire to
serve both residents and visitors.
' The Scenic Corridor Districts are the major entry and exit ways to the
' City. Scenic corridor districts include U.S. 17, U.S. 264, and River Road.
The purpose of these districts is to sustain efforts to enhance the urban
r
-53-

quality and aesthetic appeal of entering and leaving the City of Washington,
' as well as improve and/or maintain Washington's special aesthetic qualities.
The designation of this district, with corresponding improvements, such as
the development of tree planting programs, and the enforcement of an
' improved signage ordinance, will contribute to the City's future tourist
industry.
' The Airport Restricted Districts are located at the end of Warren Field
runways. Restricting development in these districts will enable future
runway expansion and/or installation of landing instruments. The purpose of
' the Airport Restricted district is to guide growth away from these areas.
This district also serves to restrict development in areas affected by noise
' from the airport.
The designation of these districts is an important step for the City.
It is the City's intent to enforce these designations through the use of
' zoning. The City intends to consider, for example, tougher signage
ordinances, stricter subdivision regulations, etc.
' C. Transition I and II
' The purpose of the Transition class is to provide for future intensive
urban development. The development of these areas is projected to occur
' within the next ten years, and is judged most suitable (physically as well
as financially) for expansion/provision of community services. The
Transition category identifies land for additonal growth, when land
' classified as developed is not available or suitable.
The 1980 Washington Land Use Plan began the policy of dividing
' Transition areas into several subcategories, providing for prioritized
growth. The 1985 Washington Land Use plan continues this policy, dividing
1
-54-

I
1
the Transition class into Transition I and Transition II.
Transition I areas are those areas that the City of Washington will
strive to provide city services to within the ensueing five years. The
Transition I class comprises of four areas:
1) The area just northeast of Washington Park immediately adjacent to
Runyon's Creek.
2) The area just south of the airport at Smallwood subdivision.
3) The area north of existing city limits adjacent to U.S. 17 and U.S.
264.
4) The area east of Tranter's Creek, along U.S. 264.
Transition II areas are those areas that the City of Washington will
strive to provide city services to within the ensueing ten years. The
Transition II comprises three areas:
1) Areas north-northwest of city limits between U.S. 264 and the airport.
2) Areas east of the airport due north of Smallwood subdivision.
3) Areas east of the city on both sides of U.S. 264.
Transportation, water, and wastewater improvements already in progress
(see Section II.0 - Existing Land Use Analysis) were the primary basis for
the designation of the Transition I and II areas.
D. Rural
The purpose of the Rural class is to provide for agriculture, forest
management, mineral extraction, and other low -intensity uses. Lands in this
category greatest potential for agricultural use and includes land that may
have one or more limitations that would make development undesirable.
The Rural class includes all land on the northern, eastern, and western
borders of the Washington Planning Area. The land adjacent to Wichard's
-55-

U
1
Beach Road has also been designated as rural, since it is out of the floor
prone area and contains soil types suitable for agriculture.
E. Conservation
The purpose of the Conservation class is to provide for effective long-
range management of significantly limited or irreplaceable areas. This
management is necessary in the Washington Planning Area because of the high
nutrient pollutants that runoff and erosion often contribute to pollution of
the Pamlico -Tar River public trust waters.
The establishment of the conservation class creates a "buffer zone,"
discouraging intensive development of these areas. This classification does
not limit all development. Development in these areas may occur as long as
that development does not impair the biological, social, economic, and
aesthetic value of these areas. An exception to this definition is the
dowtown section of Washington, which must be protected for historical
purposes yet is not classified "conservation."
Conservation areas on the Land Classification map include all areas
bordering public trust waters and all areas identified as an AEC (See
Section IV.A-Resource Protection). Conservation areas also include all
surface waters.
The boundaries for these areas were established by topographic boundary
of flood prone areas and locations of forested wetlands in areas of Dorovan-
Johnston Association Soils.
F. Intergovernmental Coordination
The preceding discussion and map of the 1985 Washington Land Use Plan
Classification System serves as the visual reference for coordinating the
policies contained in this plan at the local, state, and federal levels of
-56-

1
government. Exhibit J (page 75) provides a map indicating the members of
1 the Region Q Council of Governments, all of whom also adopt city and county
land use plans.
1 The 1985 Washington Land Classification System is consistent with the
1 1981 Beaufort County Land Use Plan and the 1984 Beaufort County Storm
Mitigation Plan: Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way•
1
II
11
1
-57-

EMT ITS
I
A. Land Classification Map: Growth Policy Guidelines
B.
Existing Land Use Map
'
C.
Flood Plain Map
'
D.
Components of Population Change
E.
Components of Employment Change
'
F.
Major Employers
G.
Components of School Enrollment Change
'
H.
Transportation Improvements (5
pages)
'
I.
Prioritized Issues: Results of Public Response (4 pages)
J.
Region Q - North Carolina
K.
Evacuation Shelters and Planning Sub -Districts
L.
Population and Housing Units, by Planning Sub -Districts
F
1 -58-

MMUmmumop MOM 91MMUM
F L
O
O
D
P
L
A
I N
M
A P
INDEX
— — — — CITY LIMITS
1
Source: Map of Flood Prone Areas (100 Year Flood Plains,
U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.
Prepared by.
City of Washington,N.C.
P.O.Box 1988
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[phone]
and
PLANNING &DESIGNASSOCIATM.PA.
"PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS"
3515 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh,North Carolina 27612
[phone]
he Nonh
one
n.n. an anThe
City of 1985 LAND USE PLAN. EXHIBIT C
he
61

_ _. . r-%eRY
MMMURROP MON UmmuM
E X I S T I N G L A N D U S E N/1 A P
INDEX TO EXISTING LAND USES
AGRICULTURAL
FOREST WETLANDS
COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
CULTURAL/RECREATIONAL
RESIDENTIAL
INSTITUTIONAL/GOVERNMENTAL
INDUSTRIAL
Prepared by
City of Washington,N.C.
P.O.Box 1988
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[phone]
and
PLANNING &DESIGNASSOCIATES.PA.
"PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS"
3515 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh.North Carolina 27612
e North [phone]
me
�an and The City of 1985 LAND USE PLAN. EXHIBIT B
.

..,-.. ov
�MaEWoEI 9 MOM MMMUM
LAND CLASSIFICATION M A P
INDEX TO LAND CLASSES
MAJOR CATEGORIES
DEVELOPED SUBCATEGORIES
Within City Limits -- Historic District
and/or City services - - - 1%aterfront Development District
provided ............ Scenic Corridor
Airport Restricted
--- Citv Limits
TRANSITION I
City Services to be added within 5 years.
TRANSITION II
City services to be added within 10 years.
RURAL
CONSERVATION
Prepared by.
City of Washington,N.C.
P.O-Box 1988
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[phone]
and
PLANNING &DESIGNASSOCIATESZOi,
"PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS"
3515 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh,North Carolina 27612
the North [phone]
ane
Gran and
wL The
City of 1985 LAND USE PLAN: EXHIBIT A
59

Components of Population Change in Washington and Beaufort County, 1970 - 1980
City of
Washington
Beaufort
County
saasssaasaaaasasaaaraasaaaaaasasaaaaaraaararraassaasasasarsaasaasaaassaaaaassararrssasraasaaaaraaaaasraasssrar
1970
Pop.-
1980
Pop.
1970 Pop.
1980 Pop.
Age Group
and Percent
and Percent
Absolute
Percent
and Percent
and Percent
Absolute
Percent
of Total
()
of Total
()
Change
Change
of Total ()
of Total ()
Change
Change
wcaaaasmaassssasaass:aasssrasaaaasarsaaassrsasrasaaaasrsasssrsrsssaarasrasraaasrasarassrsa:ssasrsarraaassraasar
Under 5
736
( 8.2)
599
( 7.0)
- 137
- 18.6
2905 ( 8.1)
3148 ( 7.8)
+ 243
+ 8.4
5 - 14
1694
(18.9)
1235
(14.7)
- 459
- 27.1
7387 (20.5)
6538 (16.2)
- 849
- 11.5
15 - 24
1541
(17.2)
1402
(16.7)
- 139
- 9.0
6033 (16.8)
6727 (16.7)
+ 694
+ 11.5
N
25 - 34
837
( 9.3)
1074
(12.8)
+ 237
+ 28.3
3932 (10.9)
6025 (14.9)
+2093
+ 53.2
35•- 44
964
(10.8)
792
( 9.4)
- 172
- 17.8
3898 (10.8)
4403 (10.9)
+ 505
+ 13.0
45 - 54
1069
(11.7)
850
(10.1)
- 219
- 20.5
4123 (11.5)
4047 (10.0)
- 76
- 1.8 -'
55 - 64
1061
(11.9)
821
( 9.8)
- 240
- 22.6
3951 (11.0)
4291 (10.6)
+ 340
+ 8.6
- 65 - over
1059
(11.1)
1645
(19.5)
+ 586
+ 55.3
3751 (10.4)
5176 (12.9)
+1425
+ 38.0
TOTAL
8961
(100)
8418
(100)
- 543
- 6.1
35980
40355
+4375
+ 12.2 �.
rt
asaa.saaaaasaaarsaaaaas=asaaaassasaasassssresssassaaoaaasssaarsasaaaassssaassaasasasaaaasaaasaaaaassasssaaaassa
�

M = = = = M = = = = = = = = r M
i
rn
w
1
Components of Employment Change in Washington and Beaufort County, 1970 - 1980
City of Washington Beaufort Cc unty
-N----------M----------NN--NY--------Y----------------------------------
------------------ N----------------------------- ---
1970 Emp.
1980
Emp.
1970 Emp.
1980 Emp.
Categories
and
Percent
and
Percent
Absolute
Percent
land Percent
and Percent
Absolute
Percent
of Total ()
of Total ()
Change
Change
of Total ()
of Total ()
Change
Change
------------------------N Y-rr-N--NN--
-----
----
--------
------------
-----
----------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Forestry.
Fisheries, Mining
97
(2.7)
95
(2.8)
- 2
-4 2.1
2169 (16.5)
2123 (12.9)
- 46
-21.2
Construction
207
( 5.8)
163
( 4.9)
- 44
-21.3
961 ( 7.3)
1048 ( 6.4)
+ 87
+ 9.1
Manufacturing
(Durable and non -Durable)
771
(21.8)
971
(28.9)
+200
+25.9
3170 (24.0)
4699 (28.5)
+1529
+ 48.2
Transportation, Communication
other Public Utilities
151
( 4.3)
83
( 2.5)
- 68
-45.0
600 ( 4.6)
675 ( 4.1)
+ 75
+12.5
Wholesale and Retail Trade
961
(27.1)
820
(24.5)
-141
-14.7
2704 (20.5)
3459 (21.0)
+ 755
+27.9
Finance
12S
( 3.5)
106
( 3.2)
- 19
-15.2
330 ( 2.5)
497 ( 3.0)
+ 167
+33.8
Services
1119
(31.6)
914
(27.3)
-205
-18.3
2894 (21.9)
3338 (20.0)
+ 444
+15.3
Public Administration
110
( 3.2)
198
( 5.9)
+ 88
+80.0
355 ( 2.7)
645 ( 3.9)
+ 290
+81.7
TOTAL
3541
(10OZ)
3350
(1001)
-191
- 5.4
13183 (100Z)
16484 (100Z)
+3301
+25.0
-----------------N----N-------------- N------N-N----wwN---------N-ww-
NNw--------- -------- ------ --- ------------- Nr
Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management,
Employed persons 16 and over by industry
rr
x
N
Cr
rr

Exhibit F
BEAUFORT COUNTY AND WASHINGTON, NC: MAJOR EMPLOYERS, (1/1/85)
1
1
n
1
1
----------------------------l------------ I -------------------- ---------!
I Company
1 Location
1 Type Industry
! # of :
:
1
!
!Employees:
l---------------------------- I------------ :-------------------- 1---------:
!Blue Channel Corp.
!Belhaven
!Seafood
! 250 !
!Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
!Washington
!Soft drink bottling
! 18 !
1
1
!
1 !
:Dr. Pepper's Bottler s,
Inc.,'Washington
!Soft drink bottling
I 80 !
'
!Singer Co.
IChocowinity
!Furniture
: 475 :
I
I
1
! I
:Hamilton Beach
!Washington
:Electric appliances
1 1000 !
'
I
,
'
!
! I
!Outer Banks, Inc.
IChocowinity
ITank & pipe linings
! 45 :
I
I
I
I ]
!Hackney & Sans, Inc.
!Washington
ITruck bodies
1 229 :
,
!Maola Ice Cream
!Washington
lice cream
! 55 1
I
1 I
!Mason Lumber Co.
!Washington
!Lumber
1 55 I
!Moss Planning Mill
:Washington
ILumber
1 119 I
!
!
I
! 1
!National Spinning Co.
(Washington
!Garment mfg.
1 1000 1
1
1
I
! !
:Samson's Mfg. Co.
(Washington
:Garment mfg.
1 325 !
I
I
1
1 !
!Tidewater Equipment Co.
IChocowinity
ILogging equipment
1 30 1
I
I
!
! 1
!Texasgulf Chemicals Co.
!Aurora
(Phosphate mining
1 1220 !
I
!
1
I I
!Washington Beverage Co.
!Washington
ISoft drink bottling
I 15 I
I
,
:Washington Garment Co.
(Washington
!Garment mfg.
I 120 !
1
!
!
I 1
!Washington Packing Co.
lWashington
!Meat processing
! 23 1
IYounce & Ralph Lumber Co. !Belhaven
!Lumber
! 50 !
!Flanders Filters, Inc.
!Washington
!Industrial filters
1 480 1
:Atwood & Morrill
!Washington
!Valves
! 35 I
:N.C. Phosphate Corp.
!Aurora
]Phosphate mining
1 60 :
1
1
I
I !
!Stanadyne, Inc.
!Washington
!Industrial filters
1 345 I
I
I
I
I !
!Privateer Mfg. Co.
IChocowinity
!Garment mfg.
1 55 !
1
1
!
1 !
!Donelly Marketing
!Washington
!Marketing
! 300 !
!Lowe's Inc.
!Washington
!Hardware & lumber
I 35 I
1
!
1
1 !
!Gregory Poole
!Washington
!Heavy equipment
I 40 !
:---------------------------- ;------------ 1-------------------- ;---------I
Disk: Allan
File: Washemp
-64-

Exhibit 6
1
Components of School Enrollment
Change
Washington,
North Carolina
'
Grade
78-79 84-85
Enrollment Enrollment
School Enrollment
Total
Capacity
% of
Capacity
K
276
286
1
1
324
309
'
2
330
284
Eastern Elem.
879
936
94%
3
340
268
'
4
310
275
Tayloe Elem.
543
559
97%
'
5
293
287
'
6
258
291
John Small Elem.
578
650
89%
7
271
332
'
8
277
356
'
9
337
322
Jones Junior High
1010
1050
96%
10
315
295
11
321
256
'
12
27
263
Except.
43
10
High School
824
1072
77%
Disk:
Bath 185
Recall
Code:
BIBLIO
-65-

M M M M M M M M
a
Projected Completion: FY 85 N.C. D.O.T. Transportation Improvement
Projected Cost : $14,810,000 Program, 1984-85
Length (Miles) : 10.4

z
Projected Completion: FY 85 Source: N.C. D.O.T. Transportation Improvement
Projected Cost : $1,316,000 Program, 1984-85
Length (Miles) : 0.7

= = = = = = = = = = = = M M = = = = =
I
X
I
R-1014:
Ir
Is)?
UIP X
1014
of-
film
UIJ
(W all?
N
0
ISIS
to
WASHI
T 14
PW 4.4 33
wo
Dwilks Crets
loss
WA HINGTO
IMP
Lill
a
#*.a
•%
PARK
K)F.314
03
13 Las
LU-1
N
24
j
2.4
Paid
jb ;�-
-A
% 11a
un
BEAUFORT COUNTY
'k" Few
NC 32, WASHINGTON PARK CITY LIMITS TO
SR 1300, BEAUFORT
COUNTY
Widen existing roadway to
a four -lane
curb and gutter
section.
PROJECTED COMPLETION: FY.85
PROJECTED COST : §2 800,000
LENGTH (MILES) : .1
SOURCE: N.C. ' D.O.T. Transportation Improvements
Program, 1984-85
rt
LOW

Projected Completion: FY 91 Source: N.C. D.O.T. Transportation
Projected Cost : $5,100,000 Improvement Program, 1984-85
Length (Miles) : 5.3

Exhibit H page 5
wA.•R!N rNlo ADO- II ACA - +Tt SIT -IY/n•
N JJ Of ROO
1.
OF
y 1 I
... NfA ►Ar N I �
6
1 Y,
a
ALAaf AI A
», 1
LOLAT1d1 1
r \ o yf•
wtAaAwrJ♦
R• L
/- !f•
c- fr
r- u• TIC IIw•••♦ JIACSS /R
AYT1 waww JwKlJ 50 �/ . T4• \
►AnwAYf-CArsAV Tf ",~?a♦ \+
NAOV AI ANY. ♦ / y� • Ai
r
k"s
1NI 6A •�° � .R
M1aA.a IWs Its P•f 1- � r
•Ii�Oa� -CYl i1�A,Ca `�,
A--aa n•v lraraO•
\v �\ 8-6 •.i!• 1
a
WARREN FIELD
PROJECTS (State/Local)
1.
Obstruction Removal, Approach
Ends of Runways
5, 17, 23,
and 35
2.
Acquire and Install Localizer
for Runway 5
3.
Grant Adjustment for State Project
83-08 (acquire and
install REILS, VASI, MIRL)
TOTAL FUNDS FEDERAL
LOCAL
STATE
$
220,713 $ -0-
$ 110,357
$ 79,856
Source: N.C. D.O.T. Transportation
Improvement Program,
1984-85
-70-

Exhibit I page I
1
I
Problems and Issues
Based on Written Responses
March 11, 1985 Public Hearing
P R I O R I T Y A A I S S U E S:
-------- -- ------
Expansion of Sewage System
- Define areas for future expansion via Transition I & II areas.
- Continue Engineering Design and Funding Applications for expansion.
(Plans to State by July 1, 1985).
Inadequate Storm Drainage
- Provide funding for an updated storm water drainage analysis.
Pollution of Pamlico River
- Restrict septic tanks in Flood Plain.
- Restrict development in Forested Wetlands.
- Assure maximum compliance of industry with NRCD-DEM Standards.
- Sponsor education/training workshops for industry in cooperation with
DEM and other interested groups.
Upgrading/Expanding City Roads
- Update Thoroughfare Plan, coordinating it with the 1985 Land Use Plan.
-71-

Exhibit I page 2
1
1
Problems and Issues
Based on Written Responses
March 11, 1985 Public Hearing
P R I O R I T Y A I S S U E S:
Waterfront Development
- Establish special waterfront development district.
Hurricane Preparedness
- Prepare Hurricane Mitigation Plan.
- Sponsor "Hurricane Awareness" education programs that provide public
knowledge regarding evacuation routes and shelters.
- Create a "Recovery Task Force" that will expedite work necessary to gain
funds for recovery in the event of a disaster.
Continued Historic Preservation
- Continue providing incentives for private investors to undertake
development of opportunity projects.
- Establish an annual program of events that will serve as a publicity
tool for the Historic District.
- Encourage residential use of Downtown 2nd and 3rd floors.
Expansion of Tourist Industry
- Establish waterfront development district.
- Continue the development of the Historic District and Downtown.
- Establish Scenic Corridor Districts along major access routes.
Improvement of Townscape Elements
- Continue implementing the Downtown Plan
- Establish scenic Corridor Districts along major access routes.
Recruitment of Small Specialty Shops
- Establish waterfront development district.
- Follow recruitment guidelines contained in Downtown Plan.
C
1
-72-

A
1
1
t
1
1
r
1
11
Exhibit I page 3
Problems and Issues
Based on Written Responses
March 11, 1985 Public Hearing
P R I O R I T Y B I S S U E S:
Development of a Farmer's Market
- Coordinate location and design with area farmers.
- Provide funding for development.
Expansion of Restricted Airspace by Military
- Lobby federal and state representatives regarding proposed expansion of
restricted airspace.
Airport Expansion
- Create an Airport Restricted District that restricts development near
runways.
- Provide funding for the development of instrument landing.
- Update 1982 Airport Layout Plan Report coordinating it with the 1985
Washington Land Use Plan.
Expansion of Billboard Ordinance
- Create Scenic Corridors District.
- Continue enforcing existing sign ordinances.
- Begin developing stricter sign ordinances.
-73-
11

aExhibit 1 page 4
1
Problems and Issues
Based on Written Responses
March 11, 1985
P R I O R I T Y C I S S U E S:
-------- - ------
Expansion of Historic District Ordinance
- Expand local historic district to include areas further north on
Market Street.
Public Waterfront Access
- Identify potential public water access locations.
- Apply for Public Water Access Planning funds from Division of Coastal
Management, Planning and Resource Evaluation Branch.
2nd and 3rd Floor Downtown Development
- Provide incentives for current owners to develop these areas.
- Encourage the development of these areas for residential use.
Expansion of Cultural/Recreational Facilities
- Adopt existing recreational facilities plan.
- Designate in a capital improvements program items which would provide
additional facilities to meet the needs of'the 30-45 age group.
Expand Local School Programs to Accommodate Industry Training Needs
- Sponsor a conference between industry leaders, Beaufort Community
College administrators, and local school administrators addressing the
issue.
Conservation of Wetlands, AEC's
- Enforce building code and septic tank regulations in Coastal Wetland
Area.
- Establish Conservation areas in 1985 Washington Land Use Plan to protect
areas not yet developed.
- Monitor all development in Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, and
Public Trust Areas for compliance with DEM standards.
Solid Waste Management
- Encourage enforcement of laws and regulations regarding solid waste dump
sites.
- Investigate alternative uses of solid waste as in -fill development.

Exhibit J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
VIRGINIA
I
Region North Carolina
2 0 2 4 6 10 14
MILES
0
COUNTY
p pentego
onte",
C10 U
0
7—�
p&I&LtCO COU14TV
oil
-75-

:he North
bne
cean and
t-oastai Kesource ntanagemens, rvauonai ULe "IC anU nimoapnenc n mimnrauon. The City of
Washington also contributed cash and in -kind services.
MMUMMOMP MOM MMMUM
EVACUATION SHELTERS AND PLANNING SUB -DISTRICTS
INDEX TO EVACUATION SHELTERS
■ NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
• JOHN C. TAYLOE SCHOOL
- EASTERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
INDEX TO PLANNING SUB -DISTRICTS
SUB -DISTRICT ENUMERATION DISTRICT
A - 590, 598A
B 585T
C 591
D 589
E 59Z 593,597
F 594, 595, 596
G 583
H 600
1 602T
Prepared by.
City of Washington,N.C.
P.O.Box 1988
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[phone]
and
PLANNING & DESIGNASSOCIATES,P.A.
"PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS"
3515 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh.North Carolina 27612
[phone]
1985 LAND USE PLAN: EXHIBIT K
72
76

APPENDIX
A.
City Council Members
B.
Planning Board Members
C.
Notice of 3/11/85 Public
Hearing
D.
Letter
of Invitation to
3/11/85 Public Hearing
E.
List of Persons Invited
to 3/11/85 Public Hearing
F.
Problems and Issues Rating
Survey
G.
Results of Problems and
Issues Rating Survey
H.
News Clipping on Public
Hearing, Washington Daily News, 3/12/85
I.
Bibliography
J.
CAMA Regulations
A
1
r
r
I
11
1

1
1
I
1
1
i
11
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
J. Stancil Lilley, Mayor
946-8258 (h)
946-4594 (o)
Floyd G. Brothers, Mayor Pro Tem
946-4028 (h)
946-7088 (o)
J. R. Jones
946-5903 (h)
946-0128 (o)
Richard F. Cherry,Jr.
946-3523 (h)
946-0874 (o)
Ursula Loy
946-3423 (h)
Alton L. Ingalls
975-2056 (o)
Mail to all Council Members to be sent to:
City of Washington
P. 0. Box 1988
Washington, North Carolina 27889
APPENDIX A

F
1
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Doug Mercer, Chairman
105 Lawson Road
Washington, NC 27889
946-7976 (h)
322-4111 (o)
Manager of Environmental Control
Texas Gulf
Stewart Everett, Vice Chairman
701 E. Main Street
Washington, NC 27889
946-9011 (h)
946-6521 (o)
Data Processing Manager
Hackney Industries, Inc.
Jane Alligood
220 Simmons Street
Washington, NC 27889
946-8840 (h)
Clay Carter
P. 0. Box 1444
Washington,NC 27889
946-4977 (h)
946-4233 (o)
Insurance Agent
Nationwide Insurance Company
WashLUP
APPENDIX B
Jim Bilbright
104 Carey Place
Washington, NC 27889
946-6067 (h)
946-0116 (o)
Manager
Social Security Administration
Robert Culler
409 Lawson Road
Washington, NC 27889
946-6641 (h)
946-3131 (o)
Vice President and General Sales Mgr.
WIGN — TV7
Chester Bright
327 West 9th Street
Washington, NC 27889
946-3254 (h)

IAppendix C
PAGE 12 — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1985
LEGAL NOTICE
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 4,1985
Notice is hereby given that a
Public Hearing will be held by
the Planning Board on March
4,1985 at 8:00 PM in the City
Council Chambers in the City's
Municipal Building to discuss
the following items:
(A) The Planning Board will
discuss a preliminary group
Housing Development
(Woodbridge, Phase 1) as sub-
mitted by Mr. Stephen L Wil-
son located on No. 264 East
(John Small Avenue).
(B) The Planning. Board will
discuss a group Housing De-
velopment (Heritage Park,
Phase 1) as submitted by Mr.
Whit Balckstone located on
Hackney Avenue Extension
North of West 15th Street
** (C) The Planning Board wilt**
discuss with Planning and De-
sign Associates, Washington's
CAMA Land Use Plan Up-
date.
(D) Mr. Chris Furlough is re-
questing the rezoning of 6J2
acres located on Highland
Drive from A-20 to R-6. Mr.
Chris Furlough is planning a
group Housing Development
on this property.
Notice is hereby given that as
a result of the Public Hearing
to be held by the Planning
Board on March 4, 1985 at
8:00 PM in the City Council
Chambers in the City's Muni-
cipal Building' substantial
changes may be made in the
advertised proposal reflecting
obiections, debates, and dis-
cussion at the Public Hearings.
Item B-D will be discussed at a
Public Hearing to be held by
the City Council on March 11,
1985 at 7:30 PM in the Cy
Council Chambers in the City's
Minicipal Building.
All interested persons are in-
vited to attend.
As approved by the City Man-
ager.
O. R. "Buddy" Cutler
Director of Inspections and
Zoning
Washington, NC
2-23, 25 2tc

1
1
PLANNING & DESIGNASSOCIATES, P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh. North Carolina 27612
[phone]
Terry W. Alford, MRP. AIA
Rex H. Todd. MRP, AICP
Paul H. Brown, PE
Nancy M. Lane, MA
Mr. Frank Stancill
Plant Manager
Hackney Industries, Inc.
400 Hackney Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Stancill:
February 28, 1985
Appendix D
The City of Washington and Planning and Design Associates, P.A. (PDA) are now
engaged in an update of the 1980 Washington Land Use Plan. This plan will be
used by the City's Planning Board, the County CAMA Permit Officers, developers,
and state and federal agencies to make decisions about development and
preservation activities in Washington, North Carolina.
Thus far, our work has concentrated on establishing a data base, researching
all past plans and policies, and analyzing constraints and issues regarding
Washington's development.
Now we want to here from you. You are listed as one of Washington's top 30
community/industrial leaders and your input to this plan is vital. During the
March 11 City Council meeting, a certified public hearing, we will be
presenting a brief slide show discussing Washington's development to date, and
focusing on Land Use and Land Classification Maps incorporating your views. We
also would like to discuss with you the most relevant issues facing Washington
today, with the goal of incorporating you input into the City's Plan.
The Public Hearing will be held on March 11 at 7:30 p.m. We encourage you to
attend it and provide your guidance and direction.
If you have any questions before then, please call me, or Dale Downes, at
[phone]. We look forward to seeing you Monday night.
Sincerely,
/ad
Disk: Washington LUP
Recall Code: Ltr
Terry W. Alford
President

LIST OF PERSONS RECEIVING LETTER INVITATION
TO 3/11/8S PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. John Crew
Mr. J.R. Jones
NRCD
City Municipal Building
P. 0. Box 1507
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Buddy Cutler
Ms. Carol Cochran
Municipal Building
City Municipal Building
102 E. Main St.
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Don Davenport
Hr. Richard Cherry
Beaufort County Court House
City Municipal Building
2nd Street
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889
Washington, NC 27889
Ms. Judy Meyer
Ms. Ursula Loy
Beaufort County Arts Council
City Municipal Building
Gladden Street
P.O. Box 1988
'
Washington, NC 27889
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Louis Taylor
Mr. Ralph Clark
Community Development Coordinator
City Manager
P.O. Box 1988
City Municipal Building
Washington, NC 27889
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Carroll Whitehurst
Rehabilitation Officer
Mr. B.D. Dawson
P.O. Box 1988
Manager
Washington, NC 27889
Coca Cola Bottling Co.
905 W. 5th St.
Washington,.NC 27889
Mr. Dwight Jones
Donnelly Marketing
224 Conrad Court
Mr. Zoph Potts
Washington, NC 27889
President
N.C. Dr. Pepper Bottlers, Inc.
P.O. Box 1608
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Frank Lewis
Greater Washington Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 655
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Doug Currin
Manager
Maola Ice Cream Co. of N.C.
126 E. Water St.
Washington, NC 27889
Mayor Stancil Lilley
City Municipal Building
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Marvin Mason
President
Mason Lumber Co.
Mr. Floyd Brother
1835 W. 5th St., Hwy. 264 West
City Municipal Building
Washington, NC 27889
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889
Appendix L
Page 1 of 3

Mr. Tom Litchfield Mr. Don Obernesser
President Vice President of Operations
Moss Planing Mill Co. Stanadyne, Inc.
P.O. Box 1568 P.O. Box 1105
Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Bob McClure Mr. Mac Pigott
General Manager Manager
National Spinning Company, Inc. Blue Channel Corp.
W. 3rd St. Ext. 312 Front St.
Washington, NC 27889 Belhaven, NC 27810
'
Mr. Marshall Tyndall
Mr. Linley Gibbs
Manager
Plant Manager
Samson's Manufacturing Corp.
W. 5th St.
Hamilton Beach
P.O. Box 1158
Washington, NC 27889
Washington, NC 27889
Mrs. Lib Ross
Mr. Clarence Edwards
Manager
Director of Manufacturing
Washington Garment Company
Singer Co.
'
900 E. 5th St.
P.O. Box 1627
Washington, NC 27889
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Roy Garrish
Mr. Don Delong
Manager
General Manager
Washington Packing Company
Texasgulf,Inc.
P.O. Box 753
P.O. Box 48
Washington, NC 27889
Aurora, NC 27806
Mr. James Younce
Mr. Frank Stancill
Manager
Plant Manager
Younce 6 Ralph Lumber Co.
Hackney Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 160
400 Hackney Ave.
Washington, NC 27889
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Tom Allan Mr. Warren Wilkerson
President Manager
Flanders Filters, Inc. Privateer Manufacturing Co.
P.O. Box 1708 P.O. Box 69
Washington, NC 27889 Chocowinity, NC 27817
Mr. Don Baird Mr. Percy Dickens
Manager Vice President
Atwood and Morrill Co., Inc. Tidewater Equipment Co.
P.O. Box 490 P.O. Box 1028
Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889
' Mr. Ray Garcia Mr. Bill Carr
President Manager
N.C. Phosphate Corporation Outer Banks, Inc.
P.O. Box 398 P.O. Box 326
Washington, NC 27889 Chocowinity, NC 27817
L
Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Mr. J. T. Keech
Chairman
' Warren Field Airport Commission:, Beaufort Co. Public Health
Department
P. 0. Box 1027
Washington, NC 27889 .
Mr,. Jonathan Philips
Pamlico Tar River Association
River Bend Apartments
Washington, NC
27889 Ms.
'
Mr. Al Phelps
Downtown Washington Association
West Main Street
Washington, NC
27889
1
Ms. Ruth Leggett, Coastal Land Use Planner
NC Department of Natural Resources
and Development
Planning $ Resource Evaluation
P. 0. Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889

I
Appendix F
PLANNING DES IGNASSOCIATES, RA.
Washington Land Use Plan
Summary: Problems & Issues Public Hearing March 11, 1985
An important aspect of the land use planning process is to identify local
issues and establish policies relating to those issues. Discussion with
community leaders, and windshield surveys have allowed us to identify many of
these issues.
Now
we need your input. Below are the major issues we have identified so far.
We would like you to rate each issue on a scale of 1 - 5 as to how important
you
think that issue is. One (1) will indicate not important and five (5) will
indicate very important. We have left space for you to add any issues you
think should be identified which we haven't listed. Please rate those as well.
Issue Rating
1.
Waterfront area development and renovation.
2.
Continued Historic Renovation.
3.
Development of -a "Farmer's Market."
4,
Improvement of townscape elements.
5.
6.
Recruitment of small specialty, retail shops. -
Airport expansion.
7.
Expansion of restricted air space by the military.
8.
Upgrading/expanding city roads.
9.
Expansion of sewer system.
10.
Expansion of tourist industry.
11.
Expansion and recruitment of industry.
12.
Expansion of a billboard ordinance.
13.
Expansion of a historic district ordinance.
14.
Pollution of Pamlico River by industry.
15.
Pollution of Pamlico River due to inadequate
storm drainage.
16.
Hurricane preparedness and storm disaster planning.
"Issues"
1

Appendix G
!r�
1
I
Results of Washington Land Use Plan Public Hearing
March 11, 1985
!Number
of
Persons
!Grading
Issue
a:
----------------------------------------------------------,Net
:Priority
Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1' 1
i
2
1' 3
1'
4 1'
5 ,Score
',Rating
Waterfront Development
i 1
11
0
11 5
11
6 i
3
55
---------
A
Continued Historic Renovation
i 1
i
2
8
i
2 i
2
47
A
Development of Farmer's Market
4
4
0
3
4;
44
B
Improvement of Townscape Elements
; 0
3
; 6
;
4
1 ;
45
; A
Recruitment of Small Specialty Shops
; 3
2
; 4
;
4 ;
2
45
; A
Airport Expansion
3
4
3;
1
3;
39
B
Expansion of Restricted Airspace by
the Military
4
0
i 2
2
5
43
i B
Upgrading/Expanding City Roads
1
i
0
11 4
i
5 11.6
i
63
i AA
Expansion of Sewage System
2
11
0
i 1
i
3 1112
i
77
i AA
Expansion of Tourist'Industry
1
i
1
3
1
6 1
4 1
56
; A
Expansion & Recruitment of Industry
2
1
i 1
;
1 1'10
;
61
; AA
Expansion of Billboard Ordinance
; 4
i
0
5
;
3 ;
2 ;
41
; B
Expansion of Hist. District Ordinance
6
i
2
4
{-3
i
0;
34
C
Pollution of Pamlico R. by Industry
1
i
0
i 1
5
8 ;
64
; AA
Pollution of Pamlico River Due to
Inadequate Storm Drainage
2
0
i 3
3
9
68
AA
Hurricane Preparedness
1
3
2
5;
4;
53
A ;
Public Beach Access
1
i
2
0=
2=
2
23
= C
2nd & 3rd Floor Downtown Development
, 0
,
0
, 1
,
0 ,
3 ,
18
, C ,
Expansion of Cult./Rec. Facilities
0
0
0;
1;
1
9
i C
Expand Local School Programs to
Accomodate Industry Training Needs
0
i
0
0
0
3
15
i C
Conservation of Wetlands, AEC's
i 0
0
0
i
0;
1 i
5
C
Improve Solid Waste Management
0
0
; 0
;
0 ;
1 ;
5
; C ;
-----------------------------------------------�---
Priority Rating Scale: Grading Scale:
60+
Net
Score
- AA 1 - Least Important
45-59
Net
Score
- A 5 - Most Important
30-44
Net
Score
- B
less than 30
Net
Score
- C
Disk: Allan File: LUPPH

Wroalter
WAHINtGTUN AII3�NEWS,., :Nmid40Wot
nds to to to mpr.
CSTABuSHED 190i NO. $I 'TWELVE PACES WASHING'TON. NORTH CAROLINA. TUESDAY ArrEMOON. MARCH 12. YM CUSPS 667-SM) PRICE zsa
C ity's Faiure'GrakthtAddressed .At Hearing
. -'phC ltit.e
Wash ington's etrowih Is In the binds of its people..
but onty a handAd had comments foe a land use plan-
d a City Council meeting let night
An update of the plan: required every five years by
the C >&" Area Management Act, is intended as a
guide to croon orderty growth. said Terry Alford,
.home firm la preparing IL
Through mertings with ciUz na and reviews of
previous plans, Planning & Design Associates bf
Rakish hu determined probtems and Issues as the
most nemasary to address unmed1stely. Includlng'
— Renovation of the waterfront area and historic
Development of a "rirmeej hurter"
Improvement of "townscape alerumts."
I: Pec+dtment of small specialty -hops
Expansion of Warren Airport and military air
• Upgraded rood; such as fie million under way.
t of try dpq aswes syvAm&
odoftourlaat and Industry.
— Lrtabl shnient of a billboard otd4ance
— Pollution Qf the Pamlico River by t xUW Indus.
tries, and inadequate storm water drabuse.
And a hurricane m1ligatlon plan.
People sttending bet night's public bearing were
given questlonnairn and asked to rank the issues on
a stair of importance and add other concerns.
IU firm says Washington's population decreased
ll percent from 100 to 1960, but Beaufort County's
grew-LU percent in the some period — ficu es the
firm calls "particularly distmasing." However,
according to city officials the population of Washing -
.too has increased about g percent since IM.
Ltd night's public hearing was advertised, and
appso>itetategr JO eommuNb leaders wen ootiIIed
by matt. accasdfag to Louts TYybr, city director of
Commeml� Development and pLnnlnL YtirenQ
two people were in the sudletim
Lang Use Prom Page 1
adding that planning mud be.esped&ny mrelid to apmant told the council that other public agendes-
proW public that waters, wetiards and other areas looked at land use plans when moldering nmdln&
of savteonmental concertos. Another cited concern Water Quality was a primary concemi ibe so1_d.
was raxpff Ike dr�
industries Inc.tres -ki Phelps of the Downtown Washingtoo Aisocla-
Hane>; Hatfod said he would like emphasis added on the sus of
sed the Importance of Ibe volopment Sari Bonner of the irairportt commLasias. to Industrial do� - the second &M thtrdQoorsotdowgtawnbttDdMR�
now a 804wre Industrial site in the platy "It's good
� IwA 1Cs out than! and teody to be used." Boo- A second public hearing ts.ezpeded In UO or
June to present a preliminary draft of the update:
Ruth Leggett of the state Divialonof Coastal Math • plm A final draft Is anticipated in September.
Among those speaking wan JobaUiui PhMps of
the Pamllco-Ttir River foundation Inc, who said the
primary eeoonrteeeenrfq� of the group was water Quality and
the conmervatlod of natural tesoumvi
PhMpe presentai a statement suggesting guide.
-11hes for USe plan, including maintenance and en.
hancement of the river, opposition to development
that would degrade water Quality., and the en-
couragement of development that preserves thews.
tes,teiated wey of life in Washington.
"_Tbetmmenseptess ua+tooverdevelopPamAco
shorelines are well known." the statement saidd
GSee LAND USE. Page 91
M M M = = = M M M = M

Appendix I
u
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, S. Storms People, and Property In Coastal North Carolina, (Raleigh,
North Carolina: U.N.C. Sea Grant Publication (UNC-SG-78-15, 1978).
Basgal 1, Monte, et al., "Hurricane." Raleigh News and Observer, (Raleigh,
North Carolina: 8 July 1984, Section D).
Bosserman, Jr., and Dolan, R. The Frequency and Magnitude of Extratropical
Storms Along the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Technical Report 68-4,
(Charlottesville, Virginia: Coastal Resources Association, 1968).
Bureau of the Census. County Business Patterns 1982--North Carolina, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Issued: October, 1984.
Dehn, Jr., Ervin N. Airport Layout Plan Report For Warren Field, Washing-
ton, North Carolina, (Wilmington, North Carolina: Talbert, Cox &
Associates, Inc., May, 1982).
*Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Hazard Mitigation: Handbook of
Common Procedures, (Washington, D.C.: FEMA Report Number 14, 1981).
Foster, D. Disaster Planning: The Preservation of Life and Property, (New
York: Springer-Verlag; 1980).
* Freeman, W.J. Greater Washington 201 Facilities Plan, (High Point, North
Carolina: Freeman Associates, July 1977; Amended November 1978).
* Freeman, W.T. January 1985 Addendum to Greater Washington 201 Facilities Plan,
(High Point, North Carolina: Freeman Associates, July 1977; Amended November
1978).
*Keller, J. Timothy. Downtown Plan, Washington, North Carolina,
(Charlottesville, Virginia: Land and Community Associates, August 1979.
* Leary, Robert M. 1980 Washington Land Development Plan, (Raleigh, North
Carolina: Robert M. Leary & Associates, May 1980).
Leary, Robert M. A Manual For North Carolina Historic Properties Commis-
sions, (Raleigh, North Carolina: Robert M. Leary & Associates, 1980).
Loy, Ursula and Pauline Worthy. Washington and the Pamlico, (Washington,
North Carolina: Washington -Beaufort County, Bicentennial Commission,
1976).
* McElyea, W.D. et al. Before the Storm: Managing Development to Reduce
Hurricane Damages, (Raleigh, North Carolina: N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Office of Coastal Management, 1982).
#-Nichols, George L. et al. 1976 Washington Land Development Plan,
(Washington, North Carolina: Washington Planning Board, March 1976).

n
C�
[1
North Carolina State Data Center. Census of Population and Housing --
Beaufort County, Township of Washington, City of Washington, Office of
State Budget and Management, 1980.
* North Carolina Department of Transportation. Transportation Improvement
Program 1985-1994.
Simpson, R.H. and Tiehl, H. The Hurricane and Its Impact, (Baton Rouge,
Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1981).
Smith, H. McKeldon. National Register of Historic Places Inventory,
Historic District of Washington North Carolina, (Raleigh, North Carolina:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Division of Archives and History, 1978).
Stone, J.R. Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating Evacuation Times for
Non -Metropolitan Coastal Communities, (Raleigh, North Carolina: UNC Sea
Grant College Program, 1982).
*Waters,, T.L. Transportation Plan For Washington and Washington Park,
(Raleigh, North Carolina: Planning and Research Branch, Division of
Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation, January 1979).
Wubreh, Mulatu. Economic Base Analysis of Small Communities: A Guide For -
Practitioners and Public Officials, (Greenville, North Carolina: East
Carolina University, 1984).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental
Assessment on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control --Wrights-
ville Beach, North Carolina, (Wilmington, North Carolina: 1982).
Zoning Ordinance and Washington City Code, (Washington, North Carolina:
1980).
List of Maps
Thoroughfare Plan, Planning and Research Branch, Division of Highways,
North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1979.
*.Greater Washington 201 Facilities Plan, Wm. F. Freeman Associates, 1979.
* Noise Impact and Land Use Planning --Warren Field, Talbert, Cox, and
Associates, Inc., January 1982.
*,Approach and Obstruction Analysis --Warren Field, Talbert, Cox, and
Associates, Inc., October 1982.
Airport Layout and Access Plan --Warren Field, Talbert, Cox and Associates,
Inc., October 1982.

1
*Approach and Vicinity Plan --Warren Field, Talbert, Cox, and Associates,
October 1982.
*Land Classification Map and Existing Land Use Map, City of Washington, NC.,
February, 1975.
Map of Flood --Prone Areas, Washington, NC, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, Washington, NC. U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. 1977. (Panels OIF, 03F, 04F, of 6).
*.Flood Hazard Boundary Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map, Washington, NC,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1977. (Panels 1,3,4 of 6)
Enumeration Districts Map — City of Washington and Washington Park,
U.S. Bureau of Census, August 1980.
Indicates plans, documents, ordinances, and maps currently being used
and followed by the City of Washington.

Lxnieit L
F
1
�I
11
Population and Housing Units, by Planning Sub -Districts
i
Total Number
Resident i
of Attached
? Total Number
Planning
Enumeration
'Population,'
and Detached
of
Sub -District
i District(s)
(1980)
Housing Units
Mobile Homes
A
1598A,590
i 1993 ;
505
i 43
B
I'585T
i 1745 ;
598
; 18
C
11591
310
129
i 0
D
1'589
i 548 ;
176
0
E
"1'592,593,597
; 3599 ;
1328
; 0
F
1'594,595,596
; 3804 ;
1695
; 0
G
11583
; 514 '
220
'1 0
1952 ,
537
202
I
:602T
619 ;
25
; 409
;TOTAL NUMBER
i
; 15086 ;
5216
; 672
i
Median Value $31,200
i
;TOTAL VALUE ; ; ; $162,739,200
Disk: Allan
File: Washinv
$15,000
$10,080,000
1Data By Enumeration District provided by N.C. Office of State Budget and
Management for 1980. Planning Sub -Districts B, H, and I include parts of
Long Acre Township and Chocowinity Township.
2Equals median value of housing units in Beaufort County, 1980.
Source: Profile of North Carolina Counties, N.C. Office of State Budget
and Management, 1984.
3Equals estimated value of mobile homes in Beaufort County, 1983.
Source: Before the Storm.in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way,
Planning and Design Associates, P.A., 1983.
1 -77-

FUTURE LAND USE
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan recognizes the Washing-
ton Planning Area as the center of existing and future urban
growth in the county. This relationship is depicted in the
Washington Land Classification System, a tool which will guide
the growth of our community and use of our tax dollars for
public services.
This system consists of five classes:
a. Developed —Lands where existing populatin density is
moderate to high and where there are a variety of land
uses which have the necessary public services.
b. Transition —Lands where local government plans to ac-
commodate moderate to high density development during
the following ten year peiod and where necessary public
services will be provided to accommodate that growth.
c. Comniunity—Lands where low density development is
grouped in existing settlements or will occur in such settle-
ments during the following ten year period and which will
not require extensive public services now or in the future.
d. Rural —Lands whose highest use is for agriculture, for-
estry, mining, water supply, etc., based on their natural
resources potential. Also, lands for future needs not cur-
rently recognized.
e. Conservation —Fragile, hazard and other lands necessary
to provide for the public health, safety or welfare.
Developed
The Beaufort County Land Use Plan shows the area within the
corporate limits of Washington as developed and transitional.
In the Washington Land Use Plan the area is shown as de-
veloped and transition.
Transition
Transitional lands are shown in eastern, southern and western
portions of the planning area. These areas are a vital part of
Washington. They will receive a full range of urban .services;
and, will likely be annexed, and become legally a part of
Washington. These Transitional lands should be identified in
the 201 Facilities Study as growth areas.
Secondary Transitional lands are shown in the southern por-
tions of the Planning Area. Residential and commercial develop-
ment is anticipated in these areas. However, the City of Wash-
ington is not making a commitment to extend water and sewer
across the Pamlico River to these areas.
Rural
The northern portion of the Washington Planning Area is
shown as Rural. Similarly, in the county plan these lands are
classified as rural.
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
N
EEEE --A L
0 !00 1600 2400 3200 6000
SCALE I FEET
Conservation
The southern portion of the Planning Area is shown as
conservation. This classification includes the Pamlico waters
and the surrounding flood lands which are ill -suited to urban
development.
WASHINGTON CAMA LAND USE PLAN
Washington, North Carolina
March 21, 1976
Prepared By
WASHINGTON PLANNING BOARD
James P. Blanton, Chairman
Blake C. Lewis, Jr., Vice Chairman
William Roach
Leon Randolph, Jr.
William Lurvey
Thomas E. Umphlett
Thomas M. Singleton, Jr.
Henry C. Humphreys
Judy Hayes
George C. Bailey
For
THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON
Lot
To Be Implemented By
/ASHINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Richard Tripp, Mayor
its T. Randolph, Mayor Pro Te
A. N . Sawyer
Carlotta Mordecai
Joe Hickman
m
PROJECT STAFF
George L. Nichols, Project Planner
Marian Alligood, Secretary
Debra Ingalls, Secretary
Patricia Sheppard, Secretary
Danny Smith, Draftsman
i
CHANGES TO THE LAND USE PLAN
Plan changes can be made as the city builds during the next
twenty years. It would be illogical to assume that changing
conditions within the Washington Area would not have an
effect on land use, since changes which have occurred in the
past have led directly to the current land use problems. Periodic
review and revision could be done in the following ways:
1. Annual review of statistical information should be taken to
insure that statistical changes do not conflict with Plan
recommendations and policies. This review should be co-
ordinated by the Planning Board. Any finding should be
made public, and time allocated for public comment. After
review and public comments, the Planning Board should
make recommendations to the City Council. These recom-
mendations should form the basis fdr five year plan revi-
sions.
2. An evaluation of problems encountered in the Plan imple-
mentation should be made each year. Again, the Planning
Board should coordinate this effort. Review and recom-
mendation process should follow the steps outlined above
in 1.
EXISTING
LEGEND
Residential
Commercial
Government &
Institutional
Cultural,
Entertainment,
& Recreation
Finally, as required by the Coastal Area Management Act
Guidelines, the Land Use Plan will be reviewed in its entirety
every five years. Before adopting the revised plan, the City
should hold a public hearing. A notice of the public hearing
should be given once a week, for two successive calendar
weeks, in a newspaper having a general circulation in the area.
All reviews and revisions should weigh each land use decision in
light of the general direction provided by the Land Develop-
ment Plan.
IMPLEMENTATION
This land use plan constitutes guidance policies for Wash-
ington Officials. It should be used as the basis for making
governmental decisions affecting the development of the plan-
ning area. In order to implement the plan and achieve the goals
and objectives, a concerted effort on the part of the Wash-
ington City Council, Washington Planning Board, and the
public is necessary. It is recommended that you:
(1) become knowledgeable of the Washington Land De-
velopment Plan;
(2) formulate and implement reasonable land use poli-
cies;
(3) continue to provide efficient services to the citizens of
Washington by developing public utilities and commu-
nity facilities to meet your current and future needs.
Undeveloped
Land
Agriculture
Forestland
Water
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
N
0 E00 1600 2400 2200 4000
SCALE IN FEET
These measures are necessary to begin plan implementation
and in order to insure a "continuing planning process." Remem-
ber —implementation will be successful only through your
participation.
This brings us to the end of our formal discussion about the
future growth of our city. At this time, the Washington City
Council, Planning Board, and Advisory Committee would like to
thank you for your input in making the first phase of Washing-
ton's CAMA Planning Program a success. Indeed, we believe our
program reflects our basic concern for an "orderly, planned,
liveable environment in the Washington Planning Area." Again,
thank you —The City of Washington Planning Board.
This report was financed in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, and the State of North
Carolina; and meets the requirements of the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act of 1974.

•s;uap!aae a!jje.i; jo A4!1!q!ssod ay; uassal o;
suoi;aasia;ul;aaa;s woij siaiiieq (enslnanowaa 01 :aAl4:)alg0
•spojja penbs anmai A;unoD-A;!D a;Ep!losuoa of :aA143a1gO
•agjel ;e guluuni
woal sgop;uanaid of mpl yseal.inoy-tz e;at,ua of :aA1;3a(g0
`aaueulp.io 1paol a jo 4uaw;aeua gSnojy; A;.iado.id
a!lgnd uo 2upapol loa;uoa o; aa!lod jaModwa of :aA14aafg0
;yg!u ;e A;unaas jo asuas
ia;paag a a;owojd of gu!;yg!l ;ail;s aAoadw! of :aA1;3a(gp
•awiia snouas Io aauap!aur;sa;ea.is
4ioda.i ley space u! Su!lloa;ed a;el;uaaUoa of :0A1;aa(g0
.AtajeS allgnd
jo sut,aw Jua1a1jJ3 pue anl;aajl3 ;soyy ayl ap!nojd of :IeoD
'loa;ed aea pasuaaau! pup 'siaiiipq
Iens!n 'guiaa;!oI 'loa;uoa top ssaippe ;py; papaau we sainseaw
A;ales a!lgnd leuo!;!ppp ;ey; ;laj spun 41 •AaAinS uaz!;!D tL6L
ay; u! A;ajes a!lgnd ui ujaauoa jo aai2ap yg!y e passaidxa noA
A133VS Jnand
-sweiSoid pup
'saippapI 'lauuos ad jo uo13ea1ldnp ssalpaau a;eu
-1w la o; sailiAi p llaunoD-A !D aglRUJPJooa of :aA143atg0
s u1i 8u{;els 'Il0$11nd-4;nd 'guilmoq
se vans uoppajaw le!ajawwoa afteino3ua of :aA14:)a(g0
-syled al!q
Jo wa;sAs E guidolanap jo sa!;!l!q!ssod Apn;s of :aA1;:)a1g0
sueiuo;gulysEM lip jo aaue;sip 2ui lleM
Asea u!il;!M sewe At,ld pooy.logyglau dolanap of :aA11aa(g0
'sweago.id leuol;paaaai ul uoljudla!;
-ied page alpp!w pup Aliapla ajow a2pinoaua of :anl;patg0
,sa!;!1!aej Su laop put, sdwei ;eoq Ap:)
aaaj Ieuol;!ppe Jo} Sulp!Aoad Aq pup 'ssaaae u!lgnd
aoI seait, ainsui o; A;aadoid ;uoilia;enn paumo
-A;!a 8ulsea.raui Aq sasoclind leuopealaai iol
s.ian!N ael pue oal1wed ay; jo asn jallaq'a�lew of :aAq:)a(q0
•suoilezlupgio o;u! wagl 8u1.in;an.gs
;noy;!M dolanap o; sa1;!n113e Molle o; pue 'sJa;Uaa
uogeaaaa.i ;e aw!; ,Auld aaJj,, WOW ap!Aoid o f :aA1;3afg0_
•;aalojd died laajD s,lae( ay; a;aldwoa of :aA143afg0
-Alow v plo
ay; jo saipl!apj pa;enouaa ay; y;!M;! aaeldai pup
Ja;uaD uo;ea.laaN ;aa.i;S a;;ol.ieyD gs!lowap of :aA13:)afg0
•ia;uaa uoileaaaa.i e
o;u! AiowiV plo ay; jo uol;enouaJ agl.ioj upid of :aA1;aa(g0
•sdnoig IIV
ioj sal;punpoddo Ipuo!;eaaaaN jo A;aueA e ap!no.id of :Ieo!)
-lei;ua;od Ipuoi;eajaaa paseq aa;em 1!oldxa
Allnj;ou op A;unoa pue Al!:) ay;;ey;;no pa;u!od noA s2ui4aaw
ailgnd jo iagwnu e ui 'oslV -page a!pp!w pue Alaapla Aluewud
aiaM siasn-uou ayl •sai;!l!aej uopeaaaai pup Ted pasn 1anau
s;uapuodsai ay; jo %OS;ey; paleanaJ AaninS uazl;!D tL6L a41
S)IHVd dNV N011V321J3b
-spun] gulae45 anuanaN ;uaw
-dolanap A;!unwwoD jo asn 2uilx?w 'sjueq pue
suoi;n4psw ueol pue sgulnes jo uopeiadooa ay;
y;!M wei2oid ueol uo!;e;!I!gpyaj leaol ealeaaa of :aAl;3afg0
•pa4s110wap
saan;ana;s ay; aney asla Jo 'sapoa 2u!sno4 wnw
-iuiw;aaw o; 2lu!snoy piupue;sgns Ileapeagdn of :aA14aa(gp
•s;!un gu!snoy pa;ep!d-el!p lie ys!lowap of :aAl43ai9O
•2ulsnoH
ales pup a;enbapv ainaaS o; Apun;aoddo ayl aAPH
Aew s;uap!saN ya!yM ul ;uauiu011nu3 UV ap!no.id of :Ieog
•guinil ;uaaap loj ;uawaiinb
-ai ;sill ay; si sdnoi5 aiwouoaa lie jo saagwaw aoI gu!snoy
pJppup;S •suo!;!puoa Ipa!sAyd jo Aanans a pup 'AaAins s suaz
-!;!a p 'sgui;aaw a!lgnd g2noa4; pa!l!;uap! se 'sw,31goad;sa;eai2
s,uo;gu!yseM jo auo si Iao;s 2u!sno4 2u11pJ01Ja4ap '2u12p uV
9NIsnoH
aan!N oa!Iwt,d ay; Io
Aplenb ay; apeJ2uM0p ;ou saop uol;ea;I!lu! glue;
:)pdas ;ey; ainsua o; 'swa;sAs a2eiamas jael wq4
PUP 'crania ay; o; tuaaefpe aip;ey; spare xauue of :aA1;aafg0
-puel ay; jo ial:)piega ay;
agueya Ipm 1egj asn jo sadA; AuE;!q!gojd 01 JanlJ
ay; jo ap!s y;nos ay; uo puplysiew ay; auoz of :aA1;aa1gO
STREET AND TRANSPORTATION
Washington has numerous unpaved streets and paved streets
that lack curb and guttering. Movement of traffic, and water
run-off patterns will be improved through increased attention to
street paving and maintenance programs.
Goal: To provide a Highly Functional Internal Street System.
Objective: To pave, curb, and gutter the remaining dirt
streets.
Objective: To curb and gutter ribbon streets.
Objective: To allow traffic to flow evenly through sychron-
ization of street fights.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENSSS
The City of Washington has attempted to build a communica-
tions process through which the citizen can express his views
and opinions of the City's needs and priorities, and the City in
turn can communicate progress on these ideas back to the
citizens. A responsive local government is essential to a viable
democracy.
Goal: To Maintain Effective Communiction Between the
Citizens and Elected City Officials.
Objective: To bring about more citizen involvement through
the Human Relations Council
Objective: To establish closer ties with the news media.
Objective: To continue the city's public speaking panel for
civic groups, business groups, and the various
other citizen involvement groups.
Objective: To continue to publicize the "hotline" telephone
number which encourages citizens to give their
suggestions on improving living conditions in the
city.
PAST AND PRESENT LAND USES
Map 1 shows Existing Land Uses in the Washington Area.
The City of Washington has had two major land use plans, the
first in 1963 and the second in 1970. By examining these
documents with existing land uses, past land use conditions
and trends are obtained.
Residential Use
Since 1960 residential development has occurred throughout
the area. Most development is concentrated in the northern and
eastern portions of the planning area, particularly in the vicinity
of the airport to Fifteenth Street, and along U.S. Highway 264
from John Small Extension to the edge of the Planning Area.
Recent subdivisions indicated that future development will
continue in this direction. The western portion has experienced
moderate residential growth while the southern portion has
experienced light residential development. As pointed out in
the 1970 Plan, the southern area is largely floodplain and
swampland. These areas pose severe limitations for residential
development.
Commercial Use
The primary retail development in the CBD is located within a
relatively compact area. It extends westwared along West Main
Street for approximately two and one-half blocks from the Main
Street —Market Street intersection. Effort should be made to
keep this development in a compact area since it functions
more efficiently in this arrangement.
Of all the outlying commercial areas, only one can be
described as a "planned neighborhood shopping center". The
Washington Square Shopping Center is a small shopping center
located on Fifteenth Street between Washington Street and U.S.
Highway 17.
There are several highway business districts located in the
Washington Planning Area. The most easily recognized is
located along U.S. Highway 17 between Ninth Street and
Fifteenth. This is also the fastest developing strip commercial
area in the city. Another area which is easily recognized
because of inadequate parking, incompatible mixture of uses
and dilapidation of some structures is located north of the Tar
and Pamlico River along Highway 17 from Main Street to the
Fifty Street intersection.
Other major commercial districts are located along West Fifth
Street from Hackney Avenue to Wilson Street, and along John
Small Avenue from Eighth Street to Highway 264 intersection.
These areas have developed with relatively low traffic -generat-
ing secondary retail uses. Yet, caution should be taken, as
future development occurs, to protect surrounding residential
areas from excessive strip developlment.
A
•sallddns
ia;eM puno.igaapun pup ialem aaejans jo uol;ea;
-I! ju! lup; a!;das pci!yoid o; pup 'suia;;ed IIo-uni
Ja;em u! sagupya 2UISewep luaAaad o; pa4sJa;2nn
jaaiD s,.ia;ueal ay; o;;uaaefpe put,l ay; auoz of :aA143a(g0
-sa.in;ana;s 2ul;sixa
y;!M alq!;edwoa AIIeal;ay;sae aq 11!M ;uawdo
-lamp Mau ley ainsu! o; pup 'aaupa!I!U21s a1io;
-sly jo sa.in;ani;s 3AJasaid o; (o8D) 1a!a1s1Q ssau
-1sn>3 (ea;uaD ay; u!y;!M;ap;sip auo;s!y a auoz of :aA1;aa(g0
u!eld pool j ay; anoge
pa;Enala Jo/pue 'pajooid pool] iay;!a sl auoz
pooil aqj u!y;iM ;uawdolanap Mau ;ey; ainsui
o; aaupulpao suiuoz pool; ay; Al;aiu;s aaaojua of :0A14:)a(gO
-sash upgin ioj alge;!ns
-un si ga!yM puel jo ;uawdolanap agt,inoas!p of :IeoD
•;uawdolanap a.in;nj ino ui pa;aadsai aq pinoys seaip asayl
-Al!:) ano jo „ l;!l!gen!l„ ay; o; a;nq!j;uoa yaigm suaJe leinwu
pal!odsun asoy; Io uo!;p!aaidde up y;!M paaupleq aq ;snw
w ;uadolanap aoI sueld ;py; laaj Al2uoi;s sueiuo12uigseM
1V1N3WNOSIAN3
•;uawdolanap uo suo!;t,;!Ual1 sl!as uo u01;eUJU0J
-ui apino d o; A;unoD }lo}nea8 pup uo1Su!yspM
jo* A;!D ay; aoI dew silos pal!e;ap e Maas 01 :aA1;aa(g0
uo1;
-aalloa ysej; pup ageyeg 'uol;aa;oid aa11od pup
ai! j 'sauf l jaMas pup ialum se vans 'seaip asay; of
saDIAIas ledfaiunw pua;xa o; SUOISIAoid alew of :aA14aia1g0
spa p lei;uapisai gu!punoaans xauue o f :aA1paIgO
eaav 2ul
-geld uoOulyseM ay; u! glmoaD Aliapio a;owoad of :Jeog
sail!wpj awoaul alpp!w pue Mol aoI spate lel;uap!sai
aoI Alrelna!;ied ';uawdolanap aoI papaau s1 pue; leuo!;!ppv
•saainJas ledpiunw 2uil:)el padolanap sey agu!ij upgin uV 'SL6L
ul (•;sa) 099 8 0; 096L u! 6E6�6 woal 'sapaA SL;spd ay; ui au!Iaap
uoi;elndod p!dpi p paaua!jadxa sey uo1SuiyspM jo A;!D ayl
H1M0119
•ansind o; g2noua
;ue;iodwi way; saiiew ya!yM san!;aafgo pup sluo2 asay; jo
uol;pa!j!;uap! moA s! 11 'suo!;nlos paau ya!yM swalgoad sp way;
pa!j!;uap! anpy noA asnpaaq suJaauoa asay; punom sanlonaJ
geld ano •uo!;e;.iodsupil pup s;aai;S 'A;ajeS a!lgnd '2u!snoH
4uaWUol!nu3 'y;MoaD :swalgoad 2uissaid ;sow ano ssaippe
Aayl •pasodoid anpy noA suoi;nlos gu!nlos-ulalgojd ;uaaajj!p
;uasaidai san!;aafgo ayl •pa!aen We swalgoad ano asneaaq
sani;aafgo a2ue]-2tiol pup ;goys y;!M paxlw are slpog agupJ
-guol asayl san!;aa(go pup slpo2 Aq pamolloj 'pa!jpuap! aae
sanssi pup swalgoad s1iopa asay; jo s;lnsai ay; aae 2u!Mollol
•2ui lew
uoisiaap ip;uaUUwanog Ip301 ui noA anlonu1 o; pa;dwa;;p spy
A;!a ay; sAum ay; jo awos Aluo aie asayl -s;uawagpgua dnoag
ainia pup swnjoj a!lgnd 'soul;aaw pipM 'aiieuuopsanb apn1plu
uazi;!a p :papnlau.i spy wpi2oid ano aeaA ;sud ay; nano
a!Ignd ay;
pup sle!a!jjo pa;aala uaaM;aq ssaaojd uoi;pa!unwwoa 2uiog-uo
up ys!lge;sa o; (E) put? swalgoad pup sanssi paipluap! ssaippe
o; san!;aafgo pup slpo2 a;elnwaoj dlay (E) 'sanssi pup swalgoad
asn pue; Liam 2uiAp1uap! (L) u!;ndui inoA;!a!los o; spM wei2oid
siy; jo asodind a41 17L6L jo 2uudS ay; ui wei2oid ;uauianlon
-ui uazi;!a an!sua;u1 up loo;iapun u012u14seM jo A;!D ayl
S3nssi (INV SW31908d 3Sn UNVI 30 NOI1VJIllIN341
•ain;nj ay; o;ui iaad o; ;dwa;;p pup ;sed s,uo0u!yseM ;p lool
am se xulaa;ou Aqm 'oS •slsdouAS s!y; ul passaippp aap suoi;sanb
Jel!w!s pup asayl i2uipeai anui;uoa o; ia2va noA aiV iy;Moag
am;nj ;ioddns o; alqu aq IJOM;au aa!nJas s,uo42u!yseM II!M
isieaA ua; ui al!l Tool —Ai!:) s!y;—A;!unuiwoa siy; ll!M ;eqm
0042u!4seM jo ;uawdolanap ay; uo pey asn puel ;uasaid pup
;sed sey ;aajja wqm iway; amps am op Moy pup 'swalgoad pup
sanssi asn pupl mo asp ;pyM :suo!;sanb 2u1nn0ll0l ay; jlasanoA
Ise—s!sdouAS s!y; jo ;ua;uoa ay; ;nogg pap! ja;;aq u noA OAl2
of eaiv uo;gu!ysem ay; u! plogasn04 Aaana o; papew 2u!aq s!
11 •uuld asn puel a;aldwoa ay; jo Aiewwns e si SISdONAS a41
SISdONAS 3H1 SI 1VHM
•sdolanap A;!D ay; sp apew aq up:) sagupya ';u!jdanlq e
al!l •;uawdolanap am;nj 2uluaaauoa suoi;ppuawwoaai Aailod
salew pup ';uawdolanap asn pupl;uasaid pue;sed ,inoA sauiwe
-xa 11 •„;uawdolanaa ain;nl joj Imiclan18 uo;gu!yspM ay;„
paaap!suoa aq up:)ueld asn puel s!yl 'tL6L jo;aV;uawagpupW
paaV Ip;spoD ay; Aq pa;ppuew ueld asn pupl u gupedaid
ui pa;pdi:)pjed aney noA pup su01;pz1UP2J0 ainia snoiapn 'pIp08
guiuupld '1!aunoD A;!D uo;gu!yseM ay; jeaA ;sed ay; nano
NOI1Jn40211N1
Industrial Use
One concentration of industrial activity in the planning area
is the western portion of the city along the Atlantic Coast Line
Railroad, west of Hackney Avenue. The wholesale development
along Hackney Avenue helps to serve as a buffer between the
industrial activities and the residential uses to the east.
A second major concentration of industrial activity is devel-
oping in the eastern portion of the city next to Runyon's Creek
along Fifth Street. The expansion possibilities are limited for this
area. Due to the existing intermixture of industrial and residen-
tial uses, the major land use planning effort should be devoted
to the establishment of well defined limits for the expansion of
industrial activites.
In addition to the two areas mentioned previously, the
Hamilton Beach Corporation has established a manufacturing
plant of 39.5 acres of land within the planning area. It is located
on N.C. Road 1509 just off of U.S. Highway 17 North. The
surrounding area should begin to develop in the future due to
the present location, and easily accessible transportation facili-
ties.
There has been an intermixture of land uses within the
industrial districts in the Washington Planning Area in the past.
Although this intermixture still exists, an effort is being made to
prevent this in the future through enforcement of the city's
zoning regulation.
Governmental and Institutional Use
Public and semi-public activities have occurred throughout
the Planning Area. Future development will probably occur in
the same general pattern. These uses should be encouraged to
locate near the center of existing and projected population
concentrations to attain maximum efficiency and convenience.
FUTURE NEEDS AND GROWTH
Population
Can Washington support future needs and growth? Predicting
population growth and area needs is one of the most important
parts of a land development plan. These figures help indicate
local government's ability to provide capital for facilities and
services.
Washington's population dropped rapidly from 1960 to 1970,
and has continued to do so. However, by the year 1985 it should
have increased from today's 8,860 to 9,738. By the year 2020,
our population should be 12,300.
Washingtonians would like for their city to grow. However,
this growth must be orderly and must take into consideration
the town's ability to (1) provide adequate municipal services,
and (2) the area's ability to provide employment opportunities.
Table 1 shows Population Projections for the City of Washington
and its Extraterritorial Area.
TABLE 1
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
CITY OF WASHINGTON AND EXTRATERRITORIAL AREA
1980 - 2020
1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
City 9,538 9,738 9,947 10,117 11,125 12,300
Ext. Area 13,151 13,441 13,730 13,965 15,515 17,220
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEMAND
Extensive growth has occurred in the areas adjacent to the
city limits, particularly to the east. The City Council has
indicated that annexation is a high priority. This section ex-
amines the probable effects of extensive annexation on com-
munity facilities and city services which must be extended to
newly annexed areas.
Washington's present waste treatment facilities are not ade-
quate. Therefore, if your population wishes and development
desires are realized the present water and waste treatment
facilities will require improvements in order to accommodate
future growth. Increasing your water and waste treatment
capacity will require a financial commitment.
Sewer
The Department of Public Works is currently having a 201
Study done which will provide a detailed analysis of the sewer
system and project its needs over a 20-year period. The present
system has a design capacity of 2.2 million gallons per day and
is operating at an average 75% of capacity. The recommenda-
tions will take into account projected population increases for
the next 20 years, and how best to meet the needs of Washing-
ton and the surrounding area.
688LZ '0 'N 'uOMu!ySLM
86 1!waad
QIdd
RDVISOd 's n
xzVx x'iris
688LZ '0 'N 'N019NIHSVM
GS8 x09 '0 'd
N019NIHSVM J0 AM
SUMMARY of the WASH I NGTON LAND USE PLAN
Prepared by the
CITY COUNCIL
and
CITIZENS
of the City of Washington
North Carolina
With Assistance from
The City of Washington and
The Local Planning and
Management Services Section
Department of Natural and
Economic Resources
1976
Water
The City of Washington is in the process of completing a new
well and water treatment plant. A new elevated tank capable of
storing 500,000 gallons has recently been completed. The well
will have a capacity of about 500 gpm and the treatment plant
will have the same capacity. With the addition of the well and
treatment plant the city will be able to process 360,000 addi-
tional gallons per day, bringing the total capacity to approxi-
mately 2.6 million gallons per day.
Land Needs and Carrying Capacity
The Washington Planning Area has approximately 16,471
acres of land, and 1,245 acres of water area. The majority of
land within the city is developed, while most of the one -mile
area remains vacant and in agriculture uses. Undeveloped land
located south of the Pamlico and Tar River is low lying, and not
suitable for development. Nevertheless, Washington's future
land needs can adequately be provided in the town's one -mile
area and in urbanizing "annexation" areas.
A specific issue regarding future growth and development
concerns the capability of the land and water to sustain these
changes. The carrying capacity of an area means the amount of
life a stable eco-system can support. Although an ambiguous
definition, the issue requires that planning must take into
consideration the physical limits of land, and how certain levels
of human activity lead to undesirable alterations in the environ-
ment. In the coastal area these detrimental effects are caused
particularly by sewage and waste water disposal. The effects are
noted in both ground and surface water quality; both, then, act
as a physical limitation upon development.
The City of Washington is located in a "capacity use area" —
an area where ground water and surface water must be moni-
tored as required by the State of North Carolina. According to
records kept over the past few years, the peak daily usage figure
was 1.9 million gallons per day on August 5, 1975. On a per
capita basis, this usage amounts to 214 GPD. (This figure is
inflated since we cannot account for the total number of visitors
in the area at that time. The National average is 150 GPD.)
Using the inflated per capital figure of 214 GPD during the ten
year planning period (1975-1985) we would be drawing an
additional 188,000 GPD during the periods of highest consump-
tion. Total draw -down would amount to approximately 2.1
million GPD; well below the allowable 3 million. For the year
2020, the peak usage figure for a population of 12,300 would
amount to 2.6 million GPD.
As previously noted, Washington presently obtains its water
supply from the Tranter's Creek Watershed. Draw -down from
the watershed area is expected to drop, accordingly, following
the projected opening (April, 1977) of a 500 GPM well east of
Washington in the Slatestone Area. As a result, the city is
moving from a total reliance on surface water supplies to a
partial reliance on ground -supplies.
Economy
Manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade accounted for
Washington's major economic activity. As of 1969, Washing-
tonians earned an average income of $2,168 annually.
The area's economic outlook is encouraging. Several phos-
phate operations are expected to expand in the county. How-
ever, since these plans are not final, the exact impact upon
Washington economy cannot be made. Continued economic
and industrial development is needed to meet future em-
ployment needs.
Housing
In 1974 a housing survey was conducted by the city. A total
of 2,722 houses were surveyed. Housing conditions were as
follows: (a) 55 percent standard, (b) 42 percent substandard
and (c) 3 percent dilapidated. The worst housing conditions are
found in the western section of the city. This section is mostly
populated with Black residents.
Today Washington has an average household population of
3.26. As population estimates are realized, overcrowding will
increase. It is essential that implementation of the existing
housing plan continue. Added housing stock and other housing
improvement will remain among Washington's priorities.
Storm Drainage
The City of Washington lies in a very flat area and has few nat-
ural drainage outlets, making the problems of providing ade-
quate storm drainage extremely difficult and very expensive.
Jack's Creek, which drains approximately 75% of the town, will
need more equipment than it presently has to handle the run-
off of future developed areas. Additional pumps with ap-
proximately 50% more capability will be needed on the dike at
Jack's Creek. The area between Brown Street and the pumps
should be dredged to allow for more retention room. Wash-
ington's present wastewater collection and treatment system
does not provide adequate service. A "Section 201" facilities
study scheduled for completion later this year will address
the most feasible methods of wastewater treatment.
GROWTH AND FACILITIES COSTS
The provision of adequate facilities and services to meet
future growth will be a major responsibility of city government.
Therefore, the cost implications of growth and development
must be fully understood by all citizens. It has been determined
that our present wastewater collection and treatment system
does not provide adequate service. As development and indus-
trial growth occurs, our service demands will increase resulting
in both capital and personnel needs. At the minimum, an
adequate waste treatment facility would cost approximately
$1,000,000 in local matching funds. In addition, the city can
expect an increase in refuse collection and disposal. Additional
personnel and capital needs could amount to approximately
$51,000. By 1985 Washington will have grown by approximately
600 acres. What effect will this have on present fire protection
capability? A fire sub -station in the eastern annexed areas will
be needed to provide efficient fire protection. A sub -station will
cost approximately $100,000. Additonal staff and equipment
must also be taken into account. Washingtonians, these needs
and improvements will total over $1,151,000. The City of
Washington will probably not be able to finance all of these
improvements.
Therefore, every possible federal; state, and local source will
be explored. For example, the city will seek revenue sharing
money providing these funds are available. Participation in the
Federal Housing and Community Development Program will
continue. Other , possible sources could come from a city
bond referendum and/or tax increases. We ask you to keep
in mind that a financial commitment from city government and
the city's people may be necessary.
In summary, the cost discussion contained herein has been to
provide you with insight into the future needs of your Planning
Area. The City will remain aware of the need for various com-
munity facilities and will continue to maintain an up -date
inventory of the factors which generate these needs. Specific
functional plans, e.g., capital improvements plans and a capital
improvements budget, will be prepared in order that the
adequate provision of community facilities may be provided.
POTENTIAL AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
The major goal of the Coastal Area Management Act is to
create a balance between growth and environmental protec-
tion. The Washington Planning Area contains a number of
fragile areas that would be destroyed or seriously altered in
nature if unplanned, uncontrolled development should occur.
The following areas are now under study to determine the
proper management system needed to protect them:
Watershed
The Tranter's Creek watershed provides the City with its
source of raw water supplies. Washington has both a primary
and an auxiliary raw water intake located on Tranter's Creek.
Tranter'sCreek is the primary stream in the watershed and is fed
by Turkey Swamp, Beargrass Swamp, Pinelog Branch, Meadow
Branch, Great Branch, Briery Swamp, Haw Branch, Horsepen
Swamp, Poley Branch, Pea Branch, Pocoson Branch, Aggie
Run, Old Ford Swamp, Singleton Swamp, Latham Creek, Gum
Swamp, Snoad Branch, Maple Branch, Mitchell Branch, and
Cherry Run. Most of the watershed lies beyond the city's
planning area. With the help of the County, the City must
safeguard its water supply by preventing high density residen-
tial growth, and septic tank use in these areas.
Estuarine Waters
The part of the Pamlico River north of the Railroad bridge that
flows within Washington's mile and a half planning jurisdiction
is considered an estuary. These estuarine waters can be pro-
tected by controlling development along the Public Trust Waters
of the Pamlico.
Complex Natural Areas
Complex natural areas are defined as lands that support
native plant and animal communities and provide habitat
conditions or characteristics that have remained essentially
unchanged by human activity. In addition these areas must be
rare in the coastal counties. Washington's extraterritorial juris-
diction south of and adjacent to the river may possibly meet the
requirements of complex natural area. If so, this area should
remain essentially in the same state it is today.
Public Trust Waters
As applicable to the planning area these waters are the
Pamlico and Tar Rivers and their tributaries. These waters are
also shown as public trust navigable waters on the county plan.
Estuarine and River Erodible Areas
As applicable to the planning area these waters are the
Pamlico and Tar Rivers. "Estuarine and river erodible areas are
considered to be that area extending from the mean water level
or the mean high water level along the estuary, sounds and
rivers a distance of 75 feet landward."
APPROPRIATE LAND USES OF FRAGILE AREAS
1. Resource Areas —Watersheds
"Tranter's Creek"
Policy Objective. To insure the continued maintenance of
water quality and quantity of the surface water supply.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective, i.e., uses with
little or no discharge of pollutents which would endanger
surface water.
2. Estuarine Waters
"Pamlico River"
Policy Objective. To preserve and manage estuarine waters
so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, econo-
mic and aesthetic values.
Appropriate Uses. Appropriate uses shall be those consistent
with the above policy objective. Highest priority shall be al-
located to the conservation of estuarine waters. The de-
velopment of navigational channels, the use of bulkheads
to prevent erosion, and the building of piers or wharfs
where no other feasible alternative exists are examples of
land uses appropriate within estuarine waters, provided that
such land uses will not be detrimental to the biological and
physical estuarine functions and public trust rights. Projects
which would directly or indirectly block or impair existing
navigation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit
spoils below mean high tide, cause adverse water circu-
lation patterns, violate water quality standards, or cause
degradation of shellfish waters are generally considered in-
compatible with the management of estuarine waters.
3. Complex Natural Area
"Pamlico Flood Area"
Policy Objective. To preserve the natural conditions of the
site so as to safeguard its existence as an example of naturally
occurring, relatively undisturbed plant and animal com-
munities of major scientific or educational value.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. Appropriate uses
would include outdoor, non -intensive recreational areas,
nature trails, etc. Lands within the AEC shall not be plan-
ned for uses or kinds of development that will unneces-
sarily jeopardize the natural or primitive character of the
natural area directly or indirectly through increased acces-
sibility. Additionally, lands adjacent to the complex natural
area should not be planned for additional development that
would unnecessarily endanger the recognized value of the
AEC. The variability between kinds of complex natural areas
and between land uses adjacent to those natural areas means
that the range of permissible uses and intensity of use must
be carefully tailored to the individual area.
4. Public Trust Waters
"Pamlico and Tar Rivers"
Policy Objective. To protect public rights for navigation and
recreation and to preserve and manage the public trust
waters so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological,
economic and aesthetic value.
Appropriate Uses. Any land use which interferes with the
public right of navigation, or other public trust rights, which
the public may be found to have in these waters, shall
not be allowed. The development of navigational channels,
drainage ditches, the use of bulkheads to prevent erosion,
and the building of piers or wharfs are examples of ap-
propriate land uses within public trust waters provided that
such land uses will not be detrimental to the biological and
physical functions and public trust rights. Projects which
would directly or indirectly block or impair existing navi-
gation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit spoils
below mean high tide, cause adverse water circulation
patterns, violate water quality standards, or cause degrada-
tion of shellfish waters are generally considered incompati-
ble with the management of public trust waters.
5. Estuarine and River Erodible Areas
"Pamlico and Tar Rivers"
Policy Objective. To insure that development occurring
within these areas is compatible with the dynamic nature of
the erodible lands thus minimizing the likelihood of sig-
nificant loss of property.
Appropriate Uses —Appropriate land uses shall be those con-
sistent with the above policy objective. Permanent or sub-
stantial residential, commercial, institutionl or industrial
structures are not appropriate uses in estuarine, sound
and river erodible areas unless stabilization has been ac-
hieved along the affected reach. Recreational, rural and con-
servation activities represent appropriate land uses in those
erodible areas where shoreline protective construction has
not been completed.
AT