Base Mapping and Land Use Information Project 1983-1983

T O W N O F A U R O R A
B A S E M A P P I N G A N D
L A N D U S E I N F O R M A T I O N
P R O J E C T
1 9 8 3
Grace H. Bonner
Mayor
Town of Aurora
P.O. Box 86
Aurora, North Carolina

LL\VJ liVL VVa\Li\L IJU LVL\J
Bruce Behringer
Community Development Director
Town of Aurora
John Schofield
Computer Consultant
Manassas, Virginia
Mack Simpson
Regional Development Institute
East Carolina University
Greenville, North Carolina
John Crew
Land Use Planning Coordinator
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Washington, North Carolina
The preparation of this booklet was financed in part
through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program through funds provided by the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is admin—
istered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

INTRODUCTION
The Town of Aurora has received a grant from the Department .
of N,R.C.D. through the North Carolina Office of Coastal Management.
The project is entitled Base Mapping and Land Use Information System
for the Town of Aurora. The overall goal of the project is to create
a base map of the Town of Aurora and its one mile planning area and
develop an information system as a fundamental management tool to
guide the implementation of the Aurora Land Use Plan.
Two specific objectives are stated for the project:
1. To provide baseline information concerning the actual land
use of the area in the Town and one mile planning zone for
each of the zoning categories. This information can then
be used by the Town Planning Commission and Town Board of
Commissioners in making future land use and zoning decisions.
2. To quantify and more completely describe the area located in
Areas of Environmental Concern in order to minimize future
impacts on the area's natural systems.
This project is the culmination of a number of CAMA supported Town
planning efforts. A Land Use Plan was completed in 1976 and updated
again in 1981. A Community Facilities and Capital Improvements budget
and study was created. The Town Code of Ordinances were organized,
reviewed and printed for the first time. All Town planning ordinances
were reviewed and amended.and a simple community education brochure
was developed. The Base Mapping and Land Use Information System are
designed to provide better data for decision making within the confines
of the plans and policies developed previously by the Town.

The Town of Aurora's project was selected by the Office of Coastal
Management as a demonstration to show other small coastal communities
how an information system can be developed at relatively low cost.
This "How -To Manual" is an effort to describe the process and results
of this project. It must be stated that each community is unique;
each community will face individualized problems in carrying through
such an effort.
Three specific objectives were identified for the project:
1. To develop baseline data on all parcels of land within the
Town of Aurora and one mile planning zone limits. The
format for presentation of this data is computer print-out
on all data collected and an analysis of certain specific
planning data needs identified by the Town. The Town,
with 700 residents, is similar to other small towns in
that it has no computer, a very 'limited budget and
has a staff of only two persons• The computer work for
this project was done in conjunction with a private
consultant and the Regional Development Institute of the
East Carolina University.
2. To develop an ongoing system for updating this data.
Agreements had to be concluded with the Beaufort County
Tax Office and Register of Deeds to cue the Town when
information on parcels is updated. A system whereby the
Town would collect the data from the county and update
the computer print-outs was also necessary to develop.
3. Drawing of a base map of the Town. This included
approximate mapping of all parcel boundaries within the
-2-

Town and one mile planning area. Since this information
was not available previously, estimations of property
lines based upon deeds was necessary.
This report on the demonstration project included five sections:
1. Chronology of the Project.
2. Description of Computerization of Information.
3.. Process of Base Mapping.
4. Problems Encountered in Project.
5. Summary and Conclusions.
Also, some sample product materials are appended to this report.
The Town wishes to recognize and thank the following organizations
for their cooperative and helpful advice and assistance during this
project: Beaufort County Tax Office, Beaufort County Register of Deeds,
Regional Development Institute of the East Carolina University,
Texasgulf, Inc., North Carolina Phosphate Company, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, both the
Office of Coastal ,Management and the Division of Community Assistance,
and the members of the Aurora Town Planning Board.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROJECT
Careful records of the process of this project were kept because
of its demonstrative nature. This description is found below. It
summarizes events and activities which took place over a ten month
time period.
The Land Use Information System Demonstration Project officially
began July 1; 1982 and was completed February, 1983. The project was
funded through a contract with the North Carolina Department of Natural
-3

Resources and Community Development, office of Coastal Management in
the amount of $7,100. The Town of Aurora had to allocate $900 as a
cash match and.document $900 in in -kind services.
Major activities in the completion of this project are listed
below. They follow in a chronological order. Many of the activities
overlap in their initiation and completion.
1. Grant application. The CAMA local planning and management
funds grant cycle began with a public hearing on tiarch 15,
1982. Each year the administrative rules for the selection
of grantees is reviewed in a public hearing format. Grant
applications were due to NRCD by March 26,.1982. After
consultation with the OCM representative in the Washington
field office, the Town Board approved the submission of the
Base Mapping and Land Use Information System Project
application. As part of the land use planning update
process the Town determined that it needed more baseline
information about parcel ownership in the Town. It was also
determined that information concerning ownership of lands
within environmental areas of concern was lacking. With the
assistance of the OCM field officer; the CAMA grant
application was developed with more specific planning
objectives elaborated. The Town was informed on June 16,
1982 that its application for planning grant assistance had
been included in the OT.4 1982-1983 Federal Grant Application.
The Town was further invited to expand the scope of the
project to be demonstrative in nature; this meant the
preparation of a "How -To Manual" in conjunction with OCM as
-4-

a model for other small coastal communities. The final
signing of a contract between the Town and OCM was completed
in September. A copy of the OCM application is appended.
2. Determination of Data Variables. As part of the expanded
description of the project in the application, the Town
identified fourteen potential variables for its data collec-
tion instrument. It estimated that data would need to be
collected on 550 parcels in the Town and,one mile planning
area. The variables selected fell into three general
categories. First, ownership information and tax value
which could be collected from the Beaufort County Tax Office
cards. Second, descriptive information concerning.the parcel
from Town records such as zoning, availability of public
services, and compliance with Town ordinance standards.
Third, more detailed information concerning the location of
the parcel and its size was required. This was to be
collected from deed references from the Beaufort County
Register of Deeds Office. The OCM field representative was
most helpful in helping to formulate operational definitions
for each of the variables. This included the collapsing of
categories of responses for each variable that would. be
meaningful in planning and land use terms. (An example was
the exclusion of categories of areas of environmental concern
which would not generally apply to land found in the Town
of Aurora or its one mile planning area). A description of
each of the twenty-six data variables is found on page 32.
-5-

3. Contract with Consultant for Computer Programming System.
Because of the volume of the information about the parcels of
land in the Town and one mile planning zone that needed to be
collected, stored and analyzed, it was decided that some computer
capability was necessary for this project. A computer consultant
was contracted. He had previous experience in both city planning/
community development work and land use computerized inventories.
The role of the consultant was to.develop the appropriate computer
statements that would provide important analytical information to
the Town on all 727 parcels. His second role was to advise the
Town as to the most flexible, practical, and cost effective method
for contracting for computer time. Finally, the computer consultant
was to assist in the development of the "How -To :Manual" in
describing the background of computerized information systems.
The consultant was contracted in July and assisted in the develop-
ment of the data collection instrument.
4. Identification of Applicable Tax Parcels. The Beaufort County
Tax Office has identified each of the tax parcels in the Town of
Aurora and throughout Beaufort County in two ways. First, Beaufort
County is divided into large tracts of land through the process of
aerial photographs flown in 1976. Each of these photographs then
is subdivided with identifying tax numbers placed on the aerial
photographs in the location of the parcel. The task of identifying
tax parcels was relatively simple. All 'of the seven tax photos for
the Town of Aurora were included. Parts of six tax photos surround-
ing the Town were also identified as containing the land within
-6

the Town's one mile planning jurisdiction. This task required
consultation by the Beaufort County Tax Office.
5. Procurement and Transfer of Tax Identification Numbers on
Aerial Photographs. In order to accurately transfer tax parcel
numbers onto a map, it was decided that the Town should procure
copies from the photometric service of the same photos used by the
Beaufort County Tax Office. A large expenditure, $405, had to
be made in order to purchase copies of these photos. After re-
ceiving these photos Town staff copied the parcel number location
onto the Town photos from the Beaufort County Tax Office photos.
Prior to this the specific location of the Town.limits and the
one mile planning zone limits were identified on the photos.
Only those parcel numbers which were located within these limits
were identified on the photos, and only for thase;:pareels-located
on the photo was data collected on for this survey. It was later
found that although some tax parcel numbers were located on the
photo outside of the one mile planning zone line, some of the property
was actually in the area. Therefore a 'second round' of research
had to be initiated to effectively identify these parcels. All
research was coordinated with the tax office to alleviate scheduling
difficulties due to their updating and listing of new taxes.
6. Complete Tax Office Data Collection. The collection of the data
from the Tax Office on all applicable parcels was completed in two
steps. First, a data collection sheet and key sheet were developed
to include those variables which could be collected from the Tax Office.
These included the tax map photo and parcel number, a code to identify
whether the parcel was in Town limits, in the one mile planning zone,
or both, the ownership of the parcel, lot
-7-

dimensions or acreage, and the land and building values. One
additional item of information that was available on certain
parcels was the deed reference (book, page number, and date) for
when the deed to the parcel was last registered. This information
was tabulated on data collection sheets developed with the assis-
tance of the OCH field representative, the computer consultant,
and the planner -in -charge. The second step was the actual collection
of the data from the Tax Office parcel cards. This task took four
days and was completed by Town staff members. A sample code sheet
and data collection instrument is appended.
7. Supplement Deed Reference and Dimension Data. Of the 721 data
collection sheets that were developed from the tax records, 501
parcels had complete dimension (length x width of lot or total
acreage) information while 396 parcels had deed reference
information only. A critical problem in the project was faced
because of the lack of this information. Since the project was
designed not only to collect information on each parcel but also
to create a base map of all properties within the Town and one mile
planning area, some dimensional information was necessary on each
parcel. It was evident after the initial days of deed research
that some estimation of parcel boundary lines would be necessary.
However, after 10 days of title searching, additional deed reference
and dimensional information was collected on 198 parcels in the Town
and 151 parcels in the planning zone. In total therefore the Town
has collected this information on 97% of the parcels targetted.

As a practical matter the importance of the missing
dimensional data was minimized when drawing property boundaries.
Missing dimensions in many- cases- were determined as mutual boundaries
were defined. Although dependence upon this "puzzle -approach"
may not be totally accurate, in practical terms it solved many
missing boundary line dimension problems.
8. Complete Town Information Collection. Data on certain variables
was collected by referring to the information already available in
the Town. These variables included: land classification (from
1981 Land Use Plan Update), zoning, non conformance to Town Code
of Ordinances, history of zoning and permit changes, location
within areas of environmental concern, access to Town facilities
(water, sewage and streets). Most of this informationwas
collected by referencing each parcel with existing maps (i.e.,
checking location of parcel within zoning districts,etc..). Other
information was derived from Town records (i.e., Town water and
sewage usage). All information was coded on parcel information
sheets by Town personnel. This task took 3 days.
9. Complete Field Survey Information Collection. Information on
two variables required a field survey by Town staff. These
variables were parcel use and availability of parcel for sale.
Town staff completed this task in one day by driving past
targetted parcels and making field notes.
10. Agreement with Regional Development Institute for Computer Time
and Assistance. With the intervention and assistance of the
contracted computer consultant, the Town of Aurora requested
-9-

assistance from the Regional Development Institute at East
Carolina University as a broker for computer time through the
University system. This request was approved in October and
a project identification number was established by RDI for the
Aurora project at that time. Use of key punching facilities at
the ECU computer building was arranged.
11. Enter Information on Computer Code Sheets., The next step which
needed to be completed was to enter all data collected on the
twenty-three variables onto a computer coding sheet. These were
simple Fortran statement sheets provided by the computer consultant.
Data from the parcel information sheets developed by the Town was
transferred to these code sheets. Although this step appeared
time consuming it helped to reduce the number of key punching
errors made when entering the information on computer cards.
12. Key Punch Data Deck. All parcel information was typed on computer
cards at the East Carolina University computer center. Two computer
cards were used for each parcel. Although Town staff had no direct
experience in key punching, a practical how -to -do -it training was
provided by the computer consultant. This step took three full
person workdays to complete.
13. Trial Run of the Computer Program. In addition to the parcel
information which was typed by Town staff onto computer cards, the
computer consultant key punched the command cards for the trial run
of the program. This trial run was first attempted on October 16,
1982. Since not all of the data deck had been punched by that time
additional trial runs had to be made by the computer when additional
-10-

information was submitted.
14. Review Trial Run Results and Make Corrections and Additions.
As was to be expected, Town staff needed to correct approximately
230 of the 1442 computer cards in the data deck because of key
punching errors. A second reason for correcting that large number
of cards was that additional information was being collected from
the Register of Deeds Office which defined deed references and lot
size information. Finally, many lot dimensions were estimated
during late December when the staff. began the mapping process.
Each of these new pieces of information had to be re-entered on
new computer cards to ensure the accuracy of the computer data
print-out.
15. Map Parcels. Twenty-six hours were spent, by Town staff mapping
each of the parcels in the Town and one mile planning zone. A
more detailed report on this mapping process can be found in
Section III.
16. Write Final Report. A final report and this "How -To Manual" was
written during January, 1983. The report had two purposes.
First, it served as a documentation of the work performed under
the CAMA grant and acted as a final report to the granting agency.
Second, it detailed the process of the activities conducted in
the completion of the project. This report, when viewed with the
final planametric map and computer run, constitutes the "How -To
.•Mnual" for this project.
-11-

DESCRIPTION OF COMPUTERIZATION OF INFORMATIO�d
Computers can do several things very well.. They can store and
retrieve vast amounts of data and, in turn, process this data into useable
information., Computers can perform intricate mathematical and ordering
operations in incredible time sequences. However, at either end of these
functions remains the human functions of determining what needs to be done
and how to utilize the results. Without these human elements, a computer
remains only a machine. Without a computer, the efficiency and productivity
of humans remains unfulfilled.
A basic distinction needs to be made. A computer receives data and
transforms it into information. Since the beginning of the CAMA planning
process in 1974, a large amount of data has been collected in many local
government jurisdictions. However, much of this data remains untransformed.
This particular project is an effort by a small, rural community to trans-
form certain basic data concerning land use into useable information to
assist in making more informed decisions about its future.
The developments in computer technology since 1975 have made it
practical and cost effective for a small local government, such as Aurora,
to design and implement a land use, or for that matter, any type of
management information system. This system was constructed to recognize
several important facts about the Town of Aurora:
1. There was no one on the Town staff that had a background in
data processing;
2. The Town did not have a computer and did not want to
purchase or lease a machine;
-12-

3. The limited budget resources could not accept a large
expenditure for computer time; and
4. There were very limited resources for maintaining and
improving the system.
Additionally, the Office of Coastal. Management was interested in a
system that could be readily transferrable to other local governments with
similar budgetary and staff constraints.
With these facts in mind, the project was divided into four basic
components The first component involved preparing the list of data
variables that would be used to construct the system. The initial variable
list had thirty variables providing a structure tying parcel ownership data
to land classification, land use, environmental and zoning data. Revisions
reduced the number and complexity of variables into a more manageable list,
but still retained the basic structure. The second component involved the
collection of the data. This was the most expensive and time consuming
process. The Town staff collected certain basic ownership data from the
Beaufort County Tax Office, but had to acquire aerial photographs of the
Town and its extraterritorial area and transfer parcel size and other data
from the tax maps in order to collect the base data. Other transfers of
mapped information; such as zoning districts, land classification, land use
and areas of environmental concern, were required to complete the data
collection phase. All of this data was then transferred into a form more
readily useable for key punching. The third component involved the actual
development of the computer program for the data analysis and report
preparation. A fourth component involved the actual transfer of the new
data onto computer cards for storage and use by the computer.
-13-

To work within the criteria established by the Town, two unique
problems had to be addressed. Since the Town did not want to purchase
or lease its own computer and the Town budget could not accept large
computer time expenses, the system had to work in somewhat unusual
circumstances. Coupled with the requirement for simple maintenance and
updating procedures and an untrained staff, the system configuration had
to be flexible. All of these criteria ruled out the more obvious solutions
of time-sharing with a business or industrial data processing department
or contracting with a commercial data processor. The solution developed
for this information system insures that the local criteria are met and that
the system is easily expandable to other Town needs and to other units of
government in the area.
The Design of the Information System
The Triangle Universities Computation Center (TUCC), located in the
Research Triangle Park, is a joint venture of the University of North
Carolina, North Carolina State University, and Duke University to develop
and operate a major computer center for scientific and educational
purposes. The General Administration of the University, representing all
the state -supported colleges and universities, acquired an interest in
TUCC to develop computer centers at each campus without unnecessary
duplication. Operating through its Educational Computing Service, UNC-GA
has developed and acquired an extensive network of program support through
this arrangement. Experience with this service has shown it to be very
cost effective and able to keep pace with technological improvements in
computers and software. To gain access to this service, the Regional
-14-

1
Development Institute at East Carolina University was contacted to determine
whether it would be willing to act as a "vendor" of TUCC computer services
through the University's ECS.access. This was felt to be very cost effec-
tive for all parties concerned. The Institute readily agreed because this
type of project fits well into its overall plan for new services to its
region.
The next arrangement was to develop a software program powerful enough
to operate the Aurora system, flexible enough to meet, changing information
needs, and yet easy enough for an untrained staff to operate. Significant
advances in software technology have allowed first time users, such as
Aurora, to adopt highly sophisticated computer technology into its operations.
One such advance has been the development of "canned" packages for use in the
social and natural sciences. Originally, these packages were developed to
perform powerful statistical operations for research applications, but now
have been advanced into flexible data management, report generation, and
graphic programs as well. The two most commonly used packages are SPSS
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and SAS (Statistical Analysis
System), developed at North Carolina State University. Both have extensive
manual documentation and support and have the advantage of having numerous
users in both academic and industrial settings in all parts of the State.
SAS was chosen for this project because of the consultant's preferences,
but SPSS would have accomplished the same task.
The use of SAS does require a period of training and study. However,
it does not require a background in data processing to understand and use.
Training sessions of several days would be adequate to introduce a beginner
to the fundamentals of using SAS in developing and changing and use of
-15-

information data sets. Those training sessions could be arranged through
the Regional Development Institute, any of the universities, the Educational
Computing Service or the SAS Institute, Incorporated in Cary. Participation
in training sessions would allow an administrator, clerk, or planner to
utilize the information system to meet their particular needs without
continuous reliance on a computer programmer. However, the successful use
of SAS -requires a thorough knowledge of what the user's information needs
are, how to organize the data set to achieve the desired information, and
a basic level of knowledge about the operations of the computer system
used for data analysis.
A computer, and the software that runs it, will convert information
from punched cards or electrically stored impulses on tape or disks into
other electrical impulses that can be manipulated in a way to combine or
recombine data variables'into a sequence providing information requested
by the user. The logic of the computer and the software requires a well
conceived data plan in order to accurately respond to these information
requests. A well conceived data plan requires the following elements:
1. A well-defined idea of what the information system (and
consequently, the computer) is expected to provide. The
system can provide an incredible amount of information
based on the requests of the user. 'But it cannot evaluate
the quality of its output - that is up to the user. The
quality of the output depends on the quality of the data
and on the "quality" of the request. The user must under-
stand how to define a request for information and, more
importantly, understand the relationship between data
elements.
-16-

2. The system designed from the data plan must be flexible
enough to expand with the needs of the user. In this
system, Aurora, once it gains familiarity, can transfer
the punched cards onto disk storage and acquire the use
of.a terminal to communicate with its information system
interactively. The system can incorporate additional
elements not originally included or be expanded into new
areas, such as finance or payroll.
3. Another aspect of expandability includes the technological
t
advances made in microcomputers. Although this system
utilizes one of the largest computers commercially
available, once Aurora gains competency in utilizing
computers to answer questions not previously answerable,
the transition to a microcomputing system affordable to
the Town is a very small step. The data plan should
recognize the potential for improvements not only to the
system but for the users of the system as well.
4. A means to evaluate .the effectiveness of the system in
providing the required information. In developing this
system for Aurora,,it is difficult to evaluate how the
system will meet its expectations because there is no
real local experience or understanding of how to use
computers for information. It is important that Aurora
continually examine its information system and make
adjustments as necessary to temper expectations with
reality. In this case, the cost of maintaining the
-17-

accuracy of the system will not be too high but in order
to evaluate the system, it must become a part of the local
decision making process. If it is to work, it must be
used. In larger jurisdictions the cost of system maintenance
and updated data may become more important.
The key data element in this information system is the individual parcel
of land. This requires that all data collected is at its smallest possible
level. It allows data to be aggregated upwards to the broadest possible
level, in this case, the Town or extraterritorial level. It also allows
parcels to be compared with other parcels or to be consolidated with similar
parcels by meeting special or unique criteria. However, it.also requires that
the data on parcels be available. As will be discussed later, this can become
a real problem when the data must come from so many different sources.
Each of the four system components is described below.
1. Prepare the Data Variables
After the purpose of the system had been defined, the list of
information elements to be used in the system was developed. As
with each step in the system, this step required attention to detail
and a great deal of planning. The initial list represented an
optimum number of elements responding to the need of "that would be
nice to know". Information must be recognized as a commodity and,
as such, it has a certain cost. Many of the "nice to know"
information elements had such a high cost or an uncertain cost
that they became impractical to stay in the system plan. The
remaining elements were selected because they could be readily
collected at an acceptable cost and were easily updated. They
-18-

represent what is desired in Aurora and may not be what another
community would deem desirable. Of each of;the.four components, .
this is the most individualized to meet the, particular needs of
the system. The use of SAS allows a user to transfer this
information into another jurisdiction and easily make whatever
changes are required.
A full description of the final data variables can be found
in Section 4 of this report. A coding key sheet describing the
categories of responses possible for each variable is appended.
Each data element has meaning within the system, however,
some mean more than others. As Aurora gains experience in using
this system, some of the selected.variables will lose their
relevance, while others not initially included, will become
relevant. In this system the use of SAS encourages the Town'to
experiment within its information system without incurring large
data processing costs. As was mentioned earlier, another local
government might select a substantially different set of elements
and still obtain an effective system.
2. Data Collection
This component required the most time and individual effort.
Some of the data elements deemed most important proved the most
difficult to collect. The quality of real property files varies
considerably from county to county due to the nature of the
structure of this information system and will directly influence
the quality of the system. In this particular case, lot dimen-
sions and ownership addresses were not always available.
-19-

The project director and a secretary collected all relevant
information for almost 1,000 parcels of land in and around Aurora
in several months of part-time effort. A similar effort in a
larger city within the area resulted in the collection of over
4,000 parcels in a three week period. However, the latter case
took place with excellent files to work from.
Of all components, the collection of data is the most
expensive and time consuming. It is also the component requiring
the most attention to detail. Problems occurring in this step
will also occur in the maintenance of the data base. Documentation
of this problem will help in making the system function as well as
possible. A"well thought out system is the product of a detailed
understanding of the particular data collection problems one will
face and how these problems will be resolved.
A local government must be prepared to adequately fund this
component, as well as be prepared for a number of unforeseen `
delays. Without this commitment the entire system will not meet
expectations either in the beginning or at any point in its use.
The dollar cost to Aurora for data collection was about $4,700.
3. Development of the Program
The Statistical Analysis System is designed to provide the
user with a relatively easy use to data management and statistical
software package. It is relatively easy to use in the sense that
one need not be a computer programmer in order to write a local
government information system. It does require an investment of
time and effort to'learn not only SAS but also to understand the
-20-

computer environment in which one will operate. In this case,
the user would need to -understand the TUCC environment, as well
as the procedures of the ECU Computer Center.
The entire program for this information contains the following
statements:
1. // Aurora Job Ecs xxx xxx xxxx xxx
2. PW = xxxx
3. // EXEC SAS
4. // SYSIN DD
5. Data Landuse;
6. Input Date 1-6 Mapnum $ 8-10 Parcelnu 12-14
Townumbr 16 Owner $ 18-42
7. Lotlen 44-47 Lotwidth 49-52 Acres 54-59
Shape 61 Deed 63-68 #2
8. DateDeed 1-6 Valand 8-12 Valbldg 14-18 Landclas 20 Zoning 22
9. NONCOM 24 NONCON2 26 NONCOM 28 ZONCHANG 30 SPECUSE 32
10. SPUSETYP 34 AEC 36 WATER 38 SEWER 40 ACCESS 42 USEl 44-45 USE2
47-48
11. USE3 50-51 HOUSECON 53 Sale 55 SgFoot 57-60;
12. LotSize=Lotlen*LotWidth/43560;
13., TotValue=Valand+Valbldg;
14. If Lotlen=0000 Then Lotlen=.;
15. If Lotwidth=0000 Then LotWidth=.;
16. Cards;
Data Deck
17. Proc Sort;
18. By Mapnum Parcelnu;
19. Proc Print N;
20. Data Two;
21. Set Landuse;
22. Proc Sort;
23. By Water;
24. Proc Print N;
25. Var Owner Mapnum Parcelnu Water;
26. Title Aurora Water System;
27. Data Three;
28. Set Landuse;
29. If Usel-51;
30. Proc Print N;
31. Var Owner ipnum Parcelnu Zoning;
32. Titlel Aurora Land Use System;
33. Title2.Vacant Parcels And Zoning Districts;
34. Data Four;
35. Set Landuse;
36.- Proc Sort;
37. By Sewer;
38. Proc Print N;
-21-

39. Var Owner Mapnum Parcelnu Sewer;
40. Title Aurora Sewer System;
41. Data Five;
42., Set Landuse;
43. Proc Freq;
44. Tables Usel*Zoning/Missing;
45. Data Report;
46. Set Landuse;
47. By Usel;_
48. File Print Header=H•Notitles;
49. If First.Usel Then Do;
50. TotValue=0;
51. End;
52. Put @ 4 Owner $ 25. @ 30 Mapnum $ 3. @ 40 Parcelnu 3.
53 @ 50 Zoning 1. @ 60 Totvalue 6.;
54. Total + Totvalue;
55. If Last.Usel Then;
56. Put @ 1 Total 10.2;
57. Return;
58. H.Put/ @20 Aurora Land Value By Land Use';
59. Return;
60. Data Six;
61. Set Landuse;
62. If Owner='N.C. Phosphate'or 'Agrico' or 'Texas Gulf' or
'Texasgulf';
63. Proc Print;
64. By Owner Mapnum Parcelnu Totvalue Usel;
65. /*
66.
In essence the Town requested the following information from
the computer:
DATA ONE - A print-out of all the coded information on each
parcel; this information was to be organized by
map number and then parcel number (e.g., starting
with AU1-001).
DATA TWO - A print-out of those parcels which have access to
the Aurora water system.
DATA
THREE - A listing of all vacant parcels by owner, map number
and parcel number.
-22-

TR - A print-out of all parcels which have access to
the Aurora sewer system.
:A
FE A table which displays the number and frequency
(percentage) of parcels by use within each zoning
provide land values (from tax office) by actual
parcel use.
DATA SIX,- This print-out will identify all phosphate holdings
by location (map number and parcel number), current
use and total value.
Cards 1-4 are called Job Control Cards. Their function is to
enter the computer system through a two phase security system
(// Aurora Job ECS . xxx . xxx . xxxx and PW = xxxx) and to instruct
the computer that the user wants to call up the SAS procedure.
SAS then becomes operational. The first step is to prepare the
raw data into a form that can be read by the computer. Whether the
data is punched on cards or inserted by a keyboard terminal, the
data is presented in an 80 space field, where each space represents
a letter, a number or a blank.- A sample card is shown on the
next page.
-23-

I
If 2 3 4 S i i 1 3 10 11 I: 13 1115 Orr 181919 21 22 t3 21 25 2t !i 21 2! 30 31 32 33 34 35 31 37 3O 32140 61 42 43144 4141 47 44 49 50 $1 52 53 54 55156 S7 513110 6 62 85114 $5 61 6716193 TO 11 IT21TJ 74 13 76 77 TI 73 10
1 2 3 4 3 11 1 1 1 1 10 H I L 15 14 15 1 16 17 11 19 120 21 22 23 124 23 25 27 121 21 30 31 j 32 33 31 37 1 U it 33 30140 41 42 43 1 44 43 41 41 11 49 50 51 52 51 54 55 j U 51 51 56 60
9 R 431 64 93 11 i7 111 63 TO 11112113 74 75 it R 71 73 60
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1111111171111117111111111111111
1 2 1 +Sill ! f0 It 121114 IS tt 1111111/21 n S24 23 I'll n n n n 31 n S U S 38 313131441 6213 U 43441/t a SO 11 52 5154 S SO 51 S St a it aaaaaattann n IS It n if nn MOO,
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
3 3 3 3.3 3 3 3 EC U 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 3 3 3 3 3
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 44444444444
5555555555555555553 ECIST ARF S 5555555555555555555555555,E 5555555555
5666666666666666666656666666666a6a6a666666666666666666666a666 �y�- 6666656665
OFFICE
1171171171171111111111711177717111111111 ]].1]177111111]]111)17111117171
1� a8383a3aaaa8883888838388a8a8a888a88aaa8aa3a888aaa8a88a3888a38aaa888a838a8a8aaa8a I
99999993939999999999999992999999999999999999999999999999999099999999999999999999
1 2 3 4 5 1 11 9 1H1l1314 IS 1517111970212Eiil3251f 21n 2!ll 7i n313!l5lil11179174141 g111S 1SQ g4951515151515535751 5361616lat0 i5 nil 069 lilt 72 T3137531"1717911
O+D+.1+�-1T63
Card 5 creates a. SAS data set where the raw data will be
manipulated based on user needs. Cards 6-11 actually define the
location of the raw data on the card which is used by the map in
executing specific instructions. For example, the variable DATE
is located in positions 1-6 and is a numeric variable. The next
variable, Mapnum, is an alphabetic variable, indicated by the $
found in positions 8-10. The #2 on card 7 indicates that the data
definitions are to be carried forward to an additional card. The
twelfth and thirteenth cards are special cards creating new variables
from existing variables. In this case, a new variable LOTSIZE; is
created'by the computer multiplying LOTLEN by LOTWIDTH and dividing
that number by the number of square feet in an acre. This represents
a clear example of a computer performing mathematical operations
that would consume a considerable amount of user time, if done
-24-

manually. TOTVALUE is created by adding VALAND and VALBLDG.
Cards 14 and 15 are also special cards. In the data collection
phase, a number of lot dimensions were not available and therefore
rendering the new variable LOTSIZE meaningless. These special
cards automatically negate any zero value in either LOTLEN or
LOTWIDTH. This is done by recognizing a zero as a missing value
and no mathematical computations are performed. This is important
not only in computing specific lot areas „ but also when one wants
to gather column totals. Card 16 informs the computer that the raw
data will follow.
The last two cards are a continuation of the Job Control Cards.
There are a number of other forms of data handling capabilities
provided by SAS, including a number of sophisticated graphics and
reporting procedures. These are enumerated in the various SAS
manuals.
4. Data Transfer
This component involved transferring the field data onto the
computer cards. Town personnel were trained to use a key punch
machine. The entire process of punching data on the parcels was
three days.
-25-

One of the important products of the Land Use Inventory Project was
the completion of a base map of the Town of Aurora and its one mile planning
area. This map shows the physical features of the area, that is its streets
and waterways. It also shows each of the 721 tax parcels located within the
Town boundaries and one mile planning area. This had never been completely
mapped for the Town previously.
The completion of the map was very important from three standpoints.
First, the Town did not know who owned what parcels of land within its area.
In spite of receiving an annual print-out from the Beaufort County Tax
Office on the taxes received for each of the parcels within the Town, there
had been no way of identifying where each of these tax parcels was located.
Second, because of physical boundaries, the tax parcels had never been
located on a map and therefore the Town had no conception of how much land
was owned by any particular owner. This is particularly important given the
large land holdings of the phosphate and timber companies in the Aurora area.
From a land use planning standpoint, it was impossible to project growth
patterns within the Town and its planning jurisdiction without knowledge of
the extensiveness of the holdings of these resource development corporations.
Finally, the relationship between zoning, current land use, and parcel
ownership had never been fully developed. For example, the Town could only
approximate compliance to zoning restrictions without full knowledge of
property boundaries. From another viewpoint, because the Town had no
existing system of monitoring tax parcel transfers, changes in land use
with regard to zoning restrictions could not adequately be followed.
The information was collected on each of the tax parcels from three
sources. First, for a small number of parcels the dimensions of the
-26-

property were listed in the Beaufort County Tax Office. An approximate
location of the parcel was noted on the tax map. Second, for those parcels
which had incomplete dimensional data, the planner -in -charge reviewed the
original deed to the property. In.about 5% of the deed references there
exists a surveyed map which was copied and located on a composite parcel'
map. For those parcels without surveyed maps, boundaries were approximated
by reading the deed description and sketching property. There were three
types of descriptions found. One located the boundaries for the parcel
through identifying the contiguous.property-boundaries. For example, the
north property line of "parcel x" is the same as the south property line
of "parcel y". A second method was through a survey description with
distinct metes and bounds and specific footages for each reading. The
third method of description was through estimated usage of the parcel.
A parcel was estimated for example to be bounded by creeks, canals, and
streets where these appeared to be the usage boundaries.
Another source of information regarding boundaries of parcels was the
assistance received from local individuals. Members of the Town of Aurora
Planning Commission were helpful in identifying the location of older
parcels as well as some of the geographic nameplaces which have changed
over the course of years. Also assistance was received from the local.
phosphate industry in identifying the location of their parcels in the Town
of Aurora and its one mile planning zone.
The use of aerial photographs of the Town and its one mile planning
.area assisted in generally locating property lines. In many cases lines
were estimated to coincide with hedgerows, tree lines and ditches which
.could be seen in aerial photographs
-27-

All of this information was collected by the planner -in -charge over
a three month period of time. All of the parcels in Town were drawn to
a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet on separatelblock maps'. Each of the parcels
in a particular block were drawn on a separate sheet of paper with red lines
used to identify estimated property boundaries and pencil lines used to
identify those property lines for which the planner was more assured. In
the one mile planning zone, because the parcels were much larger, property
lines were simply drawn on these maps. For those areas which have been
subdivided many times into smaller parcels, supplemental maps on a larger.
scale were drawn.
The aerial photographs and the in -Town block maps were given to the
Division of Community Assistance of the North Carolina. Department of natural
Resources and Community Development, Washington Field Office. The draftsman
in the office then prepared a planametric map identifying streets, creeks,
canals and the railroad on a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet for the Town of
Aurora. This map also included all of the property lines for the 419
parcels in the Town.
The second stage of the map preparation was to reduce the completed
Town of Aurora map to a scale of 1 inch = 400 feet. The NRCD draftsman then
added the 302 parcels in the outer ring of the one mile planning area. This
was done on a 1 inch = 400 feet scale also. The completed map includes all
of the parcel lines for the Town and one mile planning area completed on a
sepia which then can be copied by the Town for various planning uses.
-28-

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN THE PROJECT
There were four major problems encountered in the design and
implementation of the Land Use Inventory Project. These problems were
both conceptual and practical in nature and influenced the amount and
type of work which was necessary to complete the objectives of the
project.
Stated below are the general expenditures made in carrying out the
project. The amount of cash funds available was $7,100. To this the
Town had to establish a $900 in -kind match. From a practical sense, this
meant that approximately $9.75 could be used per parcel for the research,
data collection, mapping and computerization.
Base flapping and Land Use Information Project Budget
Salaries
Planner -in -Charge and
Clerical _'assistant with
Fringe Costs 4,450
Consulting Costs
Computer Programer 1,000
Supplies
Areal Photographs 405
Office Supplies 125
Base flapping Supplies and
related Expenses 120
Telephone 475
Travel 450
Computer Time and Other Expenses 75
TOTAL EXPENSES $7,100
-29-

One influence on the adequacy of funding dedicated to this project has
to do with the level of accuracy which is demanded. Pareto's Law states
that 20% effort will produce 80% of the information required; while it
requires 80% effort t;p collect the final 20%. This is particularly true
when researching deed references on parcels of land which have been heired
or have transferred titles very very infrequently. If a Town demands total
accuracy in its report and mapping, the funding level cited would not be
adequate. However, if the computer run and planametric map is used by a
Town for general purposes of identifying ownership and then researches any
further detailed information necessary, the funds provided were adequate.
Two further points with regard to budget should be mentioned. The
first has to do with the availability of a local person to act as the
planner -in -charge. Contracting this part of the project to an out-of-town
firm is possible; however, familiarity with local landmarks, the area's
history, and persons residing in the area who know much about land transfers
is essential. The development of this project as part of a long-term
community development and improvement program by the Town of Aurora was of
great assistance because of the legitimacy and non -threatening relationship
that the program has developed with the ToGnm's citizenry.
The funds allotted to the Town for the project could not have covered
project costs if it had not been for the contributions made by the Regional
Development Institute of the East Carolina University and the Division of
Community Assistance of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. It was through the first organization that
low-cost computer time and access to key punching machinery became available.
The alternative to this would be for the Town to lease space and time from
-30-

some private source, probably at a cost much higher than related in the
above budget. NRCD assisted.the.Town by allowing its draftsman to complete
the planametric map for the Town for the cost of materials only. Again, a
much larger expense would have to be shown if this assistance was not
donated.. at no direct cost to the Town.
A second major problem encountered had to do with the variables
selected and the data collection standards. The table beginning on the
next page outlines each variable, identifies an operational definition for
that variable, its data source, and the process necessary to retrieve the
data. The problems encountered are then listed with the resolution
determined by the Town staff. Some variables, such as owner occupied
versus rental property would have been so difficult to collect that they
were dropped from the survey. The complete accuracy of other variables,
such as lot dimensions and some of the non-conformance variables, may have
been estimated on individual parcels. Therefore a disclaimer has been
prepared to be attached to the final map and the computer run which will be
made available to the public. It states that some information was estimated
and requests public assistance in improving the accuracy of information for
those parcels.
A third major problem encountered was how the Land Information Use
System would be updated to ensure future accuracy of the data and map.
After an extensive amount of time was put into collecting information on all
721 parcels, assistance was requested from the tax office to determine a
method to identify those parcels which had transferred ownership since
initial data was collected in July. This request took place in January, 1983.
-31-

VARIABLE
(1) DATE
(2) PARCEL #
(3) TOWN #
(4) OWNERSHIP
(a) I4AILING ADDRESS
OF OWNER/
(b) HAILING ADDRESS
OF STRUCTURE
(5) LOT DIMENSIONS
EFINITION
ate of Tax Office
ata Entries
ix Character # From
ounty Tax Maps
roperty Location
Ythin Town Limits
nd/Or One Mile
lanning Area
Of Property
r
Owner Occupied
Versus Rental
Property
lumber of Square
'eet or Acres In
'roperty
TABLE 1
EXPLANATION OF DATA SET VARIABLES
RETRIEVAL
DATA SOURCE PROCESS
County Tax Office
County Tax Maps
County Tax Office
Tax Office Cards;
Deeds
Review White Index)
Cards For Entries
Compare Tax Map
Numbers With Town
Limits and One
Mile Zone Limits
Review White &
Yellow Property
Cards
Copy All Tax
Office Estimates
on Lot Size;
Review Deed
References When
Necessary
PROBLEMS
ENCOUNTERED
Duplicated Cards For
Same Properties
With No Property
Lines Drawn On Tax
Maps, Designation
Into Categories
Difficult
Properties in
Transfer; review
Showed Properties
Changed Ownership
In Months During
Survey
No Mailing Address
Of Property Available
Since All Of Aurora is
on Post Office Boxes.
Some Lot Dimensions
Inaccurately Guessed;
Other Cards Have No
Dimensions; Others
Had No Deed References
(See Review Sheet A).
RESOLUTION
nter All Cards
ncluding Lease/Hold
ut Not Voided Cards
nitial Designation
uessed From Location
f # on Tax Map;
learer Definition And
edesignation Made
fter Properties Mapped.
stablish Date For New
nformation
ped From Survey

TABLE 1
,CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
(6) IRREGULAR LOT
DIMENSIONS
(7) DEED
REFERENCE
(8 ) DATE
(9) TAX VALUE
LAND
(10)BUILDINGS
(11)TOTAL TAX
VALUE
OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION
Any Property Not
Formed By Square
or Rectangle
Deed Which Provides
Most Accurate
Description of
Property
DATA SOURCE
Lot Dimensions
County Register
of Deeds Office
Date of Last Deed County Register
or Deeds With Recent of Deeds Office
Accurate Description
of Parcel
Final Computed Value County Tax Office
Entered on Yellow
Tax Card in Tax
Office
Land + Buildings .Same as Above
RETRIEVAL
PROCESS
Review Question
#5 Data
Research in Deeds
Books; Research
& Copy All Map
Book or Plat
Cabinet References
Same As Question
#7
Review & Note
Values
PROBLEMS
ENCOUNTERED
Adequacy Of Lot
Dimension Infor-
mation
(1)Reference Noted Only
in Parcels Where Stated
on Tax Card or When
Deed Researched.
(2)Adequacy of
Descriptions:
-Distances circumscribed
by adjoining property
lines (No Numbers).
-Points Designated By
Natural Landmarks
Eliminated Over Time.
-Distances Measured In
Other Than Feet or Acres
(3)Reference Noted With
Descriptions in Earlier
Deeds Before or After
Parcel Subdivision or
Additions..
WReference Noted With
Road Names or Numbers
Since Changed.
uplicate Tax Cards
ith New Reviewed Values
alculated
'ION
Determine. Age of
Cards; Enter Newest
Value

TABLE 1 - (CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
(12 ) LAND
CLASSIFICATION
(13) ZONING
(14 ) NON-
CONFORMANCE
(OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION
Code Assigned to
Parcel as Noted in
Land Use Plan
Update, 1981
Code Assigned to
Parcel as Noted
on Official
Aurora Zoning
Map, 1977 as
Amended
(1)Current Use of
Property Not
Permitted Under
Zoning Regulations;
Use Allowed Thru
Grandfather Clause.
(2)Lot too Small
(Square Footage)
For Current Use.
(3)Parcel Located
in Whole or Part
in Flood Hazard
Area (Zone A.
Map 11-01, May,
1974 ) .
(4)Property Fails
to Meet Minimum
Property Standards
for Structural
Conditions, Basic
Equipment and
Facilities,
Ventilation Safety
and Sanitary
Maintenance.
TATA enimnV
Aerial Photographs
With Tax Office
Parcel Numbers
Located; Classifi-
cation Designations
Approximated on to
Aerials.
Same as #12
(1)Zoning Map &
Schedule of
Permitted Uses
By District -
Town Ordinances.
(2)Lot Dimensions
From Question #5
Compared to
Minimum Lot Size
in Ordinance Book.
(3)Flood Hazard
Area Map (Zone A,
Map H-01, May,
1974). Federal
Insurance Agency.
(4)Town Code of
Ordinances, Part
9, Chapter 2,
Article H.
RETRIEVAL
PROCESS
(1)Locate Parcel
By Number.
(2)Compare Location
to Land Classifica-
tion Map.
(3)Assign Appropri-
ate Code.
Same as #12 but
Using Zoning Map
(1)Comparison of
Current Use to
Schedule.
(2)
(3)Locate Parcel
on Aerial Map and
Compare With Flood
Insurance Map.
(4)Visual Inspection
of Parcel With
Structures.
1)Uncertain Locati
f Parcels and
roperty Lines.
2)Lack of Accuracy
n Land Classifica-
tion Map.
as #12
2)Inaccuracy of
of Sizes.
(4)Difficulty of
Evaluation Without
Formal Inspection.
ION
Estimate Location And
ppropriate Land
lassification.
as #12
(4)Only those parcels
with distinct problems
were noted.

VARIABLE
(15)
ZONING
CHANGES
(16)
SPECIAL USE
PERMIT
(17)
TYPE (OF
SPECIAL USE
PERMIT)
(18) AREAS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERN
TABLE 1
OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION DATA SOURCE
Formal Zoning Zoning Map and
Amendments Town Board Minutes
Approved Since
1977 by Town
Board
Formal Permit Town Permit File
Issued By Town
to Parcel Owner
Type of Permit Town Permit File
Granted in
Accordance With
Code of Ordinances,
Part 9, Chapter 4,
Article G.
Parcels Contained Town Planning Map
in Part or Whole Defining Areas of
in AEC's as Defined Environmental
in Aurora Land Use Concern Coastal
Plan as Defined By. Wetlands at
Coastal Resources Estuarine Shore
Commission. lines
0 - No Town Water Town of Aurora
1 - Town Water Water Line Map
Line Runs Along Prepared by Rivers
Property Line of & Associates 1965,
Parcel 1977 and Rose,
2 - Town Water Pridgen and Freemon
Line Available But 1978.
Not Necessarily At
Property Line
(Distance Not To
Exceed Feet
Along Existing
or Dedicated
Thoroughfare.
(CONTINUED)
RETRIEVAL
PROCESS
Review Map and
Minutes With
Property
Description
Noted
Review File With
Property Descrip
tion Noted.
!Review File
Compare Parcel
Lines With
Utility Map
.-cels Located
"f Of" Highway/
-eet
If Parcel Located in
Land Classified As
Developed in
Question #12, Respond
YES; if Parcel Located
in Land Classified Any
Other Than Developed,
Respond NO.

TABLE 1 - (CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
(20) TOWN SEWAGE
(21) STREET
ACCESS
(22) PARCEL USE
OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION
0 - No Town
Sewage Available
1 - Town Sewer
Line Runs Along
A Property Line
of Parcel
2 - Town Sewer
Line Available
But Not Necessarily
At Property Line
(Distance Not To
Exceed The Maximum
Length of Projectio
of Existing Lines
Based Upon Recorded
Inverts on Maps
Presence of an
Existing or
Dedicated Street
or State Road
Within or Adjacent
to Property Line.
10 - Residential =
Structure Located Or
Parcel Used For
Residence.
11 - Trailer =
Trailer Located on
Parcel Used For
Residence.
12 - Multi -Family =
Structure Located or
Parcel Used for
Residence for More
Than One Family.
13 - Storage/Garage
Structure Located
Parcel Used For
SOURCE
Town of Aurora
Sewer Line Map
Prepared By Rivers
and Associates
1965, 1977 and
Rose, Pridgen and
Freemon, 1978
down Street Map and
itate Road Map
to Visit To Parcel
IEVAL
mpare Parcel
nes With
.ility Map
mpare Parcel
th Street
d Road Maps
Windshield Tour
In Car
PROBLEMS
ENCOUNTERED
Parcels Located
"Off of" Highway,
Street
Parcels Located
on Undedicated
Lanes.
Abandoned or
Vacant
Structures
RESOLUTION
If Parcel Located in
Land Classified As
Developed in Question
#12, Respond YES; if
Parcel Located in Land
Classified Any Other
Than Developed, Respond
NO.
If right of _way for
lanes seems assumed
(i.e., more than one
residence located on
lane), answer UNPAVED;
if only access is by
Farm Road Through
Another Owner's Parcel,
answer NO.
Listed Under Previous
Use

TABLE 1 - (Cl
OPERATIONAL )ATA
j VARIABLE DEFINITION SOURCE
(22) PARCEL USE Storage or Garage
(CONT.) and Associated
With Residential
Use.
20 - Commercial =
Structure Located
on Parcel Used For
Commercial Purposes.
21 Commercial Vacant =
Structure Located on
Parcel Previously Used
for Commercial Purpose
but Now Vacant.
30 Industrial =
Structure Located on
Parcel Used in
Industrial Production.
40 - Agricultural =
Parcel in Part or Whole
Used in Agricultural
Production; includes
any Farm Buildings or
Equipment Storage.
50 - Vacant (See Below)
51 - Cleared = Parcel
Clear of All Structures
but Not in Agricultural
Production or Heavily
Timbered.
52 - Forested = Parcel
covered Primarily by
Timber.
60 - Public = Parcel
Owned by Governmental
Agency and Used for
Public Purpose.
61 - Church = Structure
on Parcel Used as Church.
62 - Fraternal Organiza-
tion = Structure on
Parcel Used for Semi -Public
Purpose.

TABLE_ 1 (CONTINUED)
VARIABLE
(23) STANDARD
STRUCTURE ON
PARCEL
(24) AVAILABILITY
FOR SALE
OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION
Location of a
Structure on
Property
YES = Sign of
Availability Noted
on Property.
NO = All Others.
RETRIEVAL
DATA SOURCE PROCESS
Building Value on Site Visit
Tax Card
Site Visit
And Visit
To Realtors
I Site Visit
PROBLEMS
ENCOUNTERED
Subjectivity of
Evaluation of
"Standard"
Structure
j RESOLUTION

As a preliminary test Town staff reviewed.the Abstract and Transfer books
at the Beaufort County Tax Office in late January, 1983 Though not
totally complete, most.1982 property transfers were listed. This informa-
tion was used to correct ownership on the original Town data collection
instrument. A difficulty arose in using the same format for the properties
in the one mile planning zone since these were listed in the Richland
Township Abstract and Transfer books. In order to update information on
the parcels in the one mile planning zone Town staff hadto review the
property identification index cards at the Tax Office to determine a change
in ownership. It was recommended.by.the Tax Office Supervisor that the
updating process take place in July because all transfer information from
the previous year would be completed by that time.
One final problem should be mentioned. The computer consultant was
contracted in August, 1982 to develop the programming statements .and
computer manual for this project. His assistance was required in assuring
that the programming statements produced the information necessary for
Town planning purposes. Because of the difficulty in extracting information
on many parcels from old deeds which had to be researched, the target dead-
line of September 30 was not met by Town staff to give the completed data
deck to the consultant. In November the consultant moved away from the area
and corrections to programming statements had to be made via long distance
telephone conversations. This problem was further accentuated by the fact
that all changes.in computer cards and the data deck had to be completed in
Greenville, forty-two miles from Aurora. A large amount of funds shown in
the budget (p.29)dedicated to travel is a direct result of the number of
visits that were necessary to make to Greenville to update data cards and
-39-

to correct errors in the computer run. The ideal solution to this problem
of course would be for the Town to procure its own computer equipment.
This would have reduced travel costs, but insufficient funds were provided
through the grant or available in the Town for this purpose.
On the whole, the four problems encountered in the project did not
seriously compromise the ability of the Town to meet the objectives stated
earlier in this report. The exceptional level of cooperation by the
Regional Development Institute, NRCD, local large landholders, and Town
Planning Commission members facilitated the completion of the project.
-40-

SUMMARY AND CON CLU�IO'VS
The success of the Base Mapping and Land Use Information Project
in the long term will be contingent upon a continuous updating process.
Though parcel changes are infrequent (less than 1% transferred
during 1982)old information in this case is useless information.
Keeping up with the changes will not be time-consuming; the 1982
transfer update obtained through the Beaufort County Tax Office
consumed less than one full working day.
Another aspect of keeping information current has to do with a
strict monitoring of local changes - zoning amendments, changes in
parcel use, public services expansions (water, sewer and streets)
and others. Obviously the level of awareness or regimented approach
to updating data is correlated to the usefulness of the end results
to the Town Board of Commissioners.
The utility of the project as a CAIA demonstrationhas two specific
aspects. First, any small coastal community can take the computer
program that was written for the project, adapt it to local community
data needs, and thoroughly improve its local planning capacity, trace
long and short term trends and apply data to critical planning decisions.
Second, the replicability of the mapping element is questionable
because of the unique situations found in each community. Some of
these influential characteristics include the sophistication of the
county tax maps, timeliness of the County system for updating transfers
and land subdivisions, the availibility of local talent to research
or guess at parcel boundaries and the total size of the municipal
-41-

area and number of parcels involved.
In summary, this project even during its researching phase has
proven useful for short term planning data needs such as'billings
to property owners for street paving costs and the identification of
parcel owners for a Town -wide property clean-up campaign. The
project will force the Town to reconsider information used in
developing the 1976 and 1981 Land Use Plans. This will have long-.
term impacts on reviewing development standards and patterns, future
annexation and public utility expansion decisions and the internal
sense of efficacy that good hard information can provide to a Twon
in confidently pursuing its future.
-42-

KEY SHEET
1.
DATE: -
-
8 2
2.
PARCEL NUMBER FROM
TAX MAP: -
MAP NUMBER
3.
TOWN NUMBER:
(Either
0 - In Town
1 - One Mile Area
2 - Both in Town and One Mile Area
3'- Both in One Mile Area and Out of Area)
4.
OWNERSHIP:
MAILING ADDRESS OF
OWNER:
-
MAILING ADDRESS OF
STRUCTURE:
5.
LOT DIMENSIONS:
Ft. X
LENGTH
WIDTH TOTAL LOTSIZE
6.
IRREGULAR: (0
- NO
1
- YES)
9
- UNKNOWN
7.
DEED REFERENCE:
-
BOOK
PAGE
8.
DATE: -
-
9.
TAX VALUE: LAND:
$
10.
BUILDINGS: $
11.
TOTAL TAX VALUE:
$
12.
LAND CLASSIFICATION:
1
=Developed
2
= Transition
3
= Rural
4
= Rural -Agriculture
5
= Conservation
6
= Combination of Any of Above
9
= Unknown
13.
ZONING:
1
= Residential
2
= Downtown
3
= Community Business
4
= Community Facilities
5
= Rural
6
= Conservation
7
= Combination of Any of Above
9
,
= Unknown

14.
NON CONFORMANCE
U =
None
"
1
Zoning Use
2-=
Lot size
3 =
Structural - Flood Prone Area
4 =
Structural - Minimum Housing Standards
5 =
Structural - Other
9 =
Not Applicable
15.
ZONING CHANGES
0 =
No
1=Yes
2 =
Pending
3 =
More Than One Change
15.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
0 =
No
1 =
Yes
2 =
Pending
16:
TYPE OF PERMMIT
0 =
None
1 =
Earth Products
2 =
Food Processing
3 =
Textile Manufacture
4 =
Clothing :Manufacture
5 =
Petroleum Storage
6 =
Business and Professional Office
7 =
Multiple Family Dwelling
8 =
Boat Launching, Storage and Docking
18.
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
O=No
1 =
Yes
19.
TOWN WATER
0 =
None
1 =
Available to Property Line
2 =
Available but not to Property Line
20.
TOT -IN SEWAGE
0 =
None
1 =
Available to Property Line
2 =
Available but not to Property Line
21.
STREET ACCESS
0 =
None
1 =
Paved
2 =
Unpaved
3
Dedicated
22.
PARCEL USE (three variables)
CURRENT PRIMARY USE
CURRENT SECONDARY USE
PREVIOUS USE
10 =
Residential
11 =
Trailer
12 =
Multiple Family Dwelling
13 =
Residential Storage or Garage
20 =
Commercial
30 =
Industrial
40 =
Agricultural

22. PARCEL USE (continued) 50 = Vacant
51 = Cleared Land
52 = Forested
60 = Public Use
61 Church
62 = Fraternal Organization
23. STANDARD STRUCTURE ON PARCEL 0 = No
1 = Yes
9 = Not Applicable
24. AVAILABILITY FOR SALE 0 = No
1 = Yes
9 = Unknown
25. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE 014 PARCEL
Town.of Aurora '
Base Mapping and Land Use Information Project
1983

TOWN OF AURORA - I..1ND USE INFOMATION SYSTEAi
8 2
14. ,
2.
-
15.
3.
16.
4.
OINMERSHIP
5.
X =
6.
17.
7.
8.
- -
19.
9.
$_'0.
10.
$
21.
11.
$
22.
12.
23.
13.
24.
TOWN OF AURORA - LAND USE INFOR:IATION SYSTM
1. - - 8 2 14. ,
2. - 15.
3. 16.
4. OWNERSHIP:
5. X
6.
7.
-
8.
- -
9.
$
10.
$
11.
$
12.
-13.
17.
1S.
19.
20.
21.
22• >
23.
24.

LAND USE INVENTORY PROJECT
KEY SHEET FOR UNUSUAL PARCEL NUMBERS FROM COMPUTER PRINT-OUT
Parcel Number
Parcel Number
on Print -Out
on Town Map
AU1- 27X
AUl-127A
- 32X
-132E/H
- 32Y
-132A
- 4E1,
-142L/H
- 421
-042
- 43X
-143A
AU2- 59X
AU2-59A
-592
-59A1
-70L
-70L/H
-701
-70L/H
AU3-02L
AU3-02L/H
-02L
-02L/H
-lox
-10A
-l0Y
-10B
AU4-15X
kU4-15A
-16Y
-16A
AU5-03X
AU5-03A
-40X
-40A
-50X
-50A
-62X
-62A
AU6-09X
AU6-09A
AU7-02X
AU7-02A
-02Y
-02B
Parcel Number
Parcel Number,
on Print -Out
on Town Map
L18-OOX
L18-100A
-02X
-102A
-lox
-100A
-26L
-26L/H
-3LH
-03L/H
-72X
-072A
-75X
-075A
-84X
-084A
L19-024K
L19-102A
-02X
-102B
-02X
-102C
-02X
-102D
-02X
-102E
-02X
-102F
-64X
-64A
-71X
-71A
-78X
-78A
-89X
-89A
-92X
-92A
-92Y
-92B
M15-67L
M15-67L/H
M16-03X
M16-03A
-12X
-12A
-48X
-48A
-52X
-52A
-72X
-72A
-73X
-73A
-73Y
-73B

Shirley Nanney
Webster Walker
C
11
d
ANNEXATION STUDY
n
rA
k
PREPARED FOR THE
"'
¢
TOWN OF AURORA, NORTH CAROLINA�
Q
z
1993
4M
µ,
a
o
�
CD
O
Grace H. Bonner, Mayor
i
j
Town Council
Sandra S. Bonner, Town Clerk
Technical Assistance by:
The Mid -East Commission
PO Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Project Staff
Robert J. Paciocco, Executive Director
Mark M. Johnson, Regional Planner
Etles Henries, Jr.
Ben Williamson

I. INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina General Assembly has declared that, as a matter of State policy, sound urban
development is essential to the continued economic development of North Carolina. Municipal officials have
been charged with the responsibility and opportunity of implementing this policy. One important aspect of
implementation is the initiation of planning activities to help guide future growth and development. For the.
past several years the elected officials for the Town of Aurora have actively supported planning activities. They
also have recognized that an annexation study is another element of the overall planning process and may be
a valuable tool that can be used to assist the orderly growth and development of Aurora.
The objective of this annexation study is to evaluate areas adjacent to Aurora to determine if it meets
the legal criteria of eligibility for annexation.
There are advantages to the Town of Aurora and to property owners who may be eligible for
annexation. The major advantages to the Town include increased tax base, increased revenues, and a larger
population. The increased tax base includes both personal and realproperty, thus increasing the Town's total
evaluation. The effect is that the debt limit can be increased, enabling the Town to expand and improve its
services and facilities. Increased revenues would accrue to the Town from the property taxes paid to the Town.
This is generally the largest source of new revenue if an area is annexed. Other sources of revenue would
include license fees and revenue from water and sewer service. The advantages of an increased population
is that the Town may become more desirable for commercial and industrial expansion. The increase in
population may help support new levels of community services and may aid the Town in applying for and
receiving federal and state grants.
Property owners may also receive benefits through the annexation process. Areas which do not have
sewer and water systems will, within a reasonable time, be provided these services. Property owners will be
able to take advantage of the garbage collection disposal program. In addition, property owners will obviously
be afforded the opportunity to directly participate in the decision -making process by voting.
As stated previously, it is the intent of this study to determine whether or not the proposed area of
annexation meets the statutory requirements of the State of North Carolina and to determine the costs and
revenues that may be expected if the area is annexed. The study is presented in six (6) divisions:
I.
Introduction
H.
Uniform Legislative Standards
III.
Mechanics of Annexation
IV.
Extension of Services
V.
The Proposed Annexation Areas
VI.
Cod/Benefit Analysis
The laws of North Carolina provide for four (4) ways for a municipality to expand its boundaries
through the annexation process. These methods are: (1) a local act passed by the General Assembly; (2) by
petition of one hundred percent (100%) of the property owners of an area immediately adjacent to the
municipality, (3) through the uniform legislative standards set forth in the General Statutes, and (4) by
"satellite" annexation of non-contiguous areas.
The procedure associated with the local act process requires the municipality to adopt an annexation
resolution. The resolution is then forwarded to their state legislative representative who, in turn, introduces
qn &4 Annexation Act into the General Assembly. The General Assembly then acts upon the request. If
approval is granted, the Act may or may not provide for the provision of municipal services

F4
to the annexed area. The Act may, however, fix other special requirements such as the effective date of
annexation or other types of clauses including local approval be referendum. The General Assembly has
become reluctant to enact this type of legislation, primarily due to the availability of uniform legislative
standards for annexation and the increasingly heavy workload of the legislature.
The second method of annexation by petition, authorizes a municipality to annex by ordinance areas
that are contiguous to the corporate limits. This procedure may occur only upon receipt of a petition signed
by all real property owners within the potential area. The procedure also requires that a public hearing be
held. The purpose of the hearing is to determine the adequacy of the petition and allows the governing body
to then take action. Annexation by petition may become effective anytime within a six month period from the
date of adoption of the local ordinance.
This third method of annexation incorporates the uniform legislative standards as established in the
General Statutes. This is the normal procedure utilized by municipalities for annexation. This method will be
completely detailed below.
The final procedure is that utilized in allowing municipalities to annex non-contiguous satellite areas.
This method also requires a petition signed by all the real property owners of the proposed annexation arts.
This method allows for the annexation of land areas which are not contiguous to the municipality such as a
subdivision which requires municipal services, such as sewer and water.
II. UNIFORM LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS
The Uniform Legislative Standards, GS.160A-35, require that prior to a municipality annexin tracts
of lands, that an annexation report be prepared. The annexation report must include the following
information:
1. A map or maps of the municipality and the adjacent territory to show:
a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality.
b. Any proposed extensions of water mains and sewer outfalls to
serve the area to be annexed. This water .and sewer map must
bear the seal of a registered professional engineer or licensed
surveyor.
2. A statement showing that the area meets the standards of GS.160A-36 which are:
Standards the Area Must Meet
a. The area must be adjacent or contiguous to the municipal
boundaries. This means any area which either abuts directly on
the municipal boundary or is separated from the municipal
boundary by a street or street right-of-way, a creek or river, the
right-of-way of a railroad or other public service corporation, or
lands owned by the municipality or some other political
subdivision -of the State of North Carolina.
b. At least one -eighth of the aggregate external boundary of the area
must coincide with the municipal boundary.
C. No part of the area may be within another incorporated
municipality.

d. The area must be developed for urban purposes. An area developed for urban
purposes is defined as any area which is so developed that at least sixty percent
(60%) of the total number of lots and tracts in the area at the time of annexation
are used for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or governmental
purposes, and is subdivided into lots and tracts such that at least sixty percent (60%)
of the total acreage, not counting the acreage used at the time of annexation for
commercial, industrial, governmental or institutional purposes, consists of lots and
tracts five acres or less in size.
3. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to the area to
be annexed each major service performed within the munk:W-:li at *I.-:..:.e Gf
annexation. Specifically, such plans shall.
a. Provide for extending police protection, fire protection, solid waste
collection and street maintenance services to the area to be
annexed on the date of annexation on substantially the same basis
and in the same manner as such services are provided within the
rest of the municipality prior to annexation
b. Provide for extension of water mains and sewer lines into the area
to be annexed so that property owners in the area to be annexed
will be able to secure public water and sewer services according to
the policies in effect in such municipality for extending water and
sewer lines to individual lots or subdivisions.
C. Set forth the method under which the municipality plans to
finance extension of services into the area to be annexed.
4. A statement of the impact of the annexation on any rural fire department proving
services in the area to be annexed and a statement of the impact of the annexation
on fire protection and fire insurance rates in the area to be annexed, if the area
where service is provided is in an insurance district designated under GS.153A-233,
a rural fire protection district under Article 3A of Chapter 69 of the General
Statutes, or a fire service district under Article 16 of. Chapter 153A of the General
Statutes. The rural fire department shall make available to the city not later than
30 days following a written request from the city all information in its possession or
control, including, but not limited to operational, financial and budgetary
information, necessary for preparation of a statement of impact.
III. MECHANICS OF ANNEXATION
In order for a municipality of 5,000 persons or less to "involuntarily" annex (or perform an annexation
according to the uniform legislative standards set forth in the North Carolina General Statutes), a town -AV-SA'
follow a set annexation procedure as set forth in NCGS 16OA-37, as amended. This procedure is described
briefly below.
1. The Resolution of Consideration. In order for a municipality to adopt a resolution
of intent to annex an area as described in Number 2 under this section, it must first
adopt a resolution identifying the area as being under consideration for annexation
at least one year in advance. The resolution of consideration may have a metes and
4

bounds description or a map, shall remain effective for two years after adoption, and
shall be filed with the city clerk.
If the municipality wishes to adopt an annexation ordinance without a prior
resolution oLconsideration in effect to cover that. area to be annexed. it can set the
ordinance's.effective date at least a year from the date the annexation ordinance_ is
Jpaased. .- -
2. Resolution of Intent. Upon completion of an annexation report which indicates
favorable implications for annexation of certain areas, the municipal governing
board shall first pass a resolution stating the intent of the municipality to consider
annexation. Such resolution shall describe the boundaries of the area under
consideration and fit a date for a public hearing on the question of annexation (to
be held not less than forty-five (45) days or more than ninety (90) days following
passage of the resolution).
The annexation report must be on public display for thirty (30) days prior
to the public hearing. In addition, proper mailing and advertising guidelines must
be followed to insure legal notification to all property owners.
3. Public Hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide an opportunity for
the town to explain the finding of the annexation report and for the property owners
of the town and the proposed areas of annexation to respond to the findings of that
report. All persons living or owning property in the area to be annexed, and any
resident of the town must be given an opportunity to express their opinion. Upon
the comments of the general public, and studying the text of the annexation report,
the town board may then take some type of action. The board has three (3)
alternatives: adopt, modify, or reject the annexation report. Any amendments to
the annexation report which are proposed must, however► comply with the statutory
requirements of the State of North Carolina. The action of the board may take
place at a regular or special meeting, held no earlier than ten (10) days and no later
than ninety (90) days following the public hearing. The governing body may adopt
an ordinance annexing the areas described in the report. The ordinance may
include all, or part of, the areas described in the notice of public (tearing which
meets the statutory standards. The governing body.cau make the annexation
effective upon. any date not less than forty (40) days nor more than four hundred
(400) days from the date of passage of the ordinance.
Upon the effective date of annexation, the annexed area, its citizens and
property, shall become subject to the laws, ordinances, regulations, and debts of the
annexing town and are entitled to all the benefits and privileges of the town.
If the governing body has followed the proper procedure, the annexation
can take place despite objections from the property owners of the area. The statutes
do, however, provide for judicial review of the annexation proceedings upon petition
of any one's property in the area.
M

IV. EXTENSION OF SERVICES
The North Carolina General Assembly has stated as a matter of policy that newly annexed areas
should receive the services provided by the annexing municipality as soon as possible following annexation.
These service specifications am as stated in NCGS 16OA-35(3) and are generally described in Section II, part
3 of this study.
This chapter will take each service area listed in the aforementioned specifications and discuss the
current level of service within the city limits and how each service will be provided in the proposed annexed
area. -
POLICE PROTECTION
Aurora has recently employed one full-time police officer after having relied solely on the Beaufort
County Sheriff's Department for the last four years. The Town's police department is located in the Town's
fire and rescue building. Aurora's police department services residents in the city limits.
Radio contact and support assistance is available with the Beaufort County Sheriif's Department and
the North Carolina Highway Patrol. Three Sheriff's Deputies also reside in the Aurora area. In addition,
cooperative and coordinated activities are also maintained with the North Carolina Special Bureau of
Investigation (SBI) and the Alcoholic Control Board (ABC).
It has been indicated that police protection can be extended to the areas under consideration on
substantially the same basis as within the municipality, subsequent to annexation. The only substantial
additional expense should include an increase in gasoline expenses to service newly incorporated areas. This
increase is not a substantial amount and may be provided from unappropriated funds in the budget.
The Aurora Volunteer Fire Department operates separately from the Town and covers all of Richland
Township. Residents of the Township that are outside Aurora's corporate limits pay for the service in their
township tax. Aurora citizens pay only the Town's tax, which is inclusive of this service.
The fire department has forty (40) vohunteers. It also has mutual aid from surrounding areas. Equally
important with firefighting capability is the prevention methods which are prevalent. For example, all public
facilities are inspected on an annual basis or more, depending upon the requirements of the State Insurance
Office. Augmenting the inspection of public facilities, the Town also imposes electrical and building code
enforcement to assure that proper development occurs within the Town.
There are currently thirty-seven (37) fire hydrants in the corporate limits of Aurora and four (4)
outside the limits in the extraterritorial area. The Town's policy concerning hydrants is to provide the hydrant
to a developer at the time new streets and water lines are installed.
The areas that are being considered for annexation are currently provided fire protection by the
Aurora Volunteer Fire Department; therefore, no additional expenditures are anticipated when annexation
occurs. The only expense that can be anticipated is that associated with the provision of fire hydrants for any
new developments that may occur in the proposed area.
GARBAGE COLLECTION
The public works department provides garbage collection only within the town limits of Aurora.
Residential, commercial and industrial areas receive twice -a -week service. It is estimated that the additional
service to the proposed area for annexation should not impose any substantial cost.
6

STREET MAINTENANCE
The Town's policy regarding street paving is that when owners of property requesting a street petition
the Town. the Town Council considers the request and prioritizes each one. The Towels budget pays for forty
percent (40%) of the cos4 while the petitioning property owners pay the remaining sixty percent (M).
Repaving of streets is done on an as needed basis when funding permits. No requirement for sidewalk
installation is imposed.
The proposed areas have no subdivisions. Therefore, additional costs to the Town area not expected
to occur.
WATER AND SEWER
The North Carolina General Statutes require that an annexing municipality provide the same level
of services to the annexed areas as is given inside Town. This is to insure that property owners in the newly
annexed area will be able to secure these services on the same basis as residents of the Town.
The proposed areas of. annexation currently have public water access lines. '
7

SUMMARY OF EXTENSION OF SERVICES
The Town will meet provisions of the General Statutes of North Carolina by
providing all public services that are currently provided in the Town limits to areas proposed
for annexation. The following municipal services will be provided on substantially the same
basis and in the same manner as provided in the Town as of the affective date of
annexation: police protection, refuse collection, and street maintenance. Street lights and
street signs will be provided as soon as possible depending on the availability of materials
and the scheduling of utility crews. Water rates will be adjusted immediately. Construction
of water systems and road improvements if needed will begin as soon as possible, in no case
later than one year after the effective date of annexation.
V. Description Of Study Areas
This report examines seven study areas to determine if they meet annexation
requirements of State Law. Study Area #1 is located at the intersection of SR 1965 and
Hwy 306. The area consists of a total of 21.14 acres. A school and a masonic lodge are
located in the study area as well as several dwellings along SR 1965. It is estimated that
approximately twenty(20) persons reside in this area based on 9 dwelling units with 2.2
persons per dwelling (1990 U.S. Census estimates).
Study Area #2 is located west of Aurora at the intersection of Hwy 306 and Hwy 33.
The area consists of a total of 8.4 acres. There are five commercial establishments located
in the area along both the north and south sides of Hwy 33.
Study Area #3 is located south of Town off of SR 1925 (Idalia Rd.). The area
consists of 16.52 acres, divided into six parcels. Three of the parcels have dwellings on them
while the other three parcels are vacant. It is estimated that approximately seven persons
reside in the area (3 dwellings units with 2.2 persons per dwelling[1990 U.S. Census]).
Study Area #4 is located west of Aurora at the intersection of Hwy 306 and SR
1965. The area consists of a total of 24.7 acres. Eighty-seven percent of the total acreage
is vacant. Study Area 4 is estimated to have a population of twenty (20) persons.
Study Area #5 is located at the intersection of Hwy 306 and Hwy 33. The area
contain a total of 15.18 acres consisting of 14 lots. Commercial and office use account for
13.12 acres.
Study Area #6 is located along SR 1965 where it intersects Hwy 33. Area 6 consists
of 12 lots which total 3.85 acres. The area is estimated to have a population of twenty
persons based on 9 Dwelling units with 2.2 persons per unit (U.S. 1990 Census).
Study Area #7 is located off of SR 1925 (Idelia Rd.). It consists of 10 lots which
total 21.52 acres. The population of this area is estimated to be fifteen persons based on
7 dwelling units with 2.2 persons per unit (U.S. 1990 Census).

ASSESSMENT OF STUDY AREAS
Table 1: Study Area #1
Tax #
Parcel
Name Use
Acreage
Zoning
Value
N-18
A-3
Texas Gulf Rec.
5.57
C-F
Exempt
N-18-106
A4
Brd. of Ed. Inst.
11.71
C-F
Exempt
N-18-102
B-5
Charity Adams Res.
.103
R-U
1,490
N-18-103
B-6
Susie Spieght Res.
.103
R-U
9,020
N-18-104
B-7
Nina Spieght Res.
.103
R-U
5,550
N-18-104
B-8
Green Swinson Res.
.103
R-U
7,950
N-18-101
B-9
Inez Clark Res.
.10
R-U
2,000
N-18-100
B-10
John Williams Res.
.3
R-U
20,560
N-18-95
B-11
Lula Merritt Res.
.3
R-U
20,590
N-18-96
B-12
Masonic Lodge Inst.
1.7
C-B
49,300
N-18-
B-13
Harold Cooper
.103
R-U
10,500
N-18-94
B-14
Harold Cooper Vac.
.8
R-U
4,000
N-18-97
B-15
Barbara Blue Vac.
.8
R-U
4,000
`SUMMARY FOR STUDY AREA #1
Aggregate Boundary = 4,851 ft.
Boundary coincide with Town = 1,310 ft.
Total No. Of Lots Dev. Vacant % Developed
13 11 2 84%
Total No. Acres Res. Inst. Vacant
21.14 1.31 18.98 1.6
Vacant/Res. acreage = 2.91
Vacant/Res. lots 5 acres or less acreage = 2.91

Approximately 27% of study area #1 boundary coincides with the municipal boundary,
which is well over the 12.5% required by General Statutes. EIeven of the thirteen lots in
the study area are considered developed, which makes it 84% developed. General Statutes
only require 60% of proposed annexation area to be developed. Vacant and residential lots
five acres or less make up 100% of the total vacant and residential acreage. General
Statutes require that vacant and residential lots five acres or less make at least 60% of the
total vacant and residential acreage. This _area meets all annexation requirements and
therefore can be annexed.
Table #2 Study Area 2
Tax #
Parcel
Name
Use
Acreage
Zoning
Value
N-18-91
B-17
W.B.
Warehouse
1.00
C-B
76,560
Thompson
N-18-90
B-18
W.B.
Comm.
1.25
C-B
12,000
Thompson
N-18-159
B-19
Hal Potter
Vacant
1.06
C-B
14,000
N-18-76
C-20
Aurora Gas
Vacant
1.00
C-B
10,000
N-18-77
C-21
Aurora Gas
Comm.
.63
C-B
10,200
N-18-78
C-22
Texasgulf
Office
.87
C-B
117,040
N-18-79
C-23
T. Thompson
Office
.29
C-B
33,870
N-18-80
C-24
H. Hollowell
Comm.
1.00
C-B
57,770
N-18-81
C-25
Aurora Ind.
Comm.
.78
C-B
21,490
'SUMMARY FOR STUDY AREA #2
Aggregate Boundary = 3,000 ft.
Boundary Coincide with Town = 520 ft.
Total No. of lots Dev. Vacant % Developed
9 7 2 77.7%
Total acreage Comm. Res. Vacant
8.4ac. 6.34 0 2.06
Res./Vacant lots acreage = 2.06 ac.
Res./Vacant lots acreage 5 ac. or less = 2.06 ac.

Approximately 17.2% of study area #2 boundary coincides with the municipal boundary,
which is over the 12.5% required by General Statutes. Seven of the nine lots in the study
area are considered developed, which makes it 77.7% developed. General Statutes only
require 60% of annex area to be developed. Vacant and residential lots five acres or less
account for all vacant and residential lots in the study area (100%). General Statutes only
require vacant and residential lots five acres or less to make up 60% of total vacant and
residential acreage. This area qualify under the General Statutes for annexation.
Table #3 Study Area 3
Tax #
Parcel
Name
Use
Acres
Zoning
Value
0-17-1
A-1
John Hooker
Res.
2.00
R-U
85,250
0-17-5
A 2
John Hooker
Vac.
6.98
R-U
5,584
0-17-6
B
C. McDonald
Res.
1.00
R-U
68,630
0-17-112
C
John Hooker
Vac.
1.00
R-U
2,000
0-17-113
D-1
John Hooker
Vac.
1.00
R-U
2,000
0-17-14
D
James Tyndall
Res.
1.06
R-U
77,160
' SUMMARY FOR STUDY AREA #3
Total aggregate boundary = 3,600 ft.
Boundary coincides with Town = 1,800 ft.
Total No. Of Lots # Res. # Vacant % Developed
6 3 3 50%
Total acreage Res. ac. Vacant ac.
16.52 4.06 8.98
Total Res./Vac. acreage--Res./Vac. 5 ac. or less
12.74 6.06
Approximately 50% of the study area #3 boundary coincides with the municipal boundary,
which is well over the 12.5% required by law. Only three of the six lots in the study area
are considered developed, which makes it 50% developed. General Statutes however
require 60% of a annexation area to be developed. Only 47% of the total residential and
vacant acreage consist of.lots five acres or less. General Statutes require residential and
vacant lots 5 acres or less to make up at least 60% of the total residential and vacant
acreage. The development requirement and the residential and vacant lot requirement
disqualify Study Area #3 from annexation consideration.

TABLE #4 STUDY AREA 4
Tax #
Parcel
Name
Use
Acres
Zoning
Value
N-18-102
B-5
C. Adams
Res.
.103
R-U
1,490
N-18-103
B-6
S. Speight
Res.
.103
R-U
9,020
N-18-104
B-7
N. Speight
Res.
.103
R-U
5,550
N-18-105
B-8
G. Swinson
Res.
.103
R-U
7,950
N-18-101
B-9
Inez Clark
Res.
.100
R-U
2,000
N-18-100
B-10
J. Williams
Res.
3
R-U
20,560
N-18-95
B-11
L. Merritt
Res.
.3
R-U
20,590
N-18-96
B-12
Lodge
Iast.
1.7
C-B
49,300
N-18-93
B-13
H. Cooper
Res.
.103
R-U
10,500
N-18-94
B-14
H. Cooper
Vac.
.103
R-U
1,000
N-18-97
B-15
B. Blue
Vac.
.8
R-U
4,000
N-18-92
B-16
B. Blue
Vac.
20.00
R-U
13,800
"SUMMARY OF STUDY AREA 4
Aggregate Boundary = 3,740 ft.
Coincides with Town = 1,060 ft.
Total No. Lots Dev. Lots Vacant % Developed
13 '10 3 76.9%
Total Acreage Res. Vacant Comm. Inst.
24.7 1.37 21.6 0 1.73
Total Res./Vacant acreage = 22.97
Res./Vacant lots 5 acres or less = 2.23
Approximately 28% of study area #4 boundary coincides with the municipal boundary,
which is well over the 12.5% required. Ten of the thirteen lots are considered developed,
which makes the area 76.9 % developed. General Statutes only require 60% of the lots in
the annexation area to be developed. Vacant and residential lots five acres or less make
up 10% of the total vacant/residential acreage. Because the vacant and residential lots five
acres or less do not account for at least 60% of total vacant/residential acreage the area
does not qualify under the General Statutes guidelines for annexation.

Table #5 Study Area 5
Tax #
Parcel
Name
Use
Acres
Zoning
Value
N-18-91
B-17
W. Thompson
Warehouse
1.00
C-B
76,560
N-18-90
B-18
W. Thompson
Comm.
1.25
C-B
12,000
N-18-159
B-19
H. Potter
Vacant
1.00
C-B
14,000
N-18-76
C-20
Aurora Gas
Vacant
1.00
C-B
10,000
N-18-77
C-21
Aurora Gas
Comm.
.63
C-B
10,200
N-18-78
C-22
Texasgulf
Office
.87
C-B
117,040
N-18-79
C-23
T. Thompson
Office
.29
C-B
33,870
N-18-80
C-24
H. Hooker
Comm.
1.00
C-B
57,770
N-18-81
C-25
Aurora Ind.
Comm.
.78
C-B
21,490
N-18-82
C-26
H. Hooker
Warehouse
3.28
C-B
119,600
_ N-18-85
C-28
Town Aurora
Insti.
N/A
C-B
1,000
N-18-75A
C-29
Joe Hollowell
Comm.
.5
C-B
5,000
N-18-83
C-30
Joe Hollowell
Comm.
1.00
C-B
55,370
N-18-84
C-31
A.C. Potter
Comm.
2.00
C-B
16,000 - - - --
'SUMMARY OF STUDY AREA 5
Aggregate Boundary = 4,800 ft.
Boundary Coincides with municipal boundary = 500 ft.
Total no. of lots Comm. Vacant % Developed
14 12 2 85.7%
Total Acreage Comm. Acreage Vacant Acreage
15.18 13.12 2.06
Vacant/Res. acreage = 2.06
Vacant/Res. acreage 5 acres or less = 2.06

Approximately 10.4% of study area #5 boundary coincides with the municipal boundary,
which is just below the 12.5% required by law. Twelve of the fourteen lots are considered
developed, which makes 85.7% of the lots developed. General Statutes require only 60%
of the lots to be developed. 100% of vacant and residential acreage consist of lots five acres
or less. This area can not meet the boundary requirement and therefore must be
disqualified from consideration.
Table #6 Study Area 6
Tax #
Parcel
Name
Use
Acreage
Zoning
Value
N-18-102
B-5
C. Adams
Res.
.103
R-U
1,490
N-18-103
B-6
S. Speight
Res.
.103
R-U
9,020
N-18-104
B-7
Nina Speight
Res.
.103
R-U
5,550
N-18-105
B-8
G. Swinson
Res.
.103
R-U
7,950
N-18-101
B-9
Inez Clark
Res.
.1
R-U
2,000
- N-18-100
B-10
J. Williams
Res.
.3
R-U
20,560
N-18-95
B-11
Lula Merritt
Res.
3
R-U
20,590
N-18-96
B-12
Lodge
Inst.
1.7
C-B
49,300
N-18-97
B-15
B. Blue
Vacant
.8
R-U
4,000
N-18-93
B-13
H. Cooper
Res.
.103
R-U
10,500
N-18-94
B-14
H. Cooper
Res.
.103
R-U
1,000
*SUMMARY FOR STUDY AREA 6
Total aggregate boundary = 2,389 ft.
Boundary coincides with municipal boundary = 00 ft.
Total no. lots No. Dev. No. Vacant
% Dev.
12 10 2
83%
Total Acreage Inst. Res.
Vacant
3.85 1.7 1.3
.85
Res./vacant acreage = 2.15
Res./vacant acreage 5 acres or less = 2.15

Beaufort County tax maps show that this area does not share any of its boundary with the
municipal boundary. Study area #6 must be disqualified from annexation consideration.
Table #7 Study Area 7
Tax # Parcel
Name
Use
Acres
Zoning
Value
0-17-1
J. Hooker
Res.
2
R-U
85,250
0-17-5
J. Hooker
Vacant
6.98
R-U
5,584
0-17-6
C. McDonald
Res.
1
R-U
68,630
0-17-112
J. Hooker
Vacant
1
R-U
2,000
0-17-113
J. Hooker
Vacant
1
R-U
2,000
0-17-114
J. Tyndall
Res.
1.06
R-U
77,000
6556.08-99-9619
A. McMicken
Res.
.95
R-U
31,560
6556.08-99-9520
C. Cannon
Res.
.77
R-U
22,250
6556.08-99-9228
C. Adams
Res.
.73
R-U
31,196
6556.08-98-9835
J. Ham
Res.
3.02
R-U
30,210
6556.08-98-9444
C. Peed
Res.
.47
R-U
22,800
SUMMARY OF STUDY AREA 7
Total aggregate boundary = 4,571 ft.
Boundary coincide with municipal boundary = 2,995 ft.
Total no. of lots Res. lots Vacant % Dev.
10 7 3 70%
Total Acreage Res. Vacant
21.52 7.54 13.98
Res./Vacant acreage = 21.52
Res./Vacant 5 acres or less = 9.55
Because vacant and residential lots five acres or less account for only 44% of the total
res./vacant acreage, this area do not meet the requirements for annexation.

Study Area Meeting Statutory Standards
Only study areas one and two meet the statutory standards for annexation under G.
S. 160A-36. The other five areas do not qualify for involuntary annexation and therefore
will not be discussed further in this report. The following two statements are official
statements by the Town that Study Area #1 and Study Area #2 meet State Statutory
Standards.
1.) Study Area #1
The area meets the Statutory Standards for annexation outlined in G. S.160A-36
as follows:
a.) The area is adjacent to municipality's boundary.
b.) The aggregate external boundary line for the area is 4,851 feet, of which
1,310 feet coincides with the municipal boundary, as shown on the map
included herein marked Map 1. Therefore, at least one eighth of the
aggregate external boundary of the area coincide with the municipal
boundary.(27%)
c.) No part of the area is included within the boundary of -another incorporated
municipality.
d.) The area is developed for urban purposes in that 85.7% of the total number
of lots and tracts in said area are used for residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional or governmental purposes.
e.) 100% of the total residential and vacant acreage consist of lots and tracts
five acres or less in size.
f.) Wherever practical new boundaries were drawn along natural topographic - -- -
features and streets.
2.) Study Area #2
The area meets the Statutory Standards for annexation outlined in G.S. 160A-36
as follows:
a.) The area is adjacent to municipality's boundary.
b.) The aggregate external boundary for the area is 3,000 feet, of which 520 feet
coincides with the municipal boundary, as shown on the map - included
herein marked Map 2. Therefore, at least one eighth of the aggregate
external boundary of the area coincides with the municipal boundary.
(17.2%)
c.) No part of the area is included within the boundary of another incorporated
municipality.
d.) The area is developed for urban purposes in that 77.7% of the total number
of lots and tracts in said area are used for residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional or governmental purposes.

e.) One Hundred percent of the total residential and vacant acreage consist of
lots and tracts five acres or less in size.
f.) Wherever practical new boundaries were drawn along natural topographic
features and street.
IV COST -BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Annexation of Study Area 1 and 2 will involve a minimum of additional municipal
expenditure. The Town will assume the responsibility for providing public services in these
areas. Generally these costs will be on -going operating expenses and will not prove to be
a financial hardship to the Town. Local officials report that the Town can provide police
protection, fire protection, street maintenance, refuse collection and administrative services
to residents of the Study Area without hiring additional personnel. No additional
equipment (police vehicles, sanitation trucks, etc.) will be necessary to service the areas
proposed for annexation. The cost of annexation can be offset by additional property and
sales tax revenues of the two study areas. Revenue sources will vary from year to year;
however, projections can be made based on past revenue and expenditure levels.
Study Area 1
Estimated Cost Of Annexation
Service Additional Expense Funding
Cost Category Source
Police 0 -
Fire 0 - -
Street lights $491.52 (4) Operating General Fund
Street Maintenance 0 - State System
Street Signs 0 - -
Refuse Collection $648.00 Operating Fee
Water
Improvements 0 - -
Water Revenue
Loss $807.84 Operating -
Total $1,947.36

* Cost estimated for refuse collection is determined by multiplying the estimated number
of dwelling units by $6.00.
* "Water revenue loss" is determined by taking the difference in double rate and regular
rates and multiplying by the number of dwelling units in annexation area.
Study Area 1
Estimated Revenues From Annexation
IIIV
Source
Revenue ($)
Property Tax
607.32
Powell Bill Funds
0.00
Beer and Wine Tax
95.00
ABC Tax
1.57
Sales and Use
57.00
Refuse Collection Fee
648.00
Utility Franchise
495.20
Cable Franchise (4%)
101.00
Total $2,005.09
* Revenue estimated by dividing Town's revenue by total population and multiplying by
number of persons in study area.

Study Area 2
Estimated
Cost of Annexation
Service
Additional
Expense
Funding
Cost
Category
Source
Police
0
"
Fire
0
-
-
Street Lights
$737.28(6)
Operating
General Fund
Street Maintenance State
-
State Funds
Street Signs
0
Capital
General Fund
Refuse Collection
3,082.80
Operating
Refuse Fee
Water
Improvements
0
Water revenue
loss
628.32
Operating
-
Total
$4,448.40

Source
Property Tax
Powell Bill Funds
Beer and Wine Tax
ABC Tax
Sales and Use
Utility Franchise
Cable Franchise
. Study Area 2
Estimated Revenues From Annexation
Revenue ($)
$1,588.19
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total $1,588.19
* There are not any dwelling units in this annexation area, therefore population projections
can not be determined.

Map #1
k2
BLOCK E„
50 1 51 1 52 I 53-57
35
G
BLOCK D
34 I 33
0
4
a & v
10
u
3
32
19
1a 17
31 30 26 25
24 =� ??
29 27 21 20
PL0C,K C
IN
II STUDY #1
i

Map #1a
AliRORA MNEMrlon
VICINITY MAP FOR STtMV nnn.

Map #2.
0
It
2
I � BLOCK -f:52
--I n 83--57
„ Ilf
11 110 198765i
� xu
48 35
45-47 45 G
36
44
43 37 BLOCK D
39 38 15 do 16
40-42
34 33
32
19
is 17
31 30 26 25
24
29 27 22 21 20
STUDY #2 BLOCK C

Map #2a
ALRORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP FOR STUDY AREA #• 2

w
STbDY #3
Map #3
A
C I D D"

Map #3a
ALRORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP FOR STUDY AREA _

Map #4 ,
►J
e
BLOCK . E 58
50 51 n52 53-57
0
2
4 I 3
/ 11 10I98765['
i
$ xu
35
r
36 a
BLOCK D
15dov
r---_ I
34 I 33
3I 11.z- 1 18 I n
31 30 26 25 �
24 23 22 21
29 27 20
BUCK C
STUDY #4

Map #4a
AURORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP FOR STUDY AREA � �

Map #5
BLOCK -E...
50 1 51 1 52 I 53-57
35
G
BLOCK D
- I BI
4 .1 3
11 1101987651
!
a & v
34 33
32
f!
1e n
31 30 26 25
24 � 22
21 20
somas Esau
BLOCK C

Map #5a
AURORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP FOR STUDY AREA 4� ��-

Map #6
STUDY #6
i
FA
BLOCK Z,58 III I '
w 1 s, 152 1 53rs7
AIL
BLOCK D
34 1 33
0 do v
—� 32
A
n
J1 � 26 25
24 =� 2?
19 27 21 20
BLOCK C
Bi

Map #6a
AURORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP FOR STUDY AREA # C_
' w

A
a
E-+
En

Map Va
AURORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP FOR. STUDY AREA ff 7
t I 4

Map #la
N
AGRORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP
a 119

Map #la
AGRORA ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP FOR STUDY AREA 0 1
N