1986 Land Use Plan Update-1986

1 9 8 6
A U R O R A L A N D U S E P L A N
U P D A T E
SEPTEMBER, 1986
PREPARED BY:
MID -EAST COMMISSION
P.O. DRAWER 1787
WASHINGTON, NC
The preparation of the plan was financed in part by a grant
provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through finds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of
19729 as amended, which is administered by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration.
Adopted by the Aurora Town Council on April 21, 1986.
Certified by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission
on September 99 1986.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1986 AURORA LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Prepared by:
TOWN COUNCIL
Grace Bonner, Mayor
Bessie LaVictoire
Curtis Potter
Floyd Peed
Webster Walker
PLANNING BOARD
W. B. Thompson, Chairman
Charles Harding
Lloyd Hollowell
T. R. Thompson, Sr.
Marvin Sartin
Bill Herwig
MID -EAST COMMISSION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF
Lynn Roche Phillips, Technical Advisor
Robert Paciocco, Planner -In -Charge
The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The Office of
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, is also responsible for funding for this document.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Establishment of the Data Base
PRESENT CONDITIONS
Present Population and Economy
Summary
EXISTING LAND USE
Introduction
Land Use Summary
CURRENT PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Plans
Policies
Regulations
CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY
Introduction
PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
Hazards
Soils
Water Supplies
Excessive Ground Slope Areas
Fragile Areas
Areas With Resource Potential
CONSTRAINTS: CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Introduction
Water and Sewer
Schools
Roads
ESTIMATED DEMAND
Population and Economy
Summary
REVIEW OF 1981 POLICY STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS
Resource Protection
Resource Production and Management
Economic and Community Development
ISSUES AND POLICY STATEMENTS
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Development in Areas with Constraints
AEC Development
Other Fragile Areas and AECs
Hurricane and Evacuation Needs
Protection of Potable Water
Use of Septic Tanks
Storm Water Runoff
Marina and Floating Home Development
Industrial Impacts around Fragile Areas
1
1
2
3
3
12
13
13
13
18
18
19
20
22
22
22
22
24
25
27
27
33
34
34
34
36
36
39
39
41
42
43
44
45
48
49
50
52
53
56
56
57
58
60
61

iii
'
RESOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT
Productive Agricultural Land
62
62
Existing and Potential Mineral Production Areas
64
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
65
Off -Road Vehicles
66
'
Impact of Development Types on Resources
6B
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
68
Location and Types of Industries Desired
69
'
Commitment to Providing Services
71
Desired Urban Growth Patterns
73
Redevelopment of Developed Areas
74
'
Commitment to State and Federal Programs
75
Assistance to Channel Maintenance
76
Energy Facility Siting and Development
77
Tourism and Beach/Water Access
77
'
Types, Densities, and Location of Anticipated
Development
78
'
HURRICANE AND STORM HAZARD MITIGATION
80
Introduction
80
Hazards Map
81
'
Effects of Storm Components on Hazard Zones
86
Summary
88
Post -Disaster Reconstruction'
90
Introduction
90
'
Immediate Clean -Up
91
Recovery Task Force
93
'
Schedule for Repair and Reconstruction Over Longer
Period
94
Evacuation Routes and Times
95
Summary
97
Intergovernmental Coordination
97
Storm Hazard Mitigation and Post -Disaster Reconstruction
Policies
99
'
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
100
LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
103
110
RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
112
APPENDIX A
114
'
APPENDIX B
118
APPENDIX C
120

iv
'
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NUMER
NAME PAGE NUMBER
'
1
Aurora Planning Area
4
2
Population Change from 1960 to
5
'
1984 - Aurora and Beaufort
County,
3
Employment by Persons 16 Years
7
'
and Over by Industry - Aurora
4
Aurora Area Manufacturing Firms
10
'
S
Existing Land Use 1986
14
6
Flood Prone Area
23
t7
Distribution of Shallow and Prime
26
Agricultural Soils in the Aurora
'
Planning Area
8
Areas of Environmental Concern
28
'
and Historic Area
9
Public School Facilities
37
10
Population Projections - Aurora
40
and Beaufort County 1984-1995
11
Inundation Levels for Hurricanes
82
'
of Specified Intensity
12
Inventory of Structures in the
85
'
Hazard Area
13
Land Classification Map
105
i
i

1
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Land development generally takes place as the result of a
series of decisions by private individuals and government. If
left entirely to chance, the resulting pattern of development may
not be in the best overall community interest. To promote this
community interest for both present and future generations, a
land use plan is developed, adopted and kept current by the local
governments in the coastal area.
The land use plan is a framework to guide local leaders as
they make decisions affecting development. Private individuals
and other levels of government will also use the plan to guide
their land use decisions. Effective use of the plan by these
groups will lead to the more efficient and economical provision
of public services, the protection of natural resources, sound
economic development, the protection of public health and safety,
and enhancement of the community's quality of life.
The Town of Aurora has responded to these needs by electing
to complete and update its land use plan. The preparation of
this plan represents an effort by the Town to guide development
in a way which will maximize public benefits. It was financed in
part through a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972. These funds are administered by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration through the North Carolina Department of Natural Re-
sources and Community Development (NRCD) Division of Coastal
Management.

2
'
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DATA BASE
tOne
purpose of the 1986 Land Use Plan is to update the
information given in the 1981 plan and to outline any new
'
developments that have taken place since the completion of the
'
last plan. The 1981 plan and its counterpart, the original 1976
Land Development Plan, serve as the primary sources of informa-
tion for this effort. Various other sources were used to update
and expand the data base.
'
Socioeconomic data were gathered from a variety of sources.
The 1980 U.S. Census of Population provided updated population
'
figures, and these figures were updated with data provided by the
'
N.C. Department of Administration. The North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNRCD) Division
'
of Marine Fisheries provided data on the fishing industry in and
around the Aurora area. Additional statistics were gathered from
'
The Directory
of Manufacturing Firms, 1984 and the Beaufort
'
County School Superintendent. The NCDNRCD Divisions of Environ-
mental Management and Soil and Water Conservation were very
'
helpful in providing information. Additional sources were
consulted, including the Mayor and Town Clerk.
'
Information land the Town's
on use within jurisdiction was
'
acquired from a variety of sources. United States Geologic
Survey 7 1/2 minute quadrangles, the Beaufort County Soil Survey,
zoning maps, building permit records and on -site inspections were
used to assess the development that has occurred since the 1981
'
plan. Personal interviews with technical experts, such as the

3
1
' District Soil Conservationist, supplemented information on land
' development trends in the Aurora area.
To ensure the accuracy of the data presented in this plan,
' several groups and persons were asked to review the plan during
the writing stages. The Planning Board, Mayor and Town Board of
Commissioners proofread the text to ensure its accuracy and
' direction. The combination of these sources aimed to provide the
most concise picture of the development trends in Aurora.
PRESENT CONDITIONS
Present Population and Economy
' The Town of Aurora is situated on South Creek, a tributary
of the Pamlico River, in southern Beaufort County (Figure 1). It
' is a Town which, until the early 1960s, existed primarily as a
fishing community. Since 1970, however, the population has risen
' significantly and the economy of the Town has changed. In
' the past 26 years, Aurora has grown by more than 60 percent
(Figure 2). In contrast, Beaufort County has increased its
' population, but not at the same magnitude as Aurora. Looking at
the past 25 years reveals that most of the growth occurred from
' 1960 to 1970. This coincides with the decision by Texasgulf to
locate a phosphate mining plant near Aurora. The Town developed
residential areas as well as service industries to accomodate the
' growth brought on by the industry. Since 1970, the population
increase has been slow, but steady. This growth can probably be
' attributed to the decision by Texasgulf workers to locate
their residences closer to work.

s
0
n°
0
!Ip F
l�
o lt
WATSON----
1, aoe Y t}1
r
is 1.
.l
RAILROAD — 1 } t r✓ rxr�r k `• . k�
;
n `t 1 �,A r. I y ��v ✓
16
. �tri cn l� ` . p!•'k i � t . '� : � ►'� .�.: %ter t` �3 -r-r'�
1
� � � � � � � • o•l�y � j'� Jj►tt�tjy�.1), 1 fj; 1 t�.`�
�J cn
o loos
k °O
0
41

Figure 2
POPULATION CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1984:
AURORA AND BEAUFORT COUNTY
1960 1970 1980 1984
PnPTTT.ATTnN PnP1J1.ATTnN POPULATION POPULATION
1960-80
PERCENT
POPULATION
CHANGE
1980-84
PERCENT
POPULATION
CHANGE
Aurora
449
620
684
724*
61..2%
5.84%
Beaufort
County
36,014
35,980
40,355
43,818
21.60
8.580
Source: N.C. Census of Population, 1980.
* 1984 Municipal estimates provided by N.C. Department of Administration.
vl

Cr
'
A seasonal population flux does not play an important role
'
in the public service demands placed on Town facilities.
Recreational activities such as hunting and fishing attract a
'
very small number of tourists and summer residents to the area.
This limited number of visitors, however, does not tax the
adequate provision of water and wastewater services.
Other statistics may shed light on the composition and
lifestyle of the residents of Aurora. The population is composed
'
of approximately 58.7 percent whites, while non -whites account
for approximately 41.3 percent of the total population. The
median age of Aurora is 28.8 years compared to 28.3 years for the
state. This implies that one half of the population in Aurora is
older than 28.8 years and the other half is younger. Aurora's
'
per capita income of 6,439 is sufficiently less than the state
amount of 89189 (1983 statistic).
'
The Aurora is Figure 3
economy of mixed. shows employment
'
of persons 16 years and older by industry in Aurora. Nearly 35
percent of those employed are in the fishing, farming, forestry,
'
or mining business. The phosphate industry is a major employer
for eastern North Carolina as well as Aurora. Plans call for the
'
expansion of the Texasgulf labor force by 1990. This will impact
'
the Aurora economy as many employees will look to Aurora as a
convenience center. Given the trend of Texasgulf employees
'
locating their residences within close range of the plant,
supplemental residential construction is likely to occur in and
'
around Aurora.

Figure 3
EMPLOYMENT BY PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OVER BY INDUSTRY
AURORA
Industry
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing and Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Communications and other Public
Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Business and Repair Services
Personal, Entertainment and
Recreation Services
Health Services
Education Services
Other Professional and Related
Services
Public Administration
TOTAL
UNEMPLOYMENT
Total Persons
85
10
37
7
4
24
23
9
4
5
6
18
0
13
245
21
SOURCE: N. C. Statistical Abstract, 1984.
Percent
34.7
4.0
15.1
2.8
1.6
9.8
9.4
3.6
1.6
2.0
2.45
7.3
0.0
5.3
8.57
7

N
Aurora's economy is highly dependent on the phosphate mining
industry for jobs and revenue. But, it is important to note that
the local phosphate mining industry is sensitive to the world
phosphate market. Any significant decline in demand would have
serious implications for Aurora. The recent buy-out of North
Carolina Phosphate Company by Texasgulf resulted in a net loss of
60 Aurora -area jobs. Additional declines in the demand for
phosphate could create economic distress in Beaufort County.
As stated above, primary industries like farming, fishing,
forestry and mining constitute more than one-third the total
employment. Agriculture, although not a major employer in the
area, is still an important component.of.the Aurora economy. The
overall decrease in agricultural employment has been triggered by
the widespread use of heavy machinery and the introduction of
farming methodologies which require less labor. Farming is very
important in terms of land use, however. Agricultural land use
constitutes approximately 40 percent of the total land area
within the one mile extraterritorial jurisdiction area. The
' crops most widely grown are potatoes, corn, soybeans and wheat.
Peaks in agricultural employment typically occur during the
' harvest season in late summer/early fall.
' Although much of the land adjoining the one mile limit is in
forests, there appears to be little activity associated with
' harvesting the timber from the land. Most of the forested areas
lie around South Creek and in the extreme southern and northern
' areas of the territorial limits. Other areas dense with forests
are east of South Creek. Logging these areas would not consti-

0
'
tute a major economic impact on Aurora since most of these logs
9
'
would be exported to pulp mills out of Aurora's influence.
The fishing and seafood industry is an important component
'
of the economy. This is largely because of the number of people
'
it employs and the financial gain it offers to the Town. Since
19819 Beaufort County has consistently been in the top eight
counties in commercial seafood catches, poundage and monetary
value. Several commercial fishermen claim residence in the
'
Aurora area. In addition, there are currently two seafood
'
processing plants in Aurora which employ a total of 100 persons
during the peak season. These seafood businesses deal with
crabs, shrimp and various types of finfish. There is also a
small industry nearby which makes wire crab pots for local
'
use. Recreational fishing and boating provide an unknown but
suspectedly large boost to the Aurora economy. Fuel, food,
beverages,
bait and marine supplies are items commonly purchased
by these seasonal recreators.
Only one industry, Texasgulf, employs a significant number
of workers (Figure 4). Texasgulf has about 1200 workers who come
from all parts of the surrounding area. As stated above, TG is
'
involved in phosphate mining as well as production of phosphate
' products. All other local industries are reliant on the seafood
industry for their existence. Aurora has become a good site for
industrial location.because of the extensive amounts and types of
raw material it can provide for manufacturing.
' The phosphate mining business has had a strong impact on the
economy of Beaufort County and Aurora. Beaufort County officials

10
Name
Texasgulf, Inc.
Figure 4
AURORA AREA MANUFACTURING FIRMS
Address
P. 0. Box 48
Carolina Seafood, Inc. P. 0. Box 354
Henries Fishing Supplies Highway 33
Bay City Crab Co. N. C. 306
Daniels Seafood Co. South Creek
Aurora Packing Co. Highway 33
Employee
Product
Number
Phosphoric acid
and
1000-2499
other phosphate
products
Crab meat, raw
crabs
20-49
Wire crab pots
10-19
Crab meat, raw
crabs
20-49
Crab meat, raw
crabs
20-49
Crab meat, raw
crabs
20-49
Source: N. C. Directory of Manufacturing Firms, 1984.

11
'
claim that one out of every five tax dollars in Beaufort County,
'
is paid by Texasgulf. TG's economic contribution to the area has
been substantial, but the environmental impact of their intensive
phosphate mining facilities has been under question. Conserva-
'
tionists and entrepeneurs have worked hard to improve the
company's environmental record. There is an estimated amount of
'
mineable phosphate in the Aurora area to keep an operation like
Texasgulf in business for 300 years. THe expansion of mining
'
operations into the Aurora planning area could have detrimental
effects on the land quality and quality of life for Aurora
residents. Again, the financial and natural value of the land
and water resources would be under dispute. The Aurora zoning
ordinance requires that all mining within the planning area will
'
be subject to a special use permit that will be examined on a
case -by -case basis. Such an expansion of mining operations would
favorably impact the but the the
economy, value of natural system
'
could be at stake. This dilemma, a common problem for any
large-scale, resource intensive manufacturing operation, would be
'
evaluated by the Planning Board at the time of the request.
A seasonal variation in employment is typically a problem in
'
the Aurora area. Off-season seafood and agricultural
processing
unemployment is a serious concern for the economic development of
the area. Women are typically the victims of the seasonal
'
unemployment problem. No industries within the planning area
employ women on a full-time basis.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Summary
The analysis of the demographic and economic conditions
reveals that Aurora supports a stable economy and population.
Steady population 'growth in the population has been the trend
over the past 25 years. This trend is expected to continue. The
major industries of the Town are currently experiencing pros-
perous times, but it is shown that this may not always be the
case. Most local industries are dependent upon market demand
fluctuations or the bounty of the land or water for their
economic growth. Additional growth in the economy, excluding the
phosphate mining industry, is not likely to have a significant
impact on the natural resources of the area. As,discussed in the
following sections, Aurora has adequate services to accomodate
any projected growth in population.
12

13
'
EXISTING LAND USE
'
Introduction
Before intelligent decisions can be made directing future
land use in a community, there must be an inventory of the
'
present land uses. This inventory should take note of the types
of land uses, their amount, and their distribution. The follow-
'
ing section details the existing land uses within the Aurora
planning area.
Land Use Summary
'
The Aurora planning area includes the land within the Town
limits and the land outside the Town to a distance of one mile
(Figure 1). The total area encompasses slightly more than eight
'
square miles, but only about 30 percent of the planning area is
within the corporate limits. Within the planning area, approxi-
12 the land
mately percent of is developed for urban purposes.
'
Most of this developed land is within the Town limits. The
majority of the undeveloped land is in forests agriculture, or
� Y P � 9 �
wetlands.
There has been little change in the layout of the land since
the 1981 (Figure 5). The land that
plan existing use map shows
'
most land uses within the Town limits are residential, commercial
or related to agriculture. Residential development is concen-
trated in the areas south of Highway 33, the blocks surrounding
Main Street, and in the blocks between Main Street and NC 33.
'
Since 1981, only 11 building permits have been granted. Of
'
these, nine have been residential construction permits. Most new

' Figure S
EXISTING LAND USE 1986
1
1
1
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCE IN
' PART UMC (M A GRANT PROVIM BY THE NORTH
G M AP H i C S C A U _. C1RlJi INA COASTAL KVMa-Mr PRI.AY &%k THR/.I M
cod o' food :000' 3000' FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE CAASTAL ZONE MANAMMU
' ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS AMINISIEM
BY THE OFFICE OF COASTAL RESOURCE MANAMM,
NATIONAL OCFANIC AND AMDSPHERIC AII1INISTRATION.
14
inaustrial
Agricultural/
Open Space
Forested
Wetlands
® Surface Waters

15
residential starts within the past five years have been in the
'
area around Grace Drive south of Highway 33. Several other
permits have been granted for development of houses in the
'
Town between Main Railroad Streets.
northeastern quadrant of and
'
This area has also been popular for the placement of mobile
homes. Outside the Town limits, various traffic arteries appear
'
to be catalysts for housing development. Residential land uses
occur in the southeastern quadrant of the planning area along NC
'
1002. Other of homes can be found in the vicinity of
clusters
'
Weeping Chapel Church, along NC 1925 south of Town, and in the
Royal/St. Peter's church area. Other houses are scattered
'
sporadically throughout the planning area. Wide tracts of
undeveloped land are located within the Town limits as well as in
'
the planning area.
Commercial land uses are those which support retail or
'
personal services. Within the planning area, several concentra-
tions of commercial uses exist. These are the downTown business
district, the Fifth Street blocks, and the strip development
'
stretch extending westward along Highway 33. The NC 33 corridor
has attracted numerous commercial establishments within the past
1
two business
five years. In fact, since 1981, the commercial
'
permits granted have been for sites along this road. The block
made up by Highway 33 to the south, Third Street to the east, and,
'
Fifth Street to the west has grown into an institution/office
center. The community health center and a dental office have
'
located here It is that future
within recent years. expected
'
commercial, institutional and office space needs will be met in

i0l
these existingcommercial areas. Westward expansion of the
_P
' strip development is also expected.
The industrial areas of Aurora are located in the north-
' eastern quadrant of Town and along Second Street. They consist
' mostly of fish and crab processors. The phosphate mining
industry is located outside of the Town's extraterritorial
' limits, and therefore is not included in this plan. Recently, a
zoning request from commercial to industrial use was granted for
' a stretch of land along Highway 33 west of Town near Potter Oil.
' All future industrial uses should be confined to the existing
industrial zones because of industry's undesirable effects on
'
any other land use.
Only about 20 percent of the* extraterritorial area is
'
forested. Of this, only about 5 percent is situated within the
Town limits. Two concentrations of forested land exist in the
'
planning jurisdiction. These are located in the northern section
'
of Town along Bailey Creek and the southern section of the
planning area along South Creek. Presently, there are no serious
'
land use compatibility problems with these forested lands.
However, should these areas be logged, short-term aesthetic
problems might result unless wise harvesting/reforestation
'
practices are used.
Most of the land within the extraterritorial limits is
'
cleared for agricultural uses. All of these lands are either
currently devoted to crop production as their primary function or
'
Most these "agricultural lands lie in
serve as pasture area. of
'
an unbroken stretch south of Highway 33 to the boundary of the

17
extraterritorial limits. There are tracts of land north of
Bailey Creek and in a block south of Highway 33 and east of Fifth
Street which are cleared for agriculture. Within the Town's
planning jurisdiction, there are no apparent conflicts between
agricultural and other uses. As the demand for residential and
commercial uses increases, the agricultural land along Highway 33
may be exposed to development pressure. No other compatibility
problems are expected to arise.
The zoning ordinance will prevent any compatibility problems
between commercial and residential land uses. The areas most
likely to experience change in the planning region can be found
in several locations. Additional residential development is
expected in the area near Grace Drive within the Town limits.
Outside the Town limits, additional construction along transpor-
tation routes is possible. The Royal/St. Peter's church area is
already a small residential community and will likely grow as
additional dwellings are built. As stated, commercial uses are
likely to expand along the Highway 33 route in a westerly
direction from Town. This will not cause any infringement
problems on agricultural land, as the area is already consider-
ably developed. There are no major problems that have resulted
yet from unplanned development, nor any which will have a bearing
on future land use.
In summary, there are no significant land use compatibility
problems in the Aurora planning district, except for the large
phosphate mining operation located on the fringes of the planning
area. The conflict exists between agricultural land uses and the

18
mining operations. As stated above, a zoning ordinance has been
created which will prohibit mining within' the Town's extraterri-
torial limits without a special use permit. No conflicts in land
use are anticipated within the next ten years. It is unlikely
that the phosphate industry or any other expanding development
will promote serious land use incompatibilities within the Town's
one -mile extraterritorial limit.

19
I. , CURRENT PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
' Plans
Aurora presently has three planning documents that have a
' ..direct impact on land development in the area. In addition,
numerous county and regional documents, to a limited degree,
address Aurora development issues. The following is a list and
' description of the plans since 1981 which are related to Aurora's
growth.
Community Facilities and Public Improvements Plans - The
1981 Land Use Plan update outlines a community facilities and
1
public improvements plan completed. in 1978. Since the completion
'
of the plan, nearly all of its goals have been attained.
Land Use Plans - Since the passing of the Coastal Area
'
Management Act, two land use plans have been completed. The land
classification map which accompanies the plan is useful in
'
determining land in the
use changes planning area.
Capital Improvements Plan - Since 19819 no documents have
been prepared which outline the capital improvement plans for the
'
Town. The Town is currently carrying out a 201 Facilities
program in accordance with the NRCD Division of Environmental
'
Management.
' Policies
' Policies are defined as statements of intent and courses of
action which are followed to reach a desired goal. The following
' is a list of the policies the Town of Aurora currently has
regarding development.

20
IL
IF
utilities Extension Policies - The capacity of the community
facilities is discussed in "Constraints:- Capacity of Community
Facilities" (page 38). Aurora's sewer hook-up policy is applic-
able to all potential customers who discharge at an equivalent
amount and quality as domestic customers. This is done on a
case -by -case basis depending on the waste characteristics. All
sewage lines are provided by the Town and maintained to the
customer's property lines. Owners of private wells are eligible
for sewer extension up to one year after the date of construction
completion. The same is applicable for water service. Water
fees are set higher for customers outside the Town limits.
Open Space and Recreation Policy.- There is no comprehensive
recreation plan for the Town of Aurora. During the summer
months, the Town appoints a recreation director who arranges and
manages sports teams. The schools serving Aurora also have a
summer recreation program. There is little immediate need for
the Town to formulate a recreation policy with these two programs
in place. The Town owns and operates _a boat launching facility
which was a part of the Capital Improvements Program outlined in
the 1981 plan.
' Regulations
The Town of Aurora enforces several regulations which have
' an impact on development. The building inspector is responsible
for enforcement. Regulations currently in place are:
' Zoning Ordinance

21
Building and Housing Regulations
Mobile Home and Trailer Park Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
'
Building and Plumbing Regulations
'
Flood Zone Insurance Requirements
Nuisance Ordinance
'
The Beaufort County Health Department regulates the permits
for septic tank and well placements. In addition, the subdivi-
sion ordinance regulates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet
for septic tank users. Within the Town limits, all but approxi-
mately ten percent of the inhabitants are hooked up to the
'
municipal water and wastewater systems.
Special use permits are required for various activities
'
within the Aurora extraterritorial limit. They are mandatory for
mining operations, any food processing plants, textile and
clothing manufacturers, business and professional offices,
'
multi -family dwellings, and boat storage docking facilities. In
addition to the special use permit, the Town also requires a
submittal of an outline of the environmental impacts of the above
types of development prior to rendering decisions.
'
The Town has designated historic district, thereby
no
'
eliminating the need for historic district regulations. There
are several structures, however, located in the downTown area
'
that are historically and architecturally significant, but are
not recognized as such. Dune protection ordinances are not
'
required as there are no dunes within the planning area.
Sedimentation regulations are in accordance with the NC Sediment

22
Pollution Control Act. Other federal and state regulations
enforced in the Aurora planning area are outlined in Appendix A.

23
tCONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY
' Introduction
The fundamental premise of land use planning is that
' distinctions exist between land masses which make them suitable
for various uses. Conversely, not all lands are suitable for the
' same types of development. For example, there may be areas with
soils too wet to support foundations. The following section
delineates areas with such constraints to guide future develop-
ment decisions.
Physical Limitations for Development
Hazards
Two types of hazards may impede growth: man-made and
'
natural hazards. There are four man-made hazard areas
in the
planning area which should be excluded from development.
First,
'
the located the Town
hazard
phosphate mining pits near present a
'
to development. Also, the large industrial complex which
houses
Texasgulf could present a hazardous development situation because
'
of the dangerous gases, like hydrogen sulfide, used at the
plant.
Very low density land uses, like agriculture and forestry,
would
'
be best suited to areas around the plant.
'
A runway is located in the extreme eastern portion
of the
planning area. It is used primarily as a landing strip for
crop
'
dusting planes. Any development permitted near this site
should
be limited to low density residential development. The
land
'
underlying the approach pattern is exposed to obvious
crash
hazards and inconveniences due to noise from aircraft.

24
Flammable liquids, such as fuel oil, are stored in three
locations in Town. Aurora Gas, Potter Oil Company and Hooker &
Hollowell Oil Company are situated on .the major thoroughfares
'
through Town. Commercial structures are most likely to be
developed adjacent to these structures, given the zoning ordin-
ance. It is recommended that residential development should be
'
targeted to less hazardous areas. Nuclear power plants would
not impact planning decisions as none are located in the immedi-
ate area.
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and Seymour Johnson
'
Air Base, training bases for, military aviators, are located near
Aurora. The airspace located over Beaufort County.has tradition-
ally been situated in military flight patterns for training
'
pilots. Recently, there has been discussion between military
officials and the public regarding the expansion of the Military
Operating Airspace (MOA) over Beaufort County. The increased
'
possiblity of air accidents poses a higher risk of danger and
would have an effect on Beaufort County land use patterns.
'
The flood prone areas in Town are naturally hazardous zones
where development should be carefully monitored. The United
'
States Geological Survey flood maps show that approxi-
prone area
mately 66 percent of the Town is located in the 100 year flood
plain (Figure 6). This means that these areas have a one in 100
'
chance of being inundated in any one year. Nearly all parts of
Town with paved roads are located in the 100 year floodplain.
'
Certain building restrictions, in accordance with the Flood

1
1
0
' .........
•
' ............ ....... •
w �
/ T 1
a
' eeping Rachel Cb
Ch*Aceo
i
' Ire
1
Source: U.S.G.S. Flood Prone Area
' Map, 1982.
GRAPHIC SCAT[
1 0, 1000� ! 000�
1
Figure 6
FLOOD PRONE AREA
25
=— PP;EPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FM*UM IN
P+r'��p;.0 UT.t.QryiC� AA�TCRA`1ir PFZV*I�DM BYMENORTH�7
CAROLINA COASTAL YMf.`It�►tla'Y1.L PROM %, 1[YY. M
ELMS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MkNAM1EN7
ACT OF 1972, AS A".E=, WHICH IS.ADI=SIERED
BY TIE OFFICE OF M%SM RE -SAME MATCaM,
tiA=a,:AL OCEANIC AEU AnDSPHERIC AD=STiiATION.

26
Insurance Rate program, exist in these areas (1986 Planning
Board).
Soils
Soils in the planning area were mapped by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service. The soil survey was used to determine which soils
present development limitations due to wetness or high shrink-
-swell potential. The local soils are composed mostly of the
Tomotley and Arapahoe fine sandy loams,,the Portsmouth loam and
the Dragston loamy sand. Probably 60 percent of the planning
area is covered by the Tomotley soil association. All these
soils are poorly drained and have severe limitations for the
placement of septic tanks because of their slow permeability,
poor filtering ability and wetness. The Beaufort County Health
Department is responsible for permitting septic tanks in the
Aurora planning region. All local soil types would also present
a problem for building foundations, as subsidence is likely.
Soil shallowness is not ordinarily a constraint for develop-
ment with the Tomotley association, but the seven inch surface
layer may be too shallow for certain types of construction. As
stated above, this soil type is widely distributed in the
planning area (Figure 7).
In summary, all soils found in the area have limitations for
the efficient placement of septic tanks and the Tomotley associa-
tion may cause problems for the stability of building founda-
tions. The overall development implications will translate into
higher overall costs per unit to overcome these constraints.

i"i
I

28
Water Supplies
'
The 1976 Aurora land use plan gives a' lengthy discussion on
the location and sources of groundwater. To paraphrase, Aurora
'
nearly all of its from the Castle Hayne
gets groundwater aquifer.
'
The Castle Hayne is recharged approximately 20 miles from Aurora
northwest of Wilmar near the Pitt County/Beaufort County bound-
ary. Since the onset of phosphate mining operations in the
Aurora area, the intake level of regional water supply has been
'
dramatically lowered. Texasgulf operations alone tap 60 million
'
gallons per day from the Castle Hayne aquifer. Initially, the
groundwater intake levels were lowered to accommodate this
'
depletion. Recently, the NCNRCD. Division of Environmental
Management Groundwater Division stated that the groundwater level
'
has reached equilibrium. This implies that as much water is
being extracted from subsurface sources as is being added
'
through recharge. Obviously, this balance must be maintained in
'
order to assure an adequate water supply for the future.
Expanded phosphate mining operations or. any other additional
'
heavy water uses may upset this balance. It is recommended that
water use be an issue in considering what types of industry
'
locate in the region.
' -Excessive Ground Slope Areas
' Excessive slopes are defined as areas where the predominant
slope exceeds 12 percent, i.e. where the change in elevation is
12 feet or more per one hundred feet of horizontal run. Most of

29
the land in Aurora is very low and there are no areas which have
a slope of 12 percent or more.
Fragile Areas
Fragile areas are the water and land environments whose
physical and biological nature make them especially vulnerable to
damage or construction by inappropriate or poorly planned
development. There are several types of fragile areas which are
under the jurisdiction of several agencies including the Division
of Coastal Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
local government. Those regulated by the State of North Carolina
are defined in the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) and
are called Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) (Figure 8). The
Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over "404 Wetlands", or
wetland areas that are not necessarily connected with a major
body of water. There are no 404 wetlands in the planning area.
Permits are required by the Corps and DCM for all types of
filling in these wetlands. The exact locations of AECs and
other wetlands must be identified through a field investigation,
but their approximate locations are shown on Figure B. Due to
their dynamic nature, AECs are constantly changing, thereby
making their mapping difficult. For regulatory purposes, the
exact location of AECs must be verified with the appropriate
authorities.
Additional fragile areas, not protected under the NCAC or
the Carps, can be found in the Aurora area. These are other
fragile areas, not under the jurisdiction of state or federal

' Figure 8
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND LOCATION OF
' HISTORIC STRUCTURES
GRAPHIC SCALE 1f7G rFUARAMON VC MUS MC WAS rL;[L� IN
' Iood d loco' Z000' soon' PART Ti ti'iOLM A GRANT PRO4%ITJCD BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA COASTAL MANNACCENIE U PROGMX, MUM
RJZS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZOIZ MANAC 2M
' ACT OF 1972, AS AM=, WHICH IS ATI-IINISTERFID
BY THE OFFICE OF (XlASM REWJRCE MA.'VAM-ENT,
NATIONAL OCEANIC A0 AIIyX)SPH RIC AIIIINI TRATION.
30
Public Trust Waters
Estuarine Waters
aCoastal Wetlands
Estuarine Shoreline
Historic Structures

31
' agencies, that .the.local government may deem suitable for local
' protection, such as historical, archaeological, or cultural
sites. Local governments can also opt to additionally protect
' other significant natural areas. The following is a discussion
' of the distribution of AECs and other fragile areas and sugges-
tions for their management.
'
The estuarine water AEC is the most expansive in the Aurora
area. It includes all surface waters downstream of Whitehurst
Creek. Estuarine waters are defined as "all the water of the
Atlantic Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all the
'
the
waters of bays, sounds, rivers and tributaries thereto
'
seaward of the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and
inland fishing waters, as set forth in an agreement adopted by
the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development filed with the Secretary of
State.
'
Estuaries are among the most productive natural environments
of North Carolina. They support the valuable commercial and
sports fisheries of the coastal area which are comprised of
several species that must spend all of some part of their life
'
cycle with the estuarine waters to mature and reproduce. Of the
'
ten leading species in the commercial catch, all but one is
dependent upon the estuary. The estuarine circulation system is
'
responsible for the high productivity levels. The circulation of
estuarine waters transports nutrients, propels plankton, spreads
'
seed and flushes wastes from animal and plant life. It also
mixes the water to create a multitide of habitats.

The management objective for this AEC is to safeguard and
perpetuate its biological, socioeconomic -and aesthetic values.
Suitable land/water uses shall be consistent with NCAC Subchapter
'
7H guidelines.
The estuarine shoreline AEC is located adjacent to the
estuarine waters AEC for a distance of 75 feet landward from the
'
mean high water mark. This includes the. shoreline areas down -
,stream of Whitehurst Creek. The estuarine shorelines are
'
considered to be an important component of the estuarine system
because of their close association with the adjacent estuarine
'
waters. Development along the estuarine shoreline directly.
influences the quality of life for estuarine organisms. This AEC
is also especially vulnerable to the effects of shoreline erosion
and flooding.
The management objective is to ensure that shoreline
development is both the 'dynamic
compatible with nature of
'
estuarine shorelines and the values of the estuarine system. The
NCAC sets the least restrictive set of allowable uses for the
'
estuarine shoreline AEC. Development requests within the defined
estuarine shoreline AEC must be granted permits.
' All development must comply with the use standards estab-
lished in the NCAC Subchapter 7H. Development must not violate
' the natural barriers to erosion or show to degrade the life of
the estuarine system. Minimizing the amount of impervious
surfaces and increasing the vegetative cover to increase evapo-
transpiration are two important considerations in permitting land
' uses in this AEC.
32

33
t
'
Public trust areas are those waters to which the public has
a right of access. It includes all natural bodies of water and
lands thereunder to -the mean high water mark and all areas to
'
which the public has rights of navigation, access and recreation.
All surface waters in the area are in the public trust.
'
These areas are significant in that the public .has rights
'
including navigation and recreation. In addition, they support
valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have aesthetic value
'
and are important resources for economic development. These
areas should be managed so as to protect the public's rights for
'
navigation and recreation.
'
Acceptable uses should be consistent with the aforementioned
management objectives. The NCAC states that uses which would
negatively impact the public trust area will be prohibited.
These include projects that would directly or indirectly block or
'
impair increase erosion,
existing navigation channels, shoreline
'
deposit spoils below mean high tide, cause adverse water circu-
lation patterns, violate water quality standards or cause
'
degradation of shellfish waters.
Coastal wetlands, another defined AEC, are found on the
'
banks of South Creek and its tributaries. Wetlands are defined
'
as "any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasi-
onal flooding by tides, including wind tides". The tide waters
'
can reach the marshland through natural or artificial water
courses. The NCAC sets forth a list of indicator plants for the
designation of a wetland.

34
The.wetland environment is one of the most productive in the
.estuarine system. Detritus (decayed plant material) and nutri-
ents exported from themarshland support the estuary's food
chain. The roots, rhizomes, stems and seeds of coastal wetlands
act as the nursery area and food. source for many fish and
shellfish species. In addition, coastal wetlands act as the
first line of defense in retarding estuarine shoreline erosion.
Marshlands also act as nutrient and.sediment traps by slowing the
water which flows over them and causing suspended organic and
inorganic particles to settle out. Pollutants and excess-
ive nutrients are absorbed by the marsh plants, thus providing an
inexpensive water treatment service.
The NCAC states that the management objective for this AEC
is to give highest priority to its protection and management so
as to and perpetuate its biological, socioeconomic and aesthetic
values. The coastal wetland has the most restrictive set of
allowable uses in the AEC system. It is recommended to utilize
wetlands as a natural resource which is essential to the func-.
tioning of the entire estuarine system.
Suitable land uses in the wetland AEC should be consistent
' with the management objective of the NCAC. Acceptable uses would
' be utility easements, fishing piers, and docks. The natural
functioning of the wetland must not be impaired by any develop-
ment types in the wetland area.
The NRCD Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), through many
' years of research, has developed a list of coastal water bodies
which are known spawning areas for juvenile fish species. These

35
waters are called primary nursery areas (PNAs). According to DMF
technicians, South Creek and its tributaries are not included on
the PNA list because they are considered inland waters. Biologi-
cally, the tributaries of South Creek function as PNAs and should
be protected as such. Spots and croakers depend on these waters
for spawning and development during their juvenile stage. This
area is not, however, on the DMF list because inland waters are
out of the jurisdiction of DMF and considered within the juris-
diction of the Wildlife Resources Commission. It is recommended
that these nursery areas be protected as potential resource
areas because of their unique biological significance despite
coastal/inland jurisdictional discrepancies.
The historical integrity of the Town also deserves special
attention. There is no official historic district, but three
structures in Town should be preserved for their historical
value. These include the Henry Harding Home, the Hooker -Litchfi-
eld House and the Rutledge House. The former two structures are
recognized and listed on the State Register of Historic Places.
The Rutledge House, under consideration for the national regis-
ter, has been renovated into the Aurora Civic Center. It houses.
the Town offices plus several human services operations.
Historic redevelopment is encouraged in Town to preserve these
sites for future enjoyment. The general area of these historic
properties is shown on Figure B.
The area is also rich in archaeological heritage. The N.C.
Division of Cultural Resources lists one archaeologically
significant site in the northern section of the planning area in

36
'
the vicinity of Whitehurst Creek. The NCDCR recommends that this
site should be treated with the utmost respect. This can be
accomplished through survey, mitigative recovery of significant
'
data, avoidance, or preservation in situ. Also, the phosphate
'
beds are rich in fossils. Some of these artifacts have been
collected and displayed in the Aurora Fossil Museum. -The
'
archaeological heritage of the area is an irreplaceable resource
which should be protected and preserved.
Areas which sustain remnant species are those places which
support endangered species of plants and animals. An American
'
Bald Eagle was recently sited near the ferry landing. The
'
pilings for the ferry landing also provide a habitat for several
ospreys. These sites are located outside of the Town's planning
'
jurisdiction, but it is recommended that all precautions be taken
to ensure the safe reproduction of these birds. Due to the
tmobility
and reproductive patterns of these birds, an additional
'
habitat could easily become established within the planning area.
' AREAS WITH RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Although much of the land within the planning district is
' developed, there may be particular areas which should be excluded
from or encouraged to be developed because of a particular soil
' or development impediment. The 1976 Land Development Plan
' outlines the sites which are considered to have resource potent-
ial. The entire planning area is situated on one of the world's
' largest phosphate deposits. All of Aurora has phosphatemining
potential.

37
Productive soils could be considered a valuable resource as
well. Prime agricultural are found within one mile of the Town
limits (Figure 7). The NCNRCD Division of Soil and Water
Conservation and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service assisted in
gathering information necessary to map these soils. The existing
land use map shows that most of the prime soils are currently
under agricultural production or are still covered in forests.
As of yet, none of these soils has been encroached or disturbed
by development. The Town has weighed the importance of produc-
tive farmland and has developed policy statements regarding its
protection in the "Resource Production and Management Policies"
section of this plan.

38
'
CONSTRAINTS: CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
'
Introduction
Development is often encouraged because of the increased tax
'
base it brings. Eventually, however, the local
government must
'
spend some of its tax dollars to upgrade and expand the existing
facilities to accommodate such growth. The land use planning
'
process allows city officials to assess development trends and
analyze the requirements placed on the community facilities. The
'
following section discusses the existing conditions of the water
'
and wastewater treatment facilities, the schools and the roads.
'
Water and Sewer Systems
The 1981 land use plan update details the real extent of
'
water and sewer service in Town. Since that time, additional
hook-ups have been made in the western section of the Highway 33
'
corridor and in the residential area south of that road.
'
The design capacity of the water system is 288,OOO gallons
and consists of two wells. This system is currently used at less
than 35 percent of its capacity. For the purposes of this plan,
an estimate of the average usage rate is measured. This is
'
by the total
calculated gallons used daily based on the number of
'
people living in the area using the system. Given the present
population and usage rate, theoretically, the average Aurora
'
water customer utilizes 139 gallons •per day. Assuming this
theoretical constant usage rate, this system can accommodate
'
approximately 1345 additional customers. Any load brought
peak
'
on by a population surge could easily be accommodated with the

39
1
existing facilities. Additional residential, commercial and
industrial growth up to 1300 persons could occur without causing
undue stress on the system.
The sewage -treatment system's design capacity is .1200
million gallons. The average use is .0903 mgd which represents a
75 percent usage rate. During peak times, the flow rate often
exceeds the design capacity by a factor of nearly two. Given
the current average usage rate by the 724 persons in Aurora,.
this theoretically represents an average usage of 1247 gallons
per day per person. Operating at this theoretical usage rate,
only 23B more persons can be accomodated on the sewer system.
This could present problems for future growth.
The Town sewer system has recently been put into an agree-
ment between the state and Town officials. In January , 1986,
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) and the Town have
agreed to a "Special Order by Consent" regarding the wastewater
treatment plant. The plant has not been met effluent discharge
requirements for several years. In the SOC, the Town has
promised to make improvements at the discharge point within the
next two years. The SOC also required the Town to submit a 201
Facilities Plan by May, 1986. The system is proposed to be
altered by a relocation of the point of discharge. There are no
plans for a major upgrade or expansion of unit processes.
Until the plant meets requirements, only a limited amount of
additional gallons of waste per day can be added to the system.
The Environmental Management Commission is able to decide on
further allocations for wastewater input into the system.

40
Information on the criteria for judging the advisability of
' making these additions can be obtained from the Regional Water
Quality Secton staff of DEM.
' Until an upgrade of the system is made, little growth is
' able to occur. The wastewater treatment system is inherently ill
suited for the treatment of industrial wastes. Future growth
twill be limited by the capacity of the wastewater treatment
facilities. Unless the system is improved to accommodate
' significantly more customers, very little growth, particularly
' industrial growth, will be able to occur.
' Schools
The school facilities are often an item of concern for the
' local residents. Aurora's schools, under the jurisdiction of the
' Beaufort County School System, include Snowden Elementary and
Aurora High School. The Elementary School is operating at
tapproximately 96 percent of its capacity (Figure 9). The school
was constructed in 1938 and since that time, only one improvement
' was made in 1953. The pupil/teacher ratio is not disproportion-
ately high, however, which would indicate that the crowded
conditions have not effected the attention given to each
student.
If the school age population increases, contradictory to
' demographic predictions, the Town will have to request the
Beaufort County Board of Education construct another facility or
' an addition to the existing structure.
I
The high school is currently operating at 68 percent

Figure 9
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES
Pupil/
Teacher
Teacher
School
Capacity
Enrollment Allotment
Ratio
Southwest Snowden
Elementary
650
625 34
1:18.4
Aurora High School
350
239 18
1:13.3
Source: Interview with
Beaufort
County School Superintendent,
1985.
Grade Year
Taught Built Additions
K-8 1938 1953
9-12 1954 1976

42
capacity. Since its construction projects in 1978, there have
'
been no additional improvements made to the school. The pu-
pil/teacher ratio -is considered to be quite good, indicating that
no with being to each student.
problems exist attention given
'
This school could accommodate an influx of students should a
population increase occur.
Solid Waste Collection and Police and Fire Protection
'
The Town Sanitation Department provides garbage collection
and trash disposal within the Town limits. Two persons work for
this department. Collection takes place two times per week and
is deposited at the Silver Hill landfill fifteen miles away in
Pamlico County.
Police service is provided for all persons located within
the planning area. The police force consists of one person and
' one cruiser. Regular patrolling is limited to in Town locations
' only. In addition, three Beaufort County Deputies with offices
in the Aurora area assist in servicing the area. All have
jurisdiction within the Town limits.
The Aurora Fire Department is manned by nearly 25 certified
volunteers. The Fire Department serves the entire Richlands
Township, as
it is funded through a
Township tax. The equipment
includes two
pumpers, an equipment
van, a brush truck, and a
'
tanker. The
size of the force can
be
increased when needed due
to agreements
with nearby Towns.
In
the event of a large fire,
'
other departments can be called in
for
fire fighting assistance.
11

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Roads
The road system in Town is currently sufficient for any
traffic peaks which may occur. The NC Department of Transporta-
tion estimates that Highway 33 is extremely underutilized. It is
currently used at less than 20 percent of its capacity. It is
expected that any additional growth could be accommodated by the
present road system. According to the NC Department of Transpor-
tation Transportation Improvements Program 1986-1995, there are
no plans for any major improvements in the Aurora area. Some
secondary roads may become paved under the priority system the
DOT uses, but there will be no major improvements made to the
roads of the area.
43

44
'
ESTIMATED DEMAND
'
Population and Economy
Population trends in Beaufort County have shown the popula-
tion increasing at a moderate rate. Historically, this has been
the trend for Aurora, also. It is anticipated that this growth
will continue in the next ten years (Figure 10). The population
'
is expected to be 767 by the year 1990. By 19959 it is projected
that the Town will grow by 45 person bringing the total to 813
persons. The Town can easily accomodate such modest growth if
the wastewater treatment problems are corrected. If the immi-
brings the Town may
grant population small school age children,
'
have to request the Beaufort County School. System to consider
constructing an addition to the elementary school. The water
'
system in Town could adequately accommodate such growth as 65
percent of its capacity is not in use. The wastewater treatment
'
facility cannot accommodate much as it is currently under
growth
'
a moratorium instituted because of failure to meet effluent
standards. The road system could more than adequately service
' this population growth.
Strains on the land would be minimal. There is currently an
' adequate amount of undeveloped land within the Town limits which
could be converted to residential uses. Given the average 2.8
persons per household .calculated by the U.S. Bureau of the
' Census, an additional 31.7 dwelling units would need to be
constructed to accommodate the growth. Residences could be
placed south of Highway 33 or in areas zoned for residential that
are not completely developed.

45
Aurora
Beaufort County
Figure 10
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
AURORA* AND BEAUFORT COUNTY
1984 - 1995
1984X 1990 1995
724 767 813
43,818 45,404 47,645
*Aurora projections made by Mid -East Commission.
municipal and County estimates provided by the N. C. Department
of Administration.

46
Summary
The Aurora population is expected to grow at a.modest rate
by the year 1995. The water, wastewater, school, and road
systems can adequately accommodate this growth. The land needed
for development is currently available. Zoning would ensure that
the land remain in its intended uses. Open spaces within each
zoning district could be developed to accommodate the 31.7
residential structures plus the accompanying service -oriented,
non-residential uses needed to accommodate the projected growth.

47
'
REVIEW OF 1981 POLICY STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS
'
During their October 1985 meeting, the Coastal Resources
Commission reviewed a land use plan update which included a
'
all its 1980 as an introduction
systematic analysis of policies
'
to their 1985 land use plan update.. This analysis included an
assessment of the effectiveness of the 1980 goals and a discus-
'
sion of actions and activities used to implement these policies
and goals. This "scorecard" approach gave the local government
'
an opportunity to reflect on how it achieved its previous goals
'
as a beginning step to formulating new policies. It also
provided the opportunity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of the previous policies. It was recommended that all 1986 plan
updates adopt this "scorecard" approach to policy evaluation.
'
The following section includes an evaluation of the policies
addressed in the 1981 Aurora Land Use Plan Update. The planning
'
board critiqued these at one of its earliest meetings. Each
'
policy was analyzed for its content, means of enforcement, and
implementation strategy effectiveness. In a "checklist" format,
'
each implementation procedure was reviewed to see how well each
goal had been carried out since its formation.
'
for accom-
In addition to providing an outlet evaluating
plishments since 1981, this also proved to be an effective
method for reflecting on the substance of each policy. The
'
planning board members were asked to provide a grade on the
substance and effectiveness of the 1981 policies. The board
'
Aurora "A". Most board members felt that
gave an planning
the policy statements were well thought out and very few imple-

48
'
mentation methods had not been carried out. Most of the Town's
'
goals had been attained. The following- section outlines the
policies. for each major issue in the plan and describes the
'
deficiencies found by the planning board.
'
RESOURCE PROTECTION
'
Listed below are condensed versions of the policies and
implementation strategies regarding resource protection in the
'
1981 plan. The symbol ** indicates that the implementation
strategies were not completely carried out.
'
Policies and Implementation Strategies
'
1. Protect AECs from potentially hazardous uses.
a. Use of setback regulations.
'
b. Change land classification map to reflect
policy changes.
flood
2. Support programs.
'
b. Will participate in flood programs.
c. Will publicize Federal Flood Insurance Rate
'
Program and make maps available.
d. Design publication to identify building
Irestrictions.
' e. Stay abreast of Emergency Preparedness and
distribute educational information.
f. Town Board will review special restrictions.
All the above policies had been successfully followed
' through by means of the implementation procedures decided upon.
The Board felt, however, that although the policies were strong

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
and good, all the issues required by the CAMA guidelines were not
completely addressed. The Board was pleased that extracurricular
efforts, such as the Building Restrictions Publication, had been
completed. It was decided that in this year's plan, the policies
formulated would be enforced only with existing regulations and
policies. Additional .efforts are often too much to expect
without the assistance of a full-time professional planning staff
for the Town of Aurora.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
Policies and Implementation Strategies
1. Discourage open -pit mining within one -mile juris-
dictional area.
a. Allow mining within one mile area only
with special use permit.
2. Protect agricultural lands.
a. Check with soil survey to determine which
areas are best suited to agricultural uses.
b. Classify agricultural lands as rural -agricul-
tural on land classification map.
3. Protect forested areas..
a. Check with soil survey to determine which
areas are best suited to forestry uses.
b. Classify forested areas as rural on land
classification map.
49

50
4. Protect estuary.
a. Classify estuary as conservation on land
classification map.
The planning board felt that while the above policies were
good, the means for their support were not as strong as they
could be. All implementation strategies had been followed
through because, the board felt, they were not as substantive as
they could have been.
ECONOMIC AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Policies and Implementation Strategies
1.
Encourage growth to 1,500 persons.
**
a. Bring the sewage treatment plant into 201
compliance.
b. Town Board will conduct survey to determine
feasibililty of water and sewer expansion for
every request.
2.
Support industrial recruitment.
a. Recruit phosphate -mining industries
to take advantage of existing facilities.
b. Recruit women -employing industries.
3.
Support diversification of housing market.
a. Identify vacant lots and encourage their
owners to develop.
b. Promote housing code enforcement.
C. Review and implement zoning and subdivision
regulations to ensure their compatibility.

n
11
d. Assist developers in complying with CAMA laws.
4. Support reconstruction of already developed land.
a. Assist owners of already developed land to get
money to reconstruct.
b. Clean up and improve waterfront and housing
to make land available for water -related uses.
c. Pave as many unpaved roads as possible.
** d. Develop downTown renewal plan which deals with
destruction of old structures and makes them
available for resale.
e. Provide for public access points, public
facilities and services at waterfront.
5. Support state and federal programs which encourage
growth.
a. Complete zoning and subdivision regulations
study to implement specific aspects of land use
plan.
6. Support Corps of Engineers efforts in channel
maintenance.
a. Ensure that Corps of Engineers keeps track of
channel depth for recreational navigation.
7. Discourage siting energy facilities in Town.
a. Limit siting of energy facilities to rural or
transition areas.
B. Provide services only if the request is appropriate
to the needs of the Town, the money is available
51
for expansions, and there is no land use conflict.

52
a. Conduct survey to determine feasibililty of
water and sewer expansion for every request.
9. Encourage capital improvements to in -Town facili-
ties.
a. Buy new fire and rescue equipment.
b. Improve the Aurora library.
C. Encourge physical and curricular improvements
to Snowden Elementary School and Aurora High
School.
** d. Bring sewage treatment plant.into 201 compli-
ance.
e. Provide for cost to maintain Federal Management
Account and continue to house Federal and N.C.
Human Services programs.
10. Promote tourism.
a. Provide for public access points, public
facilities and services at waterfront.
b. Consider future public access points.
C. Cooperate with state and federal tourism
officials.
Of the policies listed above, the implementation strategies
regarding. the wastewater treatment facility were not addressed
during the planning period. The Special Order by Consent
between the Town and DEM reflects the Town's on -going commitment
to bringing the system into compliance. The plant will be in
compliance within two years.

53
The Board felt that the 1981 update was an excellent effort.
Due largely to the extra five years of experience, they agreed
that the 1986 plan would show continued improvement.

54
'
ISSUES AND POLICY STATEMENTS
The formulation of specific policy statements regarding
growth and growth management objectives is probably the most
important contribution of this land use plan update. The
'
evaluation of the present population conditions, the condition
of the land and water resources in Aurora, and the methods of
enforcement for existing policies often suggest a need for
modification of policy to accommodate changes in the living
'
conditions.
'
The Coastal Resources Commission requires that policies are
addressed in five categories:
'
Resource Protection
Resource Production and Management
'
Economic and Community Development
Citizen Participation
Storm Hazard Mitigation
'
Each policy
category is intended to cover all issues associ-
ated with growth
for the town in the coming years. The guide-
'
lines were prepared for a wide range of communities in coastal
North Carolina.
The diversity within this area causes some of
'
the issues to be
irrelevant to Aurora.
The policy statements in this section represent the result
of recommendations, input from citizens, plus the Planning
' Board's experience in judging what is best for the future of
Aurora. These statements define the problem or issue, possible
alternatives for action, the selected alternative (s), and the
' means of implementing and enforcing the chosen alternative.

55
It must be noted that some issues are of such great importance
that only one policy alternative exists. -In other cases, several
courses of action are possible. The following section repre-
sents the Town's best effort to guide development in the planning
area.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Aurora recognizes the need to protect its natural and
cultural resources. It is understood that these are an irre-
placeable asset which require protection. Often, these resources
represent an economic return to the area's residents through
their exploitation. . It is in the best interest of all citizens
of eastern North Carolina that these resources be protected and
managed to their highest potential.
The natural and cultural resources of the Aurora area have
been identified in the Constraints to Development: Land
Suitability section of this plan. Development should not occur
at the expense of the natural system. Conversely, the Town feels
development should not be impaired by the characteristics of the
natural system. For these reasons, development should be targeted
to areas where it is not likely to jeopardize or be jeopardized
by the natural system. The following section details the issues
concerned with development and its relationship with the ecosys-
tem.

56
DEVELOPMENT -IN AREAS WITH CONSTRAINTS
'
The constraints to development in Aurora
were discussed in
the preceding section and relate to both
physical constraints
'
and limitations of community facilities.
Physical constraints
'
include man-made fuel storage areas, high
hazard flood zones,
Military Operating Airspace and areas with soil
limitations. All
'
of the soils in the Aurora planning area are
not well suited for
the safe placement of septic tanks. No
soils are extremely
'
hazardous to building foundations. The
Town recognizes the
importance of safe septic tank placement to
prevent groundwater
'
and well contamination and also realizes its
inability to change
'
or correct the characteristics of the soil.
Fuel storage facilities are located along Highway 33 west
'
of town. The Town acknowledges that any adjacent development
would be subject to a fire risk and well contamination from tank
1
Also
seepage. at risk is development located within the flood-
'
plain of South Creek. Water from the 100 year flood would
inundate about two-thirds of the land in town (Figure 6). Since
'
most of town is subject to flooding, it is not realistic that all
development should be prohibited from these areas.
'
Policy Alternatives
'
Possible policy alternatives for growth management and
development in areas with identified constraints include
'
1. Amendment of subdivision regulations to include
stricter design standards.
1

57
' 2. Develop and adopt additional regulations in flood
' damage prevention ordinance and zoning ordinance to regulate or
prohibit all development in areas with physical constraints.
' 3. Permit development in those areas, utilizing
'
current state, federal and local regulatory processes, i.e.,
CAMA, flood insurance, subdivision regulations and Corps of
'
Engineers 404 permitting system.
Policy Choices
'
Aurora adopts the following policies regarding development
in areas with constraints:
1. Aurora recognizes the inevitability of some
tdevelopment
occurring in high hazard flood areas due to the
prevalence of flood -prone land in the area. Therefore, the Town
'
will continue to participate in Federal Flood Insurance Program
and promote enforcement through the County Building Inspection
'
Program. Proposed large developments,
scale such as housing
'
subdivisions and industry, will be discouraged from locating in
the flood prone area.
'
2. The Town recognizes that it is unable to change
the condition of the soils to accommodate development. It has
'
decided to continue to support the County Health Department and
'
its decisions on septic tank placement. Aurora will continue to
support the Town Building Regulations which decide where con
'
struction can occur based on soil characteristics.
3. Only industrial land uses will be encouraged
'
around the fuel storage sites. The zoning ordinance will be
changed accordingly.

58
'
AEC DEVELOPMENT
'
Aurora recognizes that the primary concern of the Coastal
Resources Commission is to protect our coastal resources, especi-
ally Areas of Environmental Concern. The Town also shares this
concern for the protection and sound management of these
environmentally sensitive land and waters. The AECs in the
'
Aurora planning area were identified in "Constraints: Land
Suitability" section of this plan and include estuarine waters,
'
the estuarine shoreline, public trust waters and coastal wet-
lands.
'
Aurora shares the state's policy and management objective
'
for the estuarine system "to give the highest priority to the
protection and coordinated management of these areas so as to
'
safeguard and perpetuate their biological, socio-economic and
aesthetic values and to ensure that development occurring within
to
these AECs is compatible with natural characteristics so as
'
minimize the likelihood of significant loss of private property
and public resources" (15 NCAC 7H. 0203). In accordance with
this overall objective, Aurora will permit those land uses which
conform to the general use standards of the North Carolina
'
Administrative Code (15 NCAC 7H) for development within the
'
estuarine system. The maintenance of the AECs was considered to
be a top priority by the Town.
'
Policy Alternatives
The Town's policy alternatives for development in AECs are:
'
1. Continue to utilize the NCAC guidelines for
'
permittable uses in AECs.

59
'
2. Prohibit all development in AECs.
'
3. Establish 75-foot conservation buffer zone from
water or marsh's edge where no development shall be permitted.
'
Classify this area as "Conservation" according to Land Classifi-
cation system.
Policy Choices
r
'
1. The. Town of Aurora has decided to continue to
utilize the current system for permitted uses in all AECs taking
'
advantage of Federal and State permit and review processes, i.e.
CAMA and Dredge and Fill.
'
2. The Town will take added precautions by developing
'
a, 75 foot conservation buffer zone adjacent to the public
trust waters where coastal wetlands do not exist. In this
'
buffer zone only those uses will be allowed that are allowed in
coastal wetlands. This buffer zone is intended to be a devise of
'
the local to
government show added protection for the resource.
The Town would like to be more restrictive regarding the allow-
able uses than the state guidelines. To function most effective-
ly, disturbance of this buffer should be kept to an absolute
minimum, leaving natural tree and shrub vegetation in tact to
' hold soil, increase infiltration, and slow and filter runoff.
This area will remain in the jurisdiction of the town and will
' preclude all forms of development, except for several restricted
uses (See "Land Classification System"). These area are ideal
for natural areas and/or parks.

60
Implementation Strategies
1. Current State and Federal permit and review
processes will be employed to determine viable development
types in AECs.
2. The land classification system will restrict
development within the buffer zone.
3. Amend the zoning ordinance to reflect the estab-
lishment of the 75 foot buffer zone.
OTHER FRAGILE AREAS AND AECS
In addition to the AECs, other fragile areas in Aurora
warrant special considerations. These include the undesignated
primary nursery areas, the archaeological sites listed by the
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, and the historic
structures listed on the state and national Registers of Historic
Places. The Aurora area is also known locally to serve as a
habitat for the endangered American Bald Eagle.
A significant archaeological site has been located in the
vicinity of Whitehurst Creek on the fringes of the planning
area. The NC Department of Cultural Resources made several
recommendations for management of these prehistoric sites:
effective treatment of known or discovered archaeological sites
may be accomplished through survey, mitigative recovery of
significant data, avoidance or preservation in place. Efforts
will also be made to provide recognition and protection through
such means as the National Register of Historic Places, if
appropriate, and through adherence to regulatory programs

61
administered by the North Carolina Division of Archives and
History. The Town recognizes the historical and scientific
importance of this archaeological site and is committed to
preserving the valuable information it may contain.
The nursery areas in South creek and its tributaries are
critical for the full development of several species of fish.
Protection of these nursery areas is a high priority for the
Town. Correction of the effluent standards violations for the
wastewater treatment plant is the first step the Town needs to
take to ensure the longevity of the nursery areas.
Several historically significant structures are located in
the planning area. The downtown area has been included for its
unique architectural style. The Town recognizes that the
historical integrity of the town is a part of its heritage. All
efforts should be taken to preserve this bit of history.
The Aurora area also houses several endangered American Bald
Eagles. The need for the protection of these predators is
widely recognized. The protection of these resources is of
such importance that no real alternatives exist except to offer
protection for the nesting sites if they are located.
The fragile areas not under the jurisdiction of state and
federal authorities, but protected by the Town, are discussed in
the Policy Choices above.

62
Policy Alternatives
As with the AECs, these fragile areas are of such importance
that no reasonable alternatives exist but to offer protection for
these sites. The amount of protection is reflected these policy
alternatives:
1. Prohibit development over archaeological sites
listed by NC Department of Cultural Resources.
2. Acknowledge that nursery areas are critical to the
local economy and work to limit runoff into them.
3. Develop a program of "donating" historic properties
to the Town and work to set up an historic district.
4. If eagle nesting site is determined, a thorough
examination of the site must be conducted by the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission.
5. Discourage development in all fragile areas.
Policy Choices
1. If archaeological site is identified, a thorough
investigation must be conducted by N.C. Department of Cultural
Resources before any building permit is granted.
2. Require a vegetative buffer from marsh or water's
edge to limit amount of runoff entering nursery areas.
3. Encourage preservation of historic sites by
providing Town assistance in locating funds for historic preser-
vation efforts.
4. If eagle nesting site is determined, a thorough
examination of the site must be conducted by the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission.

63
IF
' Implementation Strategies
1. Work with building permits officer to require
thorough investigation of site before permit is granted.
' 2. Classify areas within 75 feet of marsh's edge and
' water line as "Conservation" on land classification map.
' HURRICANE AND FLOOD EVACUATION NEEDS
The policy statements regarding Hurricane and Flood Evacua-
tion Needs are addressed in the Storm Hazard Mitigation and
Post -Disaster Reconstruction section of this plan.
'
PROTECTION OF POTABLE WATER
The availability of potable water is a critical concern
'
because of the large drawdown resulting from nearby phosphate
mining operations. Beaufort County is included in a state
'
the Capacity Use Area. Recently,
groundwater management region,
'
there has been discussion among legislators and community leaders
about the possibility of constructing a pipeline to transport
'
mined water from the Texasgulf site to the Virginia Beach area.
This may one day jeopardize the supply for the Aurora area.
'
There are no alternatives other than of the water.
protection
'
The Town recognizes the importance of the limited regional supply
of groundwater and the need for its protection.
'
Policy Choices
1. Support state efforts to manage groundwater
'
withdrawals in the Capacity Use Area.

64
2. Discourage activities which dangerously draw down
the water supply.
3. Encourage Mayor to keep informed about the avail-
ability and quality of water from the Castle Hayne.
4. Discourage development of a pipeline or other
system which exports water from the Aurora area thereby endan-
gering the limited available supply for Beaufort County.
5. If the purpose of the pipeline is to generate
revenue and to rid Texasgulf mining site of its surplus water,
Town supports development of a county -wide water system.
Implementation Strategies
1. Continue to support Division of Environmental
Management Groundwater Division efforts to protect water in
Capacity Use Area.
USE OF SEPTIC TANKS
Soils are largely unsatisfactory for the safe placement of
septic tanks in the planning area. Most soils are too wet.
Unless care is exercised, this could present problems for the
health and safety of area residents. Unsatisfactory performance
of soils around septic tanks could contaminate groundwater wells.
The Town recognizes that it has no power over the soils: they
cannot be altered in any way to improve their efficiency.
Because of these restrictions, little can be done for policy.
The optimal solution would be to have all area residents hooked
into the municipal wastewater treatment plant. This is currently
not possible because of the limitations of the Special Order by

65
Consent between the Division of Environmental Management and the
Town of Aurora. Given Aurora's poor soils for septic tanks, a
central sewage treatment facility is very important.
Policy Alternatives
1. Require larger than average lot sizes.
2. Where use of septic tanks is unavoidable, town
supports implementation of techniques to improve the efficiency
of septic tanks, i.e. mound systems and waterless systems.
3. As minimum, any septic tank installation applica-
tions must meet State and County regulations.
4. Encourage that everyone in "developed" and "transi-
tion" zones hook up to town's wastewater treatment facility,
providing that it is capable of handling the additions.
5. Improve the capacity and efficiency of the Town
sewage treatment plant.
Policy Choices
1. Where the use of septic tanks is unavoidable, the
Town supports the implementation of techniques to improve the
efficiency of septic tanks, i.e. mound systems and waterless
systems.
2. As a minimum, all septic tank applications must
pass requirements set forth by the Beaufort County Health
Department.
3. Improve the capacity and efficiency of the Town
sewage treatment plant.

66
4. When able, Town will encourage residents of
"developed" and "transition" areas to hook on to the wastewater
treatment facility, providing that it is able.
Implementation Strategies
1. Enforcement will remain the responsibilities of
the Building Inspector and the County Health Department, which
grants permits for septic tanks.
2. Continue to work with Division of Environmental
Management to improve wastewater treatment facility.
STORM WATER RUNOFF
Non -point pollution is considered a high priority for the
Town of Aurora. The amount of fertilizers, pesticides, oil
contaminants and litter which eventually enter the river system
is increased significantly by a heavy rain. The marshes and
other wetlands located along the river offer a water filtering
system that works naturally to sift out or uptake any pollutants
before they can enter the creek system. Storm water runoff
contributes to the water quality problems often discussed by
commercial fishermen and recreational boaters in the Aurora
area. Several days after a heavy rainfall, a fish kill occasion-
ally occurs in the creeks and river. Blame for the kill can be
largely placed on the bottom water anoxia resulting from storm
water runoff which enters the creeks and rivers after a rain.
Storm water runoff and flooding problems are connected and often
aggravated by the same land use practices.

The Town has selected policy options to mitigate storm water
'
runoff. Several techniques that have been proven effective in
slowing down runoff are costly and because of the limited amount
funds for this issue, the be
of available methods must passive.
Aurora has decided to work to solve this problem by utilizing the
natural system for passive control of non -point pollution.
'
Several methods are effective in minimizing the creation of
runoff. It can be done throughout the town by minimizing
impervious surfaces, draining streets and lots to
parking
'
grassed swales, and maintaining or planting as many trees and
shrubs as possible to maximize evapotranspiration. The Town
'
has found that land uses will be reviewed within 75 feet of the
surface waters (through the DCM permitting system for estuarine
'
shoreline AEC and the Town's established 75 foot vegetative
t
buffer zone) and the review process should consider the effects
of runoff in judging what uses will be allowed.
'
Policy Choices
1. Must control, treat and mitigate any storm water
'
runoff in town.
2. Encourage development and maintenance of riparian
vegetation.
t3.
Development adjacent to AEC must be designed so
that runoff will not violate water quality standards.
'
4. Limit impervious surfaces to 15 percent within 100
feet of the shoreline.
67

Implementation Strategies
'
1. Continue to employ efforts of CAMA permitting
system and Corps of Engineers 404 permitting in determining
•development types which do not violate water quality.
2. Reclassify land classification map to "Conserva-
tion" for areas 75 feet from water or marsh's edge to regulate
'
land uses near creek.
3. Development in Conservation zone will be reviewed
'
on a case -by -case basis by the Planning Board.
4. Regulate land uses within conservation buffer zone
'
"Conservation"
(for description of land uses, see definition of
. t
in Land Classification System section of this plan.
5. Consider revision of zoning ordinance to include
'
the 75 foot vegetative buffer zone established by the Town.
MARINA AND FLOATING HOME DEVELOPMENT
Marinas are an essential convenience for boaters. Econom-
ically, they may benefit a town through slip rental, repairs and
gasoline sales. Ecologically, marinas are known to degrade the
water in which they are located. Aurora currently has a pub-
'
licly-owned boat in the individu-
ramp, and recent past, several
als have tried to develop a commercial marina.
Policy Alternatives
'
1. Encourage the development of marinas.
2. Discourage the development of marinas and location
'
of floating homes in light of their contribution to water
'
quality degradation.
W-1

.•
Policy Choices
1. Support Marina development exclusively in the
vicinity of the two canals. Confine marinas to the existing
structures so as to not disturb the natural functioning of the
primary nursery area.
2. Discourage floating homes because of their negative
impact on water quality.
3. Allow marinas, but encourage their design and
size to not violate water quality standards and the integrity of
coastal wetlands.
Implementation Strategies
1. Continue working with zoning ordinance, CAMA and
404 permitting systems in regulating siting of marinas.
2. The Planning Hoard will examine each marina
development request on a case -by -case basis.
INDUSTRIAL IMPACTS AROUND FRAGILE AREAS
The policies above address development of all types in and
around fragile areas. Industry, another form of development,
should be exposed to no different standards than the other types
of development. In any location decision, the •industry must
comply with the policies stated above.
It has been demonstrated that the town wants to mitigate the
effects of all development on its natural and cultural resources.
It wants to take all efforts to try to protect these resources.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Therefore, in an effort to maintain consistency in the policies,
the Town must work toward attracting economic growth while
encouraging the protection of the environment.
Policy Choices
1. Location of industries in and around fragile
areas shall be discouraged, except water -dependent industries,
i.e. commercial fishing.
2. Industry shall be discouraged near wetlands.
3. Industries which produce toxic or hazardous
substances will not be located near surface waters or groundwater
recharge areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. Continued support of CAMA and 404 permitting
systems, Building Inspector and County Building Requirements.
2. Areas within 75 feet of marsh and water's edges
will be classified as "Conservation" on land classification map
(See "Resource Protection" policies section).
3. Town Planning Board and Town Council will review
each application for siting of industries on a case -by -case
basis.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
Appropriate management of productive resources is very
important to any locality. In most cases, the productive re-
sources are intricately tied into the economic fabric of the
area. It is, therefore, wise to manage these resources to the
best of their productivity and to ensure their existence for
70

71
future generations. The major productive resources in Aurora
are related to agriculture, mining and commercial and recrea-
tional fisheries. Commercial forestry is not an important
component to the economy .of Aurora as no commercially -owned
forested areas exist in the planning area. No policy statements
regarding forestry were needed.
PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND
Agriculture, as discussed in the Existing Conditions section
of this plan, is an important component of the local economy.
Farming brings in a great amount of income to the area through
the actual sale of farm commodities, farm supplies and equipment.
A large portion of the planning area is currently or has been
under cultivation. The Soil Conservation Service has identified
and mapped the soils in the planning area which are considered
to be some of the best in the county for agricultural producti-
vity (Figure 7). These soils occupy a large amount of land in
the planning area.
In principal, the Town could opt to conserve these farm
soils for future use by restricting any development from occur-
ring on them. Aurora realizes how important agriculture is to
the economy, but it feels that there is an excess of land under
cultivation already. This glut in farmland, and subsequently,
farm products, has caused farm prices to fall and foster economic
hardship for the family farmer. Programs, such as the Payment-

72
In -Kind,. pay farmers to take their land out of production. The
Town feels that it should not contribute to an already bad
problem by requiring that certain agricultural soils be restrict-
ed from any other uses.
The Town realizes the implications for this decision. A
policy choice not to conserve prime agricultural land could
result in an irretrievable loss of a long-term renewable re-
source. In light of the present farm economy, the Town feels
that its policy is a realistic choice.
Policy Alternatives
1. Town could strive to protect agricultural lands
identified as "prime" by the SCS and Division of Soil and Water
Conservation.
2. Prohibit any land use other than agriculture,
forestry or conservation on prime agricultural soils.
3. Promote conservation of these lands by encouraging
owners of these tracts to implement the Best Management Prac-
tices.
4. Classify lands as Conservation -A, meaning that
these are agricultural areas which should be precluded from
development.
5. Town could take no additional measures to preserve
agricultural lands.

. I
' Policy Choices
' 1. Town will not take additional measures to encourage
the preservation of "prime" agricultural soils. Any types of
' development, pending consistency with the zoning ordinance, will
' be permitted to located over these soils.
2. Encourage owners of these lands labelled as
' "prime" and other cultivated areas to implement the Best Manage-
ment Practices.
' Implementation Strategies
1. Continue to work with Agricultural Stabilization
' and Conservation Service and Soil Conservation Service workers
' in getting farmers to adopt BMPs.
'
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL MINERAL PRODUCTION AREAS
Open -pit mining has been the economic mainstay of Aurora
'
and Beaufort County since the Texasgulf mining operations came
'
to this county in 1965. The environmental and economic effects
of the phosphate mining have been witnessed by Aurora area
'
residents. Peat mining has also become an issue within recent
years, but there are currently no known "prime" sites for peat
'
in the Aurora All
mining area. peat soils are low BTU and would
'
be uneconomical to mine at this time.
In 1981, a policy was adopted which discouraged open pit
'
mining within the one -mile extraterritorial area of town. Any
mining activities proposed were required to apply for a special
'
use permit which was to be on a case -by -case basis. The
granted
'
Town has decided that this policy is still applicable.
73

74
'
Policy Choices
'
1. Town discourages any type of -open -pit mining within
the one -mile jurisdictional limit of town. Any mining activities
'
must apply for a special use which will be
proposed permit
granted on a case -by -case basis.
Implementation Strategies
'
1. Continued review process of applications for
special use permits to Planning Board.
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
'
The commercial fishing industry is vital to the local
'
economy. Several independent full-time commercial fishermen
live and work in the Aurora area, plus four crab processing
'
plants are located in or near the planning area. South Creek and
its tributaries also serve as nursery areas for several species.
Concern has been raised by commercial fishermen and Division of
Marine Fisheries technicians about the effect of runoff on the
fisheries industries. Freshwater runoff from drainage ditches
'
and non -point pollution has been detrimental to the fishing
waters by altering the salinity content and adding pollutants to
'
the estuarine system. Concern has also been raised over inci-
dences of fecal coliform, largely from septic tank seepage,
being identified in shellfish beds in other parts of the state.
' In order to support the commercial and recreational fishing
industries, the town needs to implement techniques to maintain
water quality.

W11
To remain consistent with the aforementioned Resource
Protection policies, the town has elected to take all measures
possible to protect the fisheries. The Town has chosen to
protect the commercial and recreational fishing areas within
the town's jurisdiction and to take special care in protecting
the nursery areas and other waters in the South Creek system.
Policy Choices
1. Town will protect the commercial and recreational
fisheries areas within the town's jurisdiction. Also, those
areas unofficially recognized by the Division of Marine Fisher-
ies as significant resource areas will be treated as such.
These include all tributaries of South Creek.
2. Establishment of Conservation buffer zone of 75
feet between all development and water and marsh's edges.
Implementation Strategies
1. The CAMA and 404 permitting system, as well as the
town's subdivision ordinance will provide sufficient enforcement
for this policy.
2. The County Health Department, -largely responsible
for the safe placement of septic tanks, will be responsible for
minimizing the likelihood of contamination of fishing waters from
the effluent of septic systems in unsuitable soils.
3. Classify areas within 75 feet of water or marsh's
edge as Conservation.

76
OFF -ROAD VEHICLES
The mention of "off -road' vehicles in coastal North Caro-
lina, typically conjures ideas of four-wheel drive type vehicles
driving up and down the sandy beaches of the ocean front. In
Aurora, there is no problem with these vehicles operating on
the beaches. They most often operate illegally along the
roadsides, frequently causing significant amounts of soil and
vegetation loss, plus creating a nuisance from their noise.
Many local residents have expressed a concern over these vehi-
cles, ranging from complaints about noise to legitimate questions
about their safety.
The Town is able to do very little to prohibit these
vehicles, as they are most frequently operated on private
property.
2
Policy Alternatives
1. Town requires that all off -road vehicle owners
register their property at the Town Hall at the time of vehicle
registration.
2. Prohibit the use of these vehicles from the
planning area.
3. Restrict their use to areas classified as "Rural".
4. Discourage use of off -road vehicles in planning
area.
Policy Choices
1. Town requires that all off -road vehicle owners
register their property at the Town Hall at the time of vehicle
registration.

77
2. Prohibit use of four-wheel vehicles in the vegeta-
tive buffer zone established 75 feet from waters edge.
Implementation Strategies
1. Cooperation with Town employees during time of
vehicle registration.
2. Work with Town Policemen to enforce this policy.
IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT TYPES ON RESOURCES
Aurora, as discussed in the "Existing Conditions" section
of this plan, is currently not undergoing large amounts of growth
like some other eastern North Carolina cities. It is, therefore,
not experiencing the same levels of development pressure as other
towns.
The Town views itself as being in a position to accommo-
date growth and development. Consistent to the aforementioned
policies, the town is pro -growth as long as the development is
not environmentally degrading. The limitations imposed by
the Town's policies on the protection of sensitive natural and
cultural resources must not be violated in order to accommodate
any type of growth. Residential, commercial and industrial land
uses must meet these goals of the Town.

78
11
'
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'
The analysis of the present conditions of the population and
economy of the Aurora planning area revealed no alarming changes
'
in the general economic atmosphere of the area. Aurora is very
concerned about future growth in economic and community develop-
Since Texasgulf's location in
ment. to the area 1965) the town
has had the potential for explosive growth. An immediate
increase in population spurred from Texasgulf, but in proportion,
this growth represented a small number of persons. Texasgulf
employees live in other counties and towns in eastern North
'
Carolina. Aurora
serves as a part-time convenience center
tfor
the Tg employees.
Several factors are responsible for this stunted growth:
'
lack of adequate housing, lack of recreational facilities, poor
schools, limited retail opportunity, and lack of full-time
in the church facilities. Whatever the reason, or
pastors
combination of reasons, the potential exists for an explosion of
growth in Aurora. Policies need to be in place to accommodate
this growth, when it occurs.
The following section outlines growth policies which
'
have an impact on land use decisions. These policies define the
goals Aurora has set for where it would like to be in the next
ten years. Particular issues, related to growth and the town's
'
commitment to economic development, are discussed below.

VA
LOCATION AND TYPES OF INDUSTRIES DESIRED
Aurora, as discussed in the preceding section, is blessed
with several natural and cultural resources. It sits on one of
the world's largest phosphate deposits, is situated on South
' Creek, and has some of the county's most productive agricul-
tural soils.
Manufacturing in the area takes advantage of these re-
sources. The phosphate mining industry, one of the largest
operations in eastern North Carolina, employs about 1150 persons.
Four seafood processing operations are located within a five
mile radius of the area. Farming is also an economic activity
'
in the region, employing dozens of persons through farm labor
or through the sale of farming equipment and supplies.
'
Aurora encourages the continued development or expansion of
these types of resource -intensive industries. Aurora would also
like to invite industry which takes advantage of the abundant
'
supply of low -skilled workers. In particular, there is an
abundant supply of low -skilled women workers. Expansion of the
'
phosphate mining operations, additional seafood processing
industries or light assembly manufacturing would be welcome in
Aurora. A.sewing factory,
or something similar, could provide
'
employment for the low -skilled female workers in the area.
All industries considering locating in the Aurora planning
area must be low -pollution, light manufacturing industries in
order to remain consistent with the aforementioned resource
'
policy statements. All industries must be consistent with the
'
Town's policies to protect its water quality and wetlands. All

' 80
industries must have a low waste load output, because the sewage
9
' treatment plant is unable to accommodate significant amounts of
additional waste.
'
Several sites are available in the planning area for
industry. The Town would like to see industry locate in two
specific sites. The northeastern quadrant, currently undev-
eloped, would be well suited for a seafood processing firm or
some other type of industry which would take advantage of the
river and its resources. Another area, along Highway 33 west of
Town, near Potter Oil Company, is zoned for industry. The Town
'
feels that this site would be best suited to all other industrial
'
types listed above.. It has good access and is currently served
by the water and sewer system.
'
Policy Choices
1. Encourage industry types which take advantage of
natural resource base and existing labor supply.
2. Encourage low -pollution, light manufacturing types
which are compatible with resource protection, production and
'
management goals and policies.
3. Encourage low waste load industries to prevent
'
to treatment
contributing wastewater problems.
4. Encourage seafood -related industries to locate in
northeastern quadrant of town, providing they are consistent
'
with resource protection goals of Town.
5. Encourage industry which employs low -skilled
'
workers, women. Assembly -type manufacturing and a
particularly
garment factory would be well suited for this purpose.
r

I
87
b. Industrial sites will be confined to areas zoned
' for manufacturing along Highway 33 and in northeastern section
of town.
' Implementation Schedule
1. Town will establish more active contact with
state's industrial development representative for the region,
' making certain that the representative is aware of the Town's
stated policy choices on economic development.
' 2. Zoning ordinance, CAMA and 404 permitting systems
will regulate the development of industry in specific areas.
'
COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING SERVICES
The Town realizes the great importance
associated with
bringing the wastewater treatment facility
into
compliance with
state discharge requirements. Unless this goal
is attained,
'
very little can be
to occur.
Although the
growth permitted
'
sewage plant is only operating at
75 percent
of its intended
capacity, no additions can be made
to the plant
until the
'
"Consent by Order" is fully carried
out between
the state and
Aurora. This is expected to occur
by 1988.
Also, at the
'
current usage rate, only the amount
equivalent
to 238 persons
can be accommodated. All but three
percent
of all in -town
residents are currently served by this
system.
Currently, nearly 100 percent of
the area's
residents are
hooked up to the water system. This
represents
a 35 percent
usage rate for that facility. Nearly
1350 more persons
could be,
served by this system.

0
' Aurora acknowledges that the region's soils are not condu-
cive to septic tank usage and the optimal solution to this
problem is to provide wastewater treatment service to all
' residents in the planning area. This is a very expensive
and currently unfeasible proposition, however, because of the
' problems associated with the wastewater treatment facility.
' Aurora is committed to providing basic services to serve
increased development in the area. Industrial requests will
be examined on an individual basis. In this issue, there are no
alternatives; it is more of a question of scale.
'
Policy Choices
'
1.
First priority
in delivery of services is to areas
classified as
'Developed on
'
land classification map. Second
priority is to
"Transition" areas.
2.
Pending wastewater treatment plant compliance,
'
residential customers
will be
served first.
'
3.
Industrial uses
will be examined on a case -by -case
basis by the Town Council and
Planning Board.
DESIRED URBAN GROWTH PATTERNS
' In 1981, considerable debate was held over the anticipated
' growth rates and size of Aurora. It was decided at -this time to
limit the population, no matter what trends might take place.
' Town officials decided that 1500 persons is a good limit, based
on the design capacities of the water and sewer systems.
Aurora's 1985 population is one-half of this intended goal.
82
11

83
Projected population figures suggest that the slow, but steady
growth rates that Aurora has experience in the past will continue
for the next ten year.
Another trend in the planning area which may affect urban
growth patterns is the increasing number of mobile homes scat-
tered throughout residential areas. The Town has adopted a
mobile home ordinance, but the implementation of a mobile home
zoning district would limit their location to sites specifically
zoned for mobile homes.
Policy Alternatives
1. Limit growth to 1500 persons. Urban patterns will
be limited by zoning ordinance.
2. Consider developing zoning ordinance exclusively
for mobile homes.
3. Urban growth patterns will remain consistent with
zoning ordinance.
Policy Choices
1. Limit growth to 1500 persons. Urban patterns will
be limited by zoning ordinance.
Implementation Schedule
1. Urban growth patterns and densities will be limited
by the subdivision ordinance, the County Health Department and
the zoning ordinance.

84
REDEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPED AREAS
'
The Town of Aurora's policy on redevelopment of developed
land was discussed.in the 1961 land use plan update. At that
'
time, the Town was concerned mainly with improving local tourism
through several redevelopment projects. The Aurora Library,
'
Community Center, Fossil Museum, Civic Center and marina were
'
projects associated with this community facilities development
program. The establishment of these facilities are proof of the
'
Town's commitment to redevelopment of older areas. Downtown
revitalization has been encouraged for the past several years,
but a limited amount of progress has been made toward this goal.
'
The Town still feels committed to this effort, however.
About two-thirds of the town would be wiped out in the event
'
of total devastation by a storm. In this case, all structures
would be rebuilt to conform to the land use types as per the
'
All -conforming be
zoning ordinance. non uses would not permitted
'
for reconstruction.
Policy Choices
'
1. Continued support of downtown beautification
efforts. Town will work to help secure funds for rehabilitation
'
projects.
2. In the event of destruction by a storm, redev-
elopment will occur in accordance with the prescribed land uses
'
of the zoning ordinance. Non -conforming uses will not be
permitted.
'
3. The Town supports the redevelopment of substandard
housing within the town limits.

85
Implementation Schedule
1. The Town will coordinate with private individuals
and organizations to secure financial support for downtown
'
beautification
efforts.
2. Town will consider the feasibility of applying for
a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant to rehabilitate
'
substandard housing in town limits.
'
COMMITMENT TO STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS
'
The Town of Aurora is receptive to State and Federal
Programs which provide improvements to the Town. Aurora will
tcontinue
to fully support such programs that provide necessary
resources to meet identified community needs that compliment the
'
economic and community development goals of the town. Of
particular significance is the N.C. Department of Transportation
'
Road and Bridge Improvements program. The Pamlico River ferry
'
system is also important to the economic health of Aurora. The
Town will support these programs and will honor financial
'
assistance requests when financially able and when the proposed
project is in compliance with the town's goals for economic
'
development.
The Erosion Control program, carried out by the Agricultur-
al Stabilization and Conservation Service and the Soil Conserva-
tion Service are especially important to the farming community
in the planning area. The Town supports the efforts of these
'
agencies, including the implementation of Best Management
'
Practices to mitigate soil loss through erosion. In addition,

86
' the Town has established a policy for a 75 foot conservation
' buffer zone to reduce the sediment load from entering the system
(See Resource Protection policy statements).
' There has been continued debate over the expansion of
the Military Operating Airspace in Beaufort County. Aurora is
opposed to this expansion because of the restrictions it would
' impose on the local air traffic community. Noise levels were an
additional concern for the discouragement of this airspace
' expansion.
'
ASSISTANCE TO CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
'
Proper channel maintenance is important in Aurora, mainly
because of recreational boating and the commercial fishing
'
industry. Special attention should be given to the amount of
dredging that occurs, because excessive dredging can be just as
damaging as none at all. Dredge lines often disrupt valuable
'
fish habitat on the bottom of rivers, thereby robbing the river
of some of its economic value and important fish habitat.
'
Aurora will support channel maintenance projects, but
discourage excessive dredging because of its effect on fish
'
habitat. Financial aid for channel maintenance will be made
available when possible. Efforts will be made to provide
'
spoil and borrow sites within the planning area.

87
'
ENERGY FACILITY SITING AND DEVELOPMENT
'
In recent years, the development of peat mining operations
in Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties has brought on the
'
possibility of locating facilities
energy generating in an area
'
nearby the source of the raw material. Aurora believes that the
development of energy generating facilities should be discour-
aged within the one mile jurisdictional area. Energy generating
facilities will be subject to a special use permit, granted by
the Planning Board. If approved, all facilities will be re-
'
stricted to "Rural" areas as per•the land classification map.
Public facilities, such as water and sewer, will not be provided.
TOURISM AND BEACH/WATER ACCESS
'
Aurora has demonstrated its commitment to public access to
public waters by having developed the Town boat ramp in 1982.
'
The Town
is also committed to increasing tourism in the area.
'
Efforts to increase tourism were brought on when the Fossil
Museum was reopened recently, and when Aurora was included as a
part of the Historic Albemarle Tour Highway. The Town supports
the efforts of the state agencies who work with these projects.
'
Policy Alternatives
'
1. The Town could establish no additional policies or
courses of action for development of these industries assuming
that the existing facilities are sufficient.
2. The Town could encourage acquisition of undevelop-
'
able waterfront properties for public access sites.

AN
3. Development of a program for "donations" of
waterfront property for public use.
4. Continued support for Aurora Fossil Museum,
downtown revitalization efforts and other methods to increase
tourism.
Policy Choices
1. The Town will encourage acquisition of undevelop-
able waterfront properties for public access sites.
2. Work with the Division of Coastal Management in
developing a program of "donations" of waterfront property
for public use.
3. Continued support for Aurora Fossil Museum,
downtown revitalization efforts and other methods to increase
tourism.
TYPES, DENSITIES AND LOCATION OF ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT
Overly dense development is not a problem in Aurora, nor
is it anticipated to become a problem during the next ten years.
Within the past five years, the land use trends have shown
residential growth to occur in areas south of Highway 33,
and commercial growth has expand along Fifth Street and Highway
33 west. Aurora would like to see continued development in
areas which are best able to accommodate growth and where support
services, like sewer and water, are feasible and practical to
provide. Much of the growth in recent years has been outside the

hazard areas identified in Figure 11. Industrial growth will be
targeted to the land along Highway 33 near Potter Oil and in
the northeastern quadrant of town.
Policy Choices
1. Continue to enforce the subdivision ordinance with
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for lots without public
water and sewer.
2. Continue with efforts to upgrade sewage treatment
plant to accommodate additional customers.
3. Ensure that future growth is consistent with the
above policies in Resource Protection, Resource Production and
Management. Also, the growth must be consistent with the
zoning ordinance and additional goals of the community.

.E
'
HURRICANE
AND STORM HAZARD
MITIGATION
INTRODUCTION
'
Hurricanes and severe
coastal storms
represent serious
threats to people and
property on
the North Carolina coast..
North Carolina has the
second highest
incidence of hurricanes
(Neumann et al., 1978).
To date, North
Carolina has experienced
23 major hurricanes since
1890. This
averages to one major
' hurricane every four years. In addition to hurricanes, tropical
storms and "northeasters" present serious threats to eastern
' North Carolina. The most recent major hurricane, Gloria,
originally classified as a Category 5 storm, skated past inland
' North Carolina and brushed a small stretch of Hatteras Island as
it moved northward. If Gloria had made landfall near the mouth
of the Pamlico River, as had been predicted by the National
Weather Service at one period during the storm threat, much of
eastern North Carolina could have been destroyed in its after-
math.
' In order to effectively prepare for the hazards of storms
like Gloria, experts recommend adoption of a plan which encom-
passes all aspects of the storm period. This plan should deline-
ate areas most likely to sustain damage, methods to keep areas
' affected to a minimum, and guidelines for reconstruction after
the storm. Beaufort County adopted a storm hazard mitigation
plan, Before The Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's Way,
I
in September 1984. Aurora is under the authority of this plan.
The CAMA Land Use Plan guidelines require that procedures
' for pre -storm mitigation, recovery, and immediate and long term

91
t
'
reconstruction be addressed in each plan. The purpose is to
assist Town and county officials in managing development in
potentially hazardous areas and to be able to expeditiously
'
"snap back" after a disaster. The first step taken to assess the
hurricane vulnerability .of a site is to analyze the types and
'
locations of physical hazards within the planning area. An
'
estimate of the amount of people and property that would be
exposed to the hazard is also required. The following section is
a discussion of the storm hazard mitigation, post -disaster
reconstruction policies and evacuation plans included in Before
tthe
Storm. All policies, unless otherwise referenced, are
'
county -wide policies included in the storm hazard plan.
HAZARDS MAP
The areas most vulnerable to the devastating effects of a
'
identified in Figure
hurricane or other major coastal storm are
'
11. This map is the product of a computer model called SLOSH
(Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes). The SLOSH model
was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to simulate the
height of the storm surge from hurricanes of a predicted sever-
'
ity within a particular area. The National Weather Service ranks
'
hurricanes into Categories 1 through 5 based on their wind
speeds. The SLOSH model analyzes each hurricane category
'
scenario and provides theoretical areal boundaries where flooding
is expected to occur. For example, the Category 1 and 2 hurri-
canes, with wind speeds up to 110 miles per hour, would probably
produce a storm surge that would flood a small stretch of land

11
11
Figure 11
OF SPECIFIED INTENSITY
.v> A V A v w
LA 97 t Y L t••/'t V! A<J >47 < a �•p
<>Li..V7AVA J7>A<, 1�7,r'A J•>>A<7A�•1'7+7r
,. < +,` J A)• t L 7<!+ 7 v 7+ < v t ><A ^ to V r A r v
c> r v< A L a> L A v! w !� w .l A V �.J ,> 7► L! Y, <
A.
< r A > > V < A >> 4 1,b'L •► <y < •� J ./ > A 7 r L r 4 ,% ^J< ±` w LA!
AJ A 7AA !i•A<i L> <�Ar <.jL L Vv > Ova+ L <>
A >.� 7 r < A �> >
A r• 7 v l7L�•7. < A< V A 7 7 r r 11 >�/ A r•
r A
44AVA>L>>A q` L L
A
r V <v A <It < �• 1 < toL
> A ILA y r L A < <
tlt a v<�<11 >A j
a j r A J > v< A v.
Y w A� •► V A 7 JA A •�' �
b.
vvAra a v w vrc AAs<ar<>.• :•)r;.+;. t91
.41
'�<r>wr+v >rrv�Aaw
7 lb
1 r It r Vv. t i> L i Y! �� y.it•f i
1'
1 � + < � ~ > •tom'
92
� ~•M
r
i .y •�
.tin � •.
• y
iNi•• ?f• •/N~`
•••g•,
►i •--••i
s 92 -. so
-� •'M=• •-aft
iQ�
� � �•••~i~••Sn:�N-•
i.��•• ~•tea-i
We
•
•••
•.•• •••
r•••�•. �NrM
As
am
41
• • •
• � gar as
N

1
'
alongthe river (Figure 11). The Category 3 storm, defined b
9 9 Y Y
'
winds up to 130 mph, would inundate points further landward than
the Category 1 and 2 storms. The Category 4 and 5 storms, the
highest intensity storms would the water to areas
possible, push
'
still further landward. In this scenario, water levels would be
highest in the areas of Category 1 and 2 storms. The Category 4
'
and 5 flood zones have the least probability of inundation
because storms of such strength are not very common. Since the
'
category 1, 2 and 3 storms are more common, the discussion will
'
be limited to their impact on the planning area.
In Aurora, the Category 1 and 2 flood zone incorporates a
'
large portion of the eastern section of Town as well as all
incorporated areas of South Creek. The flood boundary approxi-
mately coincides with Third Street. The limited development in
this flood zone includes about one -eighth of the Town's resi-
dences. No major commercial establishments are located here.
Development includes the public boat ramp, several homes along
East Main Street, plus an apartment complex located on First
'
Street. Within 75 feet of the shoreline, development is limited
because much of the area is in undevelopable marshes. The
in this flood is at
combined value of structures zone estimated
'
$ 1,500,000.
The area which would be inundated by the Category 3 storm
is far more monetarily valuable to the Town. The boundary for
the Category 3 storm goes beyond the Category 1 and 2 storm
'
line and approximately coincides with the 100 year flood plain
(Figure 6). A much greater amount of development is located in
93

Figure 12
INVENTORY OF STRUCTURES
IN THE HAZARD AREA - AURORA
Conventional Dbl-wide
Sng-wide Institution Commer.
Industry Util.
Total
Homes
Mbl Homes
Mbl homes
Town
200
12
38 3 16
1
1
271
M�an-
Salue_
26K
lOK
4K 45K 20K
40K
40K
-T tal
..Estimated
-Value.
5.2mill.
120K
152K 135K 320K
40K
40K
6.727 mill.
�.lood._Prone
.At'ga
ACategory 1-3)_
150
10
38 1 10
0
1
210
Total_
�titn�S�sL
ystls�e_
3.9mill.
100K
42K 45K 200K
-
40K
4.327 mill.
Note: The total
assessed
value for tax
purposes of the Town of Aurora was
$5,946,224
in January, 1986. (Town Clerk)
Source:
Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harms Way.
Q0

95
this area. Approximately 150 conventional houses, 10 commercial
'
establishments, 10 double -wide mobile homes and 38 single -wide
mobile homes are located here (Town Clerk, 1986). The combined
estimated value of all property in the Category 1, 2 and 3
'
zones is estimated at $ 4,327,000 (Figure 12). This figure is
more than 70 percent of the total assessed tax value of the
'
Town. The municipal wastewater treatment facility is also
located in this flood zone. Consideration should be given to
'
its relocation to a less hazardous site.
Although many structures would be at risk from a storm, the
in
areas which would be most seriously affected would be the AECs
the planning area. These include estuarine waters, estuarine
shorelines, coastal wetlands and public trust waters. Of these,
the estuarine shoreline and coastal wetlands AECs will bear the
greatest risk of destruction because they lie directly on the
'
the dynamic features
land -water interface and are among most of
the coastal landscape. Shoreline erosion is a day-to-day
phenomenon that is accelerated greatly with the energy of a major
'
storm. Destruction that may take years to occur along a normal
low -energy shoreline can occur in a matter of several hours
'
during The area will be directly
a strong storm. shoreline
'
impacted by severe erosion and scouring, direct wave action, high
winds and complete inundation by storm surge accompanying the
storm. Development adjacent to the shoreline would obviously be
at a great risk.
1
11

m
' EFFECTS OF STORM COMPONENTS ON HAZARD ZONES
' Hurricanes are extremely powerful, destructive meteorolog-
ical events which are often unpredictable. Destruction is
' typically the result of the combined energy of high winds,
' flooding, erosion and wave action. Of these, the two most
damaging components of the hurricane are the high winds which
' define it and flooding from excessive rains and the storm
surge. In addition to these two forces, wave action and erosion
'
are two by-products of the wind and rain along the land/water
interface. The following section discusses the effect of each of
these storm components on the planning area and delineates the
'
sites which are most vulnerable to their forces.
HIGH WINDS
'
High winds are the greatest risk factor associated with
hurricanes. Hurricanes are, in fact, defined in severity by
'
their The be to
wind speeds. entire planning area would subject
'
the winds brought on by a hurricane making landfall nearby.
Again, the areas most seriously impacted would be the shoreline
'
areas, the wetlands, and other areas in the 100 year flood plain.
Sites that experience backwash such as open field ditches would
'
also be impacted. The high winds would result in flooding.
'
Building restrictions concerning wind stress should be applied in
areas closest to the shore and other areas with enough fetch to
' create strong winds.
FLOODING
' Unlike high winds, flood waters may not impact all areas
hit by a storm. According to the SLOSH model map, most of the
1

97
' planning area would be subject to flooding from a Category 4 or
' 5 storms. The frequency a hurricane of this magnitude is less
than a one percent chance in any given year. More common
' storms, like the Category 1 through 3 hurricanes, would flood
nearly two-thirds of the area in Town. There are about ten
commercial establishments located here, as well as nearly 150
'
homes. A rough estimate of $26,000 per home and $209000 per
commercial establishment would bring the figure to about 4.3
'
million dollars. This is a substantial portion of the•Town's tax
base.
'
Flooding cannot only cause damage to buildings, but salt-
'
water flooding can also cause serious damage to cropland.
An estimated value of this cropland is unavailable, but short
'
term damage would be financially devastating. A large portion
of the agricultural land located south of Town would be impacted
by flood waters. Consideration of potential flood damage to
'
crops is important to the overall storm hazard mitigation plan
for the region.
'
WAVE ACTION
Damage from wave action is very strongly correlated to wind
'
speed and direction. Most damage by waves will be
caused
'
in the immediate zone of the water along the estuarine shoreline
and coastal wetlands. Development adjacent to or included
'
as part of the estuarine shoreline would be subject to battering
by waves. Since marshes occupy a very large segment of the
tshoreline,
little would be at risk. In Town, the public boat
ramp plus its pavement and docking would be at risk from wave

ONE
action. Other structures are located at a safe distance from
the shoreline.
EROSION
The product of severe winds, high water and wave action is
erosion. The areas most likely to be impacted by erosion are the
shoreline areas within the planning jurisdiction. Riggs, Hellis,
O'Connor (1979) studied shoreline types and their vulnerability
to erosion. They concluded that the areas most likely to erode
were the low bank, marsh and high bank forms of shoreline. The
low bank and marsh are the most common shoreline types in the
Aurora area. Marsh shorelines are generally characterized by
vertical scarps which drop abruptly into one to eight feet of
water. Much of the Aurora shoreline is in marshes. Further
downstream, the low bank shoreline dominates.
Shoreline erosion could lead to structural damage to
buildings, loss of tons of topsoil, and the destruction of
bulkheads and other structures located at the land/water
interface. The establishment of a required setback from the
water's edge will mitigate most erosion caused by hurricane winds
and waves.
SUMMARY
In summary, all four of the major damaging forces of a
hurricane would negatively impact Aurora in the event of a
storm. The areas most likely to receive damage are the sites
located along the shoreline. The cumulative impacts of wind,
water, waves and subsequent erosion will cause the most destruc-
tion. Damage from flood waters in the Category 1 through 3

zones: would likely amount to $4.3 million, assuming total
destruction. The wastewater treatment plant is located in a
high .risk zone. Relocation of this facility should be a top
priority for the Town.

1
POST -DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION
INTRODUCTION
A post -disaster reconstruction plan allows the Town to deal
with the aftermath of a storm in an organized and efficient
manner. The plan provides for the mechanisms, procedures, and
policies that will enable the Town to learn form its storm
experience and to rebuild in a practical way.
A reconstruction plan typically has five purposes, according
to Before the Storm: Avoiding Harm's Way (McElyea, Brower and
Godschalk, 1982). It usually outlines procedures and require-
ments before damages occur, establishes procedures for putting
storm mitigation measures into effect after the disaster,
analyzes information about the location and nature of hurricane
damages, assesses the community's vulnerability and guides
reconstruction to minimize the vulnerability.
In 19829 Beaufort County adopted The Beaufort County
Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan, a post -disaster recovery
and reconstruction plan.. As a municipality in Beaufort County,
Aurora is covered by this plan. The disaster relief plan, in
concert with Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding
Harm's Way, provides Beaufort County with the tools necessary to
serve all its communities during the recovery phase of a hurri-
cane. Copies of these plans are available at the Beaufort County
Emergency Management office in Washington.
It is important that local officials clearly understand the
joint federal/state/local procedures for providing assistance to
rebuild after a storm so that local damage assessment and
100

101
reconstruction efforts are carried out in an efficient manner
that qualifies the community for the different types of assis-
tance that are available. The requirements are generally
delineated in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288)
which authorizes a wide range of financial and direct assistance
to local communities and individuals.
' During reconstruction after a disaster, two phases of action
are usually undertaken: immediate post -disaster clean-up and
' clean-up and repair over a longer period. Although these
guidelines are. directed for the county level, the Town of
' Aurora may take additional steps to complement this work. The
following section discusses guidelines set forth for reconstruc-
tion in the county plan.
IMMEDIATE CLEAN-UP
The Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan, currently being
updated and revised by the Division of Emergency Management,
includes a program for immediate clean-up and debris removal from
roads, beaches and other areas where public health and safety may
be jeopardized. The responsibility for completing these duties
will be a combined effort by several agencies from the public and
private sectors. The Department of Transportation will be
responsible for clearing debris from roads and the Forest Service
will remove fallen trees from the area, if necessary. In
addition, the county Emergency Management office will provide
names of volunteers to call upon for assistance in the immediate
clean-up efforts.

102
'
While clean-up efforts are taking place, a damage assessment
'
team will be sent out to evaluate the extent of damage in the
area. Damage assessment is defined as a rapid means of determin-
ing a realistic estimate of the amount of damage caused by a
natural or man-made disaster. For a storm disaster, it is
'
expressed in terms of: 1) the number of structures damaged, 2)
magnitude of damage by type of structure, 3) estimated total
dollar loss, and 4) estimated total dollar loss covered by
tinsurance.
After a major storm event, members of the Damage Assessment
Team should conduct two types of surveys: one which roughly
estimates the extent and type of damage, and a more detailed
second phase assessment after the initial damage reports are
'
filed. The initial damage assessment should include an estimate
of the extent of damage incurred by each structure and identify
'
the damage
the cause such as wind, flooding or wave action of of
'
each structure. Rapid and general initial damage assessment
reports are to be submitted by radio within one hour. Within six
'
hours, private property summaries and more detailed reports
should be nearly complete. The for_mt for damage assessments
'
will be conducted in accordance with Annex F of the Disaster
'
Relief and Assistance Plan. This plan is currently being
revised to accommodate for longer damage assessment periods;
'
however, for the scope of this plan, the available data is the
most accurate.
'
Under certain circumstances, interim development moratoria
can be used to give a local government the time to assess

103
damages, make sound decisions, and to learn from storm experi-
ences. Beaufort County can impose a -development moratorium
if it gets disaster declaration from the appropriate federal
authorities. This disaster declaration must stipulate the type
and extent of reconstruction that will be paid for by the Federal
Insurance Agency. The length of the moratorium will depend on
the extent of the damage. A decision will be made at that time.
RECOVERY TASK FORCE
Damage assessment operations are oriented to take place
during the emergency period. After the emergency operations to
restore public health and safety and the initial damage assess-
ments are completed, the guidelines suggest that a recovery task
force to guide restoration and reconstruction activities during
a post -emergency phase which could lasts from weeks to possibly
more that a year. The county has formed a group with members
from all areas of the county to serve as a task force for
recovery.
The responsibilities of this task force are to review
the nature of damages in the community, establish an overall
restoration schedule, identify and evaluate alternative ap-
proaches for repair and reconstruction, and make recommenda-
tions for community recovery. The Task Force will work with
State and Federal representatives on the Interagency Regional
Hazard Mitigation Team and also the Section 406 Hazard Mitigation
Survey and Planning Teams. Members of the recovery task force
will include:

104
Beaufort County Commissioners
County Engineer and Building Inspector
County Manager
City Managers and Engineers from each municipality
County Emergency Management Coordinator
County Health Department
The Mayor of Aurora, Grace Bonner, will be called upon to serve
on this Task Force. John Pridgen, the Town Engineer, will
also serve. Although this task force will review damages, the
authority to approve or deny permits will remain the responsibi-
lity of the appropriate authorities.
SCHEDULE FOR REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION OVER LONGER PERIOD
The procedures listed above deal directly with policies or
clean-up immediately after a storm or disaster. In conjunction
with the policies stated above on storm hazard mitigation,
consideration should be given to long-term reconstruction.
Formulation of more stringent building standards should be
considered to prevent the destruction from recurring.
In the aftermath of a disaster, reconstruction efforts
will be rampant. A plan for the long-term reconstruction is
essential. In order to handle the rush, a priority system
has been designed to stage and permit repairs. Staging and
permitting repairs and construction for the county are as
follows:

105
1
1
1
.1
First Priority: Replacement of essential services
such as power, water, telephone and
streets and bridges.
Second Priority: Minor repairs
Third Priority: Major repairs
Fourth Priority: New Development
In efforts to streamline the permitting process for the large
number of applications for building permits, a policy has been
established by the county to repair and rebuild essential
service facilities first. Second priority is to repair other
public facilities as necessary for shelter. A triage (worst
damage) approach will be instituted for staging the reconstruct-
ion effort. Properties with little damage would be permitted
immediately if they were in compliance with permit regulations
before the storm. The schedule for permitting other properties
is as follows:
1. Moderate damage, meeting permit regulations
2. Moderate damage, requiring permit decisions
3. Extensive damage, requiring permits
This system was established to avoid interference with the
reconstruction of public utilities and facilities. The top
priority in post -disaster reconstruction is the replacement of
services.
The development standards for reconstruction will be in
accordance with the Storm Hazard Mitigation policies set forth by
the Town. As a minimum, the State Building Code will be enforced
as well as building restriction imposed by the Federal Flood

106
Insurance Program. The County Commissioners will be the legis-
lative body to enforce these policies.
Consideration of the possible relocation of public facili-
ties to safer locations was not undertaken by the County.
Since the Aurora wastewater treatment plant is located in the
hazard area, this should be a priority for the decision -makers.
EVACUATION ROUTES AND TIMES
According to Before the Storm in Beaufort County, the
current evacuation routes in the Aurora area are sufficient.
Highway 33 is the principal route for evacuation to safer
locations. This highway serves all of the Aurora area plus
those persons living near the Pamlico County line.
The planning area is broken into two evacuation zones:
Zones VI and VII. Since such a small portion of the planning
area is located in Zone VI, this discussion will be limited Zone
VII. The Zone VII evacuation route is Highway 33 North from
the Pamlico County line to Highway .17 near Chocowinity. There
are no surge inundation points along this route. It has an
adequate capacity, but safe evacuation will depend on the amount
of warning time provided and the willingness of the inhabitants
to evacuate. Based on the model in the Storm Hazard Mitigation
Plan, it would take less than seven hours to evacuate the
estimated 1000 people in Aurora and its vicinity. The 1200
Texasgulf employees located outside of Aurora could also be
safely accommodated by this route. This time figure is well
within the 12 hour warning time period provided by the National
Weather Service. Highway 33 can accommodate approximately 455

107
vehicles per hour at 35 miles per hour. During a 12 hour period,
5460 vehicles could be relocated. This value is far above the
calculated volume of traffic estimated in the model provided in
the storm hazard plan.
Aurora area evacuees can find shelter at Aurora High
School. The High School is located at a higher elevation outside
of the flood hazard zone. A full description of the capacity and
adequacy of this shelter is provided in Beaufort County Disaster
Relief and Evacuation Plan.
SUMMARY
A large proportion of the Aurora Planning area is threatened
by the hazards associated with storms. In the event of a major
disaster, the planning area would be subject to the policies and
guidelines set forth in the Beaufort County Mitigation Plan.
In -Town reconstruction standards should be strengthened to
mitigate disaster in the future.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
.The Town of Aurora is responsible 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: Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
P.O. Box 276B7
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]

108
'
Field Office: Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and Community
'
Development
P.O. Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889
'
[phone]
N.C. Division of Emergency Management
State Office: Division of Emergency Management
'
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
'
[phone]
Regional Office: Area Emergency Management Coordinator
N.C. Division of Emergency Coordinator
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 Community Assistance
'
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(9�19) 733-2850
'
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, S. W.
'
Washington, D.C. 20472
Public Information [phone]
Publications [phone]
Federal Emergency Management Agency
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]

109
STORM HAZARD MITIGATION AND POST -DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION
POLICIES
Policy Choices
1. Support county Storm Hazard Mitigation and Post
Disaster Reconstruction Policies.
2. Discourage development in same manner as existing
structures destroyed in storm.
3. Consider relocation of public facilities to areas
outside the hazard area.
4. Consider developing Recovery Task force for Town.
5. Increase public awareness and preparedness.
Implementation Schedule
1. Stay abreast of changes in Beaufort County Storm
Hazard Mitigation plan.
2. Consider the adoption of new regulations for
post -disaster reconstruction.
3. Due to the lack and cost of available land,
Town facilities will be rebuilt at same pre -storm location.
4. Recovery Task Force members will include:
Mayor of Aurora
Planning Board Members
Rescue and Fire Squad Volunteers
Medical Board
Town Engineer
5. Educate Town employees and public about evacuation
procedures about their responsibilities in storm situation.

1.10
'
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
'
Aurora realizes the importance of soliciting public input
into the planning process. During the development period of
'
this land use plan update, several techniques were employed to
encourage involvement of Aurora area residents in the land use
plan's policies.
'
At the beginning of the planning period, a citizen partici-
pation plan was developed. At the first meeting, the planning
board decided to schedule regular monthly meetings every second
Wednesday from November through April. It was decided that all
'
board meetings the CAMA Land Use Plan
planning concerning update
should be made public. Citizen input was to be strongly encour-
aged.
I
The board decided that initially, emphasis would be placed
on public education about the land use planning process. It was
' felt that once the public understood the importance of the plan,
' they would want to be involved in it. An effort was made to
inform the public about the existence of the plan and the
' importance of their contribution on policy recommendations.
This was done in a variety of ways. First, news articles
' appeared in the local newspapers which discussed the plan and its
purpose. Press releases were sent to three newspapers: the
' Washington Daily News, based in Washington; the New Bern Sun
I
Journal; and the Pamlico News from Oriental. The purpose of the
articles was to explain the role of the CAMA plan and the
' explanation of the issues addressed in it. Other methods

111
' of public education involved direct communication with Aurora
' residents and planning board members.
In addition to the public education efforts, press releases
' were sent to the local newspapers prior to each meeting.
Included in the press release was a description of.the land use
' plan and its purpose as well as the agenda items. Upon comple-
tion of meeting, another news article was sent out which des-
cribed the meeting's events. The combination of these newspaper
' articles intended to promote the understanding of the land use
planning process as well as to encourage the public to provide
' their opinion on various issues. Examples of the newspaper
' articles and a listing of article dates are included as Appendix
H.
' Another measure was taken to attract citizen input.
Letters were mailed to various civic and industry leaders in the
' community (Appendix C). Special attention was given to solici-
ting names from a wide cross-section of individuals. Economic,
social, ethnic and cultural view points were considered in
' developing the list. The intent of the letter was to educate
the individuals about the plan and to invite them to attend the
' public meetings. This proved to be effective, as citizen
' attendance increased markedly at subsequent meetings.
Draft sections of the plan were also made available for
' public review. A current draft of the plan was kept in the Town
Hall and the public was encouraged to make written comments on
' it. The purpose was to have as much citizen input as possible.

112
It is the belief of the Aurora Planning Board and Town
Board that all citizens should be provided adequate opportunity
toparticipate in the governmental and planning decisions which
affect them. In the future, citizen input will continue to be
solicited, primarily through the planning board. All upcoming
meetings will be advertised and adequately publicized to help
keep citizens informed about the land use changes occurring in
their community.

113
'
LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
'
The land classification system is a .tool to identify the
anticipated land uses within a planning area. The land classifi-
cation map, the culmination of the land use planning effort,
designates .specific areas for certain types of development
'
It method of analyzing how the
activities. provides a uniform
'
planned use of land interacts with environmentally sensitive
areas during the development process of the Town. The land
'
classification system promotes an understanding of the relation-
ships between various land use categories and the need to develop
'
policies to accommodate these relationships. The focus is to
'
evaluate the intensity of land utilization and the level of
services required to support that intensity. According to the
'
CAMA guidelines:
"The land classification system provides a framework to be
'
used by local governments to identify the future use
of all lands. The designation of land classes allows the
local government to illustrate their policy statements as
'
to where and to what density they want growth to occur,
and where they want to conserve natural and cultural
'
resources by guiding growth." (78.0204) (b)
The CAMA guidelines include five general land use classifi-
Transition,
cations for the land classification map: Developed,
Community, Rural and Conservation. Their definitions are ranked
according to the intended intensity of land uses within them.
Areas classified as "Developed" require the traditional level of
services associated with urban areas. "Transition" lands should

114
' include areas developing or anticipating development which will
' eventually require urban services. Lower density which will
not require services should be classified as "Community Areas
' classified as "Rural" should be reserved for low intensity uses
such as agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction and highly
dispersed housing. Public water and sewer will not be provided
P 9
' in rural areas. The purpose of the Conservation class is "to
provide for the effective long-term management and protection
' of significant, limited or irreplaceable areas". Public or
private services should not be provided in this land classifica-
tion.
-The five land classifications and land classification map
are intended to serve as a visual definition of the policies
'
stated in this plan (Figure 13). The five land. use classifica-
tions, as they are applied in the Aurora planning area, are
discussed below.
'
DEVELOPED
.The Developed land classification is intended for continued
'
intensive development and redevelopment of urban areas. It
includes areas already developed as urban or those areas with a
tdensity
500 dwellings square mile. In
of approximately per
'
most cases, the Developed class includes all urban areas.
In the planning area, most of the land within the Aurora
Town limits is classified' as Developed. Exceptions include the
forested wetland area north of the downTown area. Approximately
'
97 percent of the persons living within this boundary are served
'
by sewer service. All residents are provided water service.

Ln
rf
IH
al
-r
7
0
H
H
c U
ri H
w
Q) F4
L+ !n
CIO 'Z
•,a .j
Ll. U
Q
mot,
r-7
r.
0
G
•�
"0
O
>,
+�
v
•ri
L
ro
P
L
•.a
>
O
ra
G
w
-4
cn .
ra
a
v
G
�
ro
cn
>
ro
�4
G
A
F+
U
C4
U

I=
TRANSITION
Transition land is categorized as the lands providing for
intensive urbane development within the ensuing ten years. These
areas will be scheduled for provision of water and sewer in the
future. They will also serve as the overflow sites for develop-
ment when additional lands are needed to accommodate growth.
They will eventually become a part of the urban area.
The Transition classification includes the areas located
adjacent to the transportation routes that run through Aurora.
An additional concentration of the transition class exists in the
western section of Town near the High School. This is the site
of the new crab. processing plant, as well as other commercial
enterprises. Since 1981, much of the development located along
Highway 33 West and Highway 306 North has been commercial.
Trends over the past five years have shown most of the Town's
residential development to occur in the area south of Highway 33
near the Town limits in an existing residential area. The land
use analysis showed that although the soils are generally
unsuitable for septic tanks, much of this area is not within the
hurricane hazard zone.
The relationship between the Developed and Transition
classes is important in a predominantly rural area like eastern
Beaufort County. The area within these classes is where detailed
local land use and public investment planning will occur. Large
amounts of vacant land suitable for urban development within the
Developed class should be taken into account when calculating the
116

1.17
amount of additional lands needed to accommodate projected
' growth.
The local zoning ordinance recognizes this by specifying
each particular land use and intensity of use in both the
' Developed and Transition land classes. The Developed areas are
zoned for commercial, industrial and residential uses and are
currently served by the Town's facilities. The Transition areas
are recognized on the zoning map as having potential for future
' growth. The zoning ordinance shows some these areas as rural;
' but areas along traffic arteries are incrementally zoned for
less intensive commercial and residential uses. The zoning
ordinance recognizes that future development will be located in
these areas.
' COMMUNITY
' The "Community" classification is usually characterized by
a small cluster of mixed land uses in a rural area which do
not require municipal services. It usually serves to meet the
housing, light shopping, employment and public services needs of
a rural area. The Community classification typifies crossroads
areas along primary and secondary roads.
' In the Aurora planning area, only the Royal/St. Peter's
Church area is classified as Community. The Royal community
includes a small cluster of homes and a country store. It is not
' anticipated that Aurora's municipal services will be extended to
this community. Wells and septic tanks currently serve the
' basic needs of this community, and there is a limited need to
' provide additional services to. Royal.

1 ].18
' RURAL
The "Rural" classification is designed for agriculture,
forestry, mineral extraction and other low intensity uses.
'
Urban services are not required because of the dispersion
great
'
of development in these areas. These are lands identified as
appropriate locations for resource management and related uses;
'
agricultural, mineral, or forest lands; and areas with enough
limitations to make development hazardous or economically
unfeasible.
The majority of the land within the planning area falls
within this classification. In Aurora, most of this land is
'
under agricultural production. In addition,. the Rural classifi-
cation is particularly important for the extension of phosphate
mining operations. It should be emphasized that development
should not be precluded from.the agricultural lands located in
this classification; this designation implies that urban services
'
will not be extended to accommodate future development.
CONSERVATION
'
The "Conservation" class provides for the effective long
term management of significant, limited or irreplaceable re-
the
sources. This includes, as a minimum, all of statutorily
'
defined AECs such as. the estuarine waters, the public trust
waters, the estuarine shoreline and coastal wetlands. This also
includes the land defined as the conservation buffer zone
extending for a distance of 75 feet beyond the shoreline of the
'
trust (see Resource Protection
public waters and marshes policy
statements). Because of difficulties with mapping detail, the

' 1.19
definition of this buffer for permitting purposes will need to be
' made on site. The Town has made a distinction between state
1
regulated areas of environmental importance and other areas not
offered state protection. The purpose of designating the
conservation buffer area is to provide added protection for water
quality in the surface waters in the public's trust.
The Conservation class does not imply "non-use It is
intended to provide for careful and cautious management of the
uses allowed in it. Preservation, on the other hand, implies
total restriction of all uses in an effort to keep the natural
environment in tact. Through conscientious management, the
Conservation class requires all uses to be- as unoffensive as
possible. The intention of the Conservation class is to strike a
balance between careful long-term management of sensitive natural
and cultural resources and the freedom of landowners to utilize
their property to its best use.
In order to protect its natural integrity, various types of
land uses should be prohibited from the Conservation classifica-
tion. The Town has decided that the NCAC permitted uses for
statutorially-defined AECs are consistent with the Town's
long-term goal of resource protection. The Town does not feel
the need to add specific uses to this already satisfactory list
of restrictive uses. All uses permitted by the state will be
considered consistent with the Town's objectives.
Within the conservation buffer zone, the Town has decided
' to be more restrictive than the state. In order to protect the
' natural integrity of the surface waters and marine life, Aurora

IL
would like to prohibit most types of uses in this area. Any
type of land use must meet a performance'standard. Any disrup-
tion or destruction to the existing conditions of the land
located in the buffer zone will not be tolerated. The purpose is
to aim to provide for the most natural environment possible along
the banks of the waterways. All development should be very low
intensity and should prove not to damage the natural ecosystem.
The following is a list of the examples of the types of uses that
may be allowed within the conservation buffer zone.
1. Water -oriented uses such as docks, piers and
bulkheading, if they are shown not to cause detriment to the.
public trust waters or Conservation lands.
2. Necessary utility service lines, such as water,
sewer, electrical, natural gas, etc., when demonstrated that the
environmental integrity of the Conservation area will not be
violated.
3. Roadways and improvements to existing roads when
construction can be conducted without significantly altering the
ecological system, and in compliance with existing federal, state
and local regulations.
4. Barge landings.
5. Marinas, provided that they are in compliance with
size and water quality requirements set by state.
In conjunction with the Policy Statements section of this plan,
each application for any type of use in the all Conservation
classifications, both defined by the state and the Town, shall be
reviewed on a case -by -case basis by the Town Council.
120

121
'
RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATION
As required by the Coastal Resources Commission, this plan must
discuss the manner in which the policies developed in the
Policy Statements section will be applied to each of the land
classes. In addition, - an identification must be made of the
types of land uses.which are appropriate in each class.
'
DEVELOPED AND TRANSITION CLASSES
Recent trends have shown that most of the growth in the
Aurora planning area is occurring on the fringes of the Aurora
Town limits. This is the area where basic services such as
'
or
water, sewer and community support services are available
might be feasible within the planning period. These classes are
designed to accommodate all intensive land uses, including
residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and community
facilities. Hazardous or offensive uses, such as land application
'
systems, electrical generating facilities, airports, and noxious
'
industries will not be permitted in the classes.
COMMUNITY CLASS
Intensive development will not be encouraged in this class
due to the lack of urban services and/or physical limitations.
'
The general range of acceptable uses are limited to residences,
isolated convenience stores and churches, and other public
facilities.
'
RURAL CLASS
The rural class is the broadest of the land classes and is
designated to provide for agriculture, forest management,
mineral extraction and other low intensity uses. Residences may
1

122
'
be located within the rural class where urban services are not
'
required and where natural resources will not be permanently
impaired. Energy -generating facilities and airports will be
limited to this class.
'
CONSERVATION CLASS
The conservation class is designed to provide for the
effective, long-term management of significant limited or
irreplaceable areas including Areas of Environmental Concern and
tthe
Town's defined conservation buffer zone. Development in the
'
estuarine system should be limited to uses such as piers,
bulkheads, marinas, and other water -dependent uses (See Land
Classification System section). Policy statements under Resource
Protection and Resource Production and Management and the list of
Conservation classification permittable uses in the previous
section address Aurora's intentions for regulating development in
fragile areas. The protection of water quality, a top priority
'
for the Town, is the key determinant for permitting specific
land uses within the Conservation class.

' 123
' INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
' The land use plan is a tool for' coordinating numerous
policies, standards, regulations and other governmental activi-
ties. The plan provides the framework for budgeting, planning,
and the provision and expansion of community facilities such as
water, sewer, school and road systems. It is the principal
policy guide for governmental decisions and activities which
affect land use in the Aurora area. The implementation of
policies in the land use plan requires coordination between the
' local government and the state and federal governments. Enforce-
ment of the policies and goals requires a consistency with the
I
higher levels of government. The formation of a policy without
means of enforcement defeats the intention of the land use plan
update.
Aurora has worked to ensure compatibility between the
'
Beaufort County and Aurora Land Use Plans. There appeared to be
'
no inconsistencies between the policies in each plan. A good
working relationship exists between the Town of Aurora and
'
Beaufort County. During its development period, the plan was
continuously evaluated for its consistencies between state and
federal
regulation.
1
The Town of Aurora intends to foster intergovernmental
coordination by working with state and federal agencies to
implement policies to improve water quality, as well carry out
goals for the agriculture and commercial fishing industries.
'
In addition, Aurora will work with the N.C. Department of.
tCultural Resources in protecting and enhancing its heritage.

124
Coordination between the Division of Coastal Management and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will be maintained in the permitting
process for development in areas classified as wetlands. All
additional efforts will be made to promote cooperation between
the state, federal, county and Aurora governments.

APPENDIX A
FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Aoency
Army Corps of Engineers
(Department of Defense)
Coast Guard
(Department of Transportation)
Geological Survey
Bureau of Land Management
(Department of Interior)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(Department of Energy)
icenses and Permits
- Permits required under
Sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899; permits to construct
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; permits to undertake
dredging and/or filling
activities.
- Permits for bridges, cause-
ways and pipelines over
navigable waters required
under the General Bridge
Act of 1946 and the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899.
- Deep water port permits.
- Permits required for off-
shore drilling.
- Approval of OCS pipeline
corridor rights -of -ways.
Licenses for siting, con-
struction and operation
of nuclear power plants
required under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 and
Title II of the Energy
Reorganization Act of
1974.
125

Federal Energy Regulation.
Commission (Department of
Energy)
CONTINUED
- Permits for construction,
operation and maintenance
of interstate pipelines
facilities required under
' the Natural Gas Act of
1938.
- Orders of interconnection,
of electric transmission
facilities under Section
202 (b) of the Federal
Power Act.
- Permission required for
abandonment of natural
gas pipelines and associated
facilities under Section
7C (b) of the Natural
Gas Act of 1938.
126

STATE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Agency
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Environmental
Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
Licenses and Permits
Permits to discharge to sur-
face waters or operate waste-
water treatment plants or oil
discharge permits; NPDES Per-
mits, (G.S. 143-215).
Permits for septic tanks that
serve industrial process
water flow or are community
owned. Such systems owned
by the State or Federal
government are under the
jurisdiction of the Health
Department, (G.S. 143-215.3).
.Permits for air pollution
abatement facilities and
sources (G.S. 143-215.108).
Permits for construction of
complex sources; e.g, parking
lots, subdivision, stadiums,
etc. (G.S. 143-215.109).
Permits for construction of
a well over 1009000 gallons/
day (G.S. 87-88).
Permits to dredge and/or fill
in estuarine waters, tide-
lands, etc. (G.S. 113-229).
Permits to undertake develop-
ment in Areas of Environ-
mental Concern (G.S. 113A-
118).
Note: Minor development
permits are issued by the
local government.
127

CONTINUED
Department'of-Natural Resources - Permits to alter or construct
and Community Development
dams (G.S. 143-215.66).
Division of Land Resources
•
- Permits to mine (G.S. 74-51).
- Permits to drill exploratory
'oil or gas wells (G.S. 113-
381).
- Permits to conduct geograph-
ical explorations (G.S.
113-391).
- Sedimentation erosion control
plans for any land disturb-
ing activity.of over one
contiguous acre (G.S.
113A-54).
Department of'Natural Resources
- Permits to construct oil
and Community Development
refineries.
Secretary of NRCD
Department of Administration
- Easements to fill where lands
Department of Human Resources
are proposed to be raised
above the normal.high water
mark or navigable waters
(G.S. 146.6).
Approval to operate a
solid waste disposal site
or facility (G.S. 130-
166016).
- Approval for construction
of any public water supply
facility that furnishes
water to ten or more
residences (G.S. 130-
160.1).
Permits for septic tank
systems of 3000 gallons/day
or less capacity (G.S.
130-160).
128

u
11
MID -EAST
APDVXMTV R
PERSONAL INVITATION TO PUBLIC MEETINGS
COMMISSION
February 3, 1986
Mr. Joe Hollowell
P. O. Box 278
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dear Mr. Hollowell:
The Town of Aurora and the Mid -East Commission are currently
engaged i.-r updating the 1981 Aurora Land Use Plan. The land
use plan '!is a document used to assess and guide development.
It will be used by the county CAMA Permit Officers, developers
and other stated and federal agencies to make decisions about
development and preservation activities in the town.
Thus far, our work. has concentrated on establishing a data
base on the existing conditions, all plans and policies, -and
physical constraints which might pose a development impediment
in the future. The next task of the planning board is to
formulate recommendations for policy on future development
issues.
Your input in this decision -making process is essential. You
have been listed as one of the more prominent residents 'in the
Aurora community who has an. interest in the future of the
town. We invite you to be heard in the community forum.
During the next meeting scheduled for February 12, we will
begin making policy statements on resource protection in the
area. Also, we will be discussing the most relevant issues
facing Aurora today. The incorporation of your opinion on
these issues is one of our goals.
The meeting is scheduled for February 12 at 7:00 pm in the
Aurora Community Building. Subsequent meetings will be held
on the second Tuesday of each month at the time given above.
We encourage -you to attend to provide guidance and direction.
f!
L E. Peterson Building 0 310 West Main St. 2 P.O. Drawer 1787a Washington, North Carolina 27889 [phone]

130
If you have any questions about- the plan and its purpose or
themeeting, please feel. free to call me. We look forward to
working with youto guide the future of your town.
Sincerel-y, `
- -
f1hillips
Consulting Planner
'
LP/lrw
^ °
°

I
1
131
Washington Daily News
December 13, 1985
Planning Board From Aurora
Talks. About Land Use Plan.
. AURORA Aurora got a "B.
plus" on the report card which
shows how well goals are. accom-
plished.
The town's planning board met
Wednesday night to discuss the .
land use plan, which is being up-
dated for 1986. 'The meeting fo=
cused on the policies and goals set
in the 1981 plan and how well the
implementation procedures have
been carried out since that time.
The land use plan update is a
document used to assess and guide
development. Each of 20 counties
covered by North Carolina's Coas-
tal Area Management Act must up-
date its land use plan every five
years. Municipalities, like Aurora,
have the option of updating their
plans as well.
In a checklist format, each policy
and implementation strategy was
analyzed to assess how the town
has moved forward in reaching
each goal. Out of 25 implementa-
tion strategies listed, 22, or'88 per-
cent, had been either partially or
completely fulfilled. Each policy
and implementation strategy dealt
with the issue of resource protec-
tion, production and management,
as well as economic and commun.
ity development.
The planning board also over-
looked the completed part of their.
1986 plan which analyzes the ex-
isting socioeconomic and land use
trends. Planner Lynn Phillips of
the Washington -based Mid -East
Commission presented the plan to
the.board. Groundwater availabil-
ity in' future years also was dis-
cussed.
The next meeting of the planning
board is scheduled for Jan. 8 at 7
p.m. in the Aurora Community
Building. The agenda will cover
the town's current policies on re-
source protection. All members of
the community are invited.
February 14, 1986
Planners Aim Toward
Saving Water, Quality
AURORA — The Aurora Plan.
means that the waters and associ-
ning Board has decided to stress
ated wetlands provide critical
water quality and overprotection
habitat and food•for juvenile forms
of agricultural land in the town's
of fish and shellfish.
land -use plan.
The board proposed policies on
In proposing policy for the
location of marinas and similiar
town's 1986 land use plan this
. facilities, and establishing a con-•
week, the planning board included
servation buffer zone. along the
policies to protect water. quality
'shoreline.
and fish habitats in South Creek.
. While the U.S. Soil. Conservation
The board also elected not to
. Service has identified many areas
emphasize protection of prime
'in and near Aurora as "prime agri-
agricultural land. It cited an
cultural land,"Thompsonsaid pre -
abundance of farmland. '
venting non-agricultural develop -
Aurora is- updating. its Coastal
-. men*t.on this lard should not bp,a
Area Management Act Land Use
short-term priority.
Plan. The planning board met
Thompson said there is no shor-
Wednesday night with consulting
tage of good' farmland in Aurora,
planner Lynn Phillips of the Mid.
while the town needs other types of
East Commission; who provided
economic development
the technical information on which
'
the board based its decisions.
The plan is not finished, and pub -
Chairman W.B. Thompson noted
lic opinion is still encodraged. The
that water quality and wetland re-
board will meet again at ? p.m.
sources and important to Aurora's
Maich 12 in the Aurora Commun-
commercial fishing and recreation
ity Building.
industries.%
The Planning Board will consid-
. The area of South Creek near the
er recommendations for policy on
town functions as a "primary
;economic and -community de -
nursery area," according to biolo-
• Wopment. All Aurora residents
gical data the board reviewed. That
are invited.-----

M M M M
PAGE 14 WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, MARCH 13, --
.•.�....�a WA:
Aurora' Plan**nmeg. Board Seeks' Lianit ®n Gr'o'wth.:.`
AURORA— After discussing 'development. Aurora is updating ' and'seafood processing manu- are easily accessible for most
anticipated growth over the next its 1981 plate. facturing firms would probably , forms of transportation.
10 years, the Aurora Planning Although growth is currently be best for this area;'; Chairman • The board also decided that lit -
Board has continued to put a ceil- : not a problem for the town, a • W.B. Thompson said. But any in- tle could be done to mitigate the
ing on its growth. population ceiling of 1,500 per dustry which comes to the area hazards.to the wastewater treat -
The board met last night to dis- sons will beset. This figure repre- must prove its commitment to ment plant in the event 'of: a
cuss .the policy recommenda- sents the capacities of the muni- the environment, too, he added.. strong hurricane. Floodwaters
.tions for the Land Use Plan up- cipal water and sewer capabili Water quality is a top priority for from a hurricane of medium in -
date.. Storm hazard mitigation, ties. The town's current.popula- the Aurora planners. tensity could inundate about
economic and community de- ' tion is about 650. Specific sites for industry were two-thirds of the town. The sew-
•-velopment and urban growth The board also elected to .• also evaluated. The northeastern age plant is included in this area. ;
patterns were some of the issues emphasize the recruitment of in- ' quadrant of town and a stretch of "In this case, the town will not be ,
discussed. dustry which employs the abun- • road along N.C. 33 west of town able to learn from its mistakes,"
' The Land Use Plan is a docu- dant low -skilled workers in the- are the best suited industrial said board member Marvin
ment used. to guide and assess ' planning area. "Assemble -type zones in .Aurora. Both locations Sartin.
.� ,. Little if any land would be.
available for relocating the sew-
age plant if it were destroyed.
The town would have to iebuild at its present location..
The land classification map, a '
- . iirora­ V"Q enC('as,— W ork :- q visual tool which shows growth
areas over the next 10 years, indi- .
. Gated- pockets of development
e_ $ along the highway arteries in
' ' ltown. Most residential and com-
AURORA=The town of Atmore document used to assess and guide mercial building starts have been
took the first dtep laiq week tq*urd development. Each of 20 counties in these areas and it is antici-
aettingitslubdusiegotal�andpriori- eOneredrthCdrolina'sCoas� pated that future growth will
ties for the next flva years: •iv .taTAt,t meet Act must up- occur here as well.
The Aurora Planiiiiig Board met date theli laud tse plan' every five The plan is not finished and
to discuss the organization oi;the yearn. Maps are optional for muni;-
1986 land. use plan -update.• The' ties such as public opinion is still being en-
Am'°� '' � couraged. A completed copy of
meeting was designed to introduce �,?? PhillipsoftheWashingtort- the land use plan will be avail -
the board to. the•plannipg process ;:j sedj)did.East Commission, able for public review within the,
and the board's resporuibiiitieain ',,which ispr9vidingteChnicalassist. next two weeks. Interested per -
plan deveiopment.tsatin;; iaiH. • r+► , Qutiined compnents'of the sons can pickup a copy at the
The Planning, Soatd ,will:meet plan, including resource protect Town Hall. The Aurora Town
monthly to discuss .the plm ,,All - ;,#m and economic. development. Board is expected to review the
.meetings are open. and public par- • t;, Auth ,Leggett of the, N.C. Divi-
tidpation is.encouraged. Tht next „sion of. coastal Management dis- document at its. next meeting in
meeting is set fbr 7�p.m. Dec.11 in' ',: early ApFil. .
C1tsild,tCCilniQues.fOr inCreasirig
the Aurora Community: Building: public involvement. -
The land uae plan • ppdate :is a' is t Ma,Ypr, Orraee. Bomar presided
w
N