1997 CAMA Sketch Land Use Plan Update-1998

DCM COPY
•
i
Please do not remove.
Division of Coastal Management Copy
1997 CAMA Sketch Land Use Plan Update
Adopted by the Town: April 13, 1998
Certified by the CRC: May 29, 1998

•r
TOWN OF BATH
CAMA SKETCH LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
1997
prepared by the Planning Board
Mary Ruth Hardy, Chairperson
Mary Anne Haskell
Doris Langley
Jasper Nolan
Jack Rivers
Lynn Smith
Bazelle Womick
for the Town Board
M
Sam Jarvis, Mayor
M. E. "Bubs" Carson, Town Administrator
Marty Fulton, Deputy Clerk
With
Assistance from
John Crew
Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc.
116 Spruce Street
Washington, NC 27889
919/946-4319
The prepartion of this report was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina
• Coastal Management Program through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

,q/
TOWN OF BATH
CAMA SKETCH LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
1997
Table of Contents
I. Introduction - Goals and Objectives
II. Location - History
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
III. Population and Change
IV. Housing
V. Economy
VI. Community Services - Carrying Capacity
VII. Ordinances — Regulations - Plans - Practices
VIII. Previous Policy Assessment
IX. Existing Land Use
X. Natural and Manmade Constraints to Development
A. Estimates of Land Use Demands
D., Statements of Major Conclusions
POLICIES
M. 1997 Policies
A. Resource Protection
B. Resource Production and Management
C. Economic and Community Development
D. Continued Public Participation
E. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Reconstruction and Evacuation
F. Other Local Issues
Page
1
2
3
5
8
10
12-
13
14
16
19
19
20
21
28
31
35
35
38

LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
)M. Land Classification 39
XIII. Relationship of Policies and Land Classification 41
XIV. Intergovernmental Coordination 41
XV. Maps 42
Appendix
A. Citizen Participation Plan - Public Information
B. 1991 Policy Assessment

FOREWARD
This CAMA Land Use Plan Update is the Town of Bath's fourth effort in meeting
the intent of the Coastal Resources Commission's land use planning guidelines. The Town
previously completed plans in 1980, 1986, and 199E
This 1997 Update, however, differs from previous plan updates in that it is
submitted as a "Sketch" plan. The CRC's guidelines, Section .0201(b), includes as
eligibility for'Sketch plans the following: "Small municipal governments that are not
experiencing significant or rapid change or that are completely platted and know the upper
limits of buildout may chose to develop a `Sketch' plan or update, with the concurrence of
the Division of Coastal Management.." Other criteria are set out in (1), (2), (3) and (4) of
Section .0201(b). Bath believes, due to its situation, it meets not only the letter, but also
the spirit, of this section of the guidelines.
The Town therefore prepared this Sketch Plan Update to fulfill its 1997 CAMA
Land Use Plan Update responsibilities. Coastal Management officials concurred with this
Sketch Plan idea in December of 1996.
0

I. . Introduction - Goals and Obiectives
The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) of 1974 requires all twenty North
Carolina coastal counties to prepare land use plans to guide future growth in ways that
important natural resources of regional and state interest are not compromised. Municipal
governments may opt to develop a separate plan as Bath did in 1980. (Prior to that date the
Town had been included as part of Beaufort County's Plan).
CAMA also requires each plan to be updated at least every five years and the
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) develops guidelines to direct these updates. This
1997 update is the Town's most recent update complying with CRC's newest planning
guidelines.
While each local government has great latitude in its local plan development, each
plan or update must contain certain basic elements. The CRC's guidelines list ten elements
for plans and sketch plans. They can be divided into three major groups. The first major
element each plan must include is data collection and analysis. This deals with population,
housing, the economy, community services, local (and county and state) ordinances and
regulations, existing land use and natural constraints to development. Each of these areas
are used by the local government to determine what changes, if any, are affecting the Town
and how the Town compares now in 1997 to how it was in 1991. This provides the town
with a "before and after" picture and eventually may be used in policy development.
Information for this section comes from many sources. The Division of Coastal
Management gathers information from primary sources (such as the US Census) and
provides it to local governments. Some county data may be useful for towns and each
county may share this information. Town officials and the Planning Board may provide
information and some is gathered from field investigations. .
The second major element of each plan deals with developing olp icier for a number
of specific issues important to the Town, the coastal region and the State. These policies
are the heart of the plan and they provide guidance and direction as to how the Town wants
to grow in the future. Polices are particularly important to local governments as one
important principle in CAMA is that local policies are used by various state agencies to
direct their service missions as they affect the Town. While this system of using local
polices is not perfect, it does provide a local government the opportunity to be a partner in
various state agency decision making. Policies are developed in several broad categories
such as natural resource protection, natural resource production, economic and community
development, storm hazard mitigation and recovery and citizen participation.
The final major element of each plan contains a Land Classification Man that
shows geographically where Town polices are to be applied. Land classification does not
deal with the same details that zoning does (such as lot size, building setbacks, etc.) but
rather, whether a community wants to see a rural landscape, modest density development
and certain areas conserved because of their important natural features or inherent hazards.
Decisions that will affect the Town must be made in the public arena, so the Town
has developed a Citizen Participation Plan that provides adequate opportunity for
interested citizens to be involved. The Town Board appointed the Planning Board to
prepare the plan update with a consultant assisting with certain technical matters.

Following local Plan approval, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC)
determines adequacy with their guidelines. While the CRC has broad authority in
certifying a locally adopted plan, historically the Commission has put weight on matters
such as technical accuracy, internal consistency, consistency with other local government
plans and consistency with other CRC rules. The CRC then certifies the plan. The Plan
then becomes a part of the State's Coastal Management Program and is submitted for
review by the federal coastal management agency. Upon approval at the federal level, the
Plan is then used by federal agencies in a similar way the CRC approved Plan is used for
state decision -making.
Local government land use plans should, in theory, also support legislative findings
and goals for the coastal region as a whole. Those legislative findings are found in G.S.
113A-102. The CRC's land use planning guidelines attempt to mirror legislative
objectives. So any plan certified by the CRC logically should also meet those legislative
objectives.
II. Location - History
Baths' location in central Beaufort County, on the north side of the Pamlico River
at the confluence of Bath Creek and Back Creek, is well known. The Town is almost
exactly in the center of the county. More precisely, the Town lies at 35' 28' 37.0" north
latitude, 76' 48' 51.3" west longitude. This central location provides good road access to
Washington to the west and Belhaven and Hyde County to the east by US Hwy 264 and
NC 92. As the Pamlico River bisects the county into northern and southern sections,
access to the south side of the River is more difficult. The state operated ferry near
Bayview to near Aurora on the south shore is the closest distance for Town residents
seeking the southern part of the county. Many residents may, however, drive west to the
bridge in Washington then east on NC 33 or 306 to access the south and eastern areas of
the county. In 1994 the municipal area covered 2.5 sq. miles and the extraterritorial area is
larger still.
The Town's climate is similar to other areas in the inner coastal plain; hot, wet
summers and mild, dryer winters. Average annual temperature is 61.9°F; rainfall averages
52.8" per year and snowfall around 2.3 inches. The Town has a relatively high elevation,
thus in part explaining its long life as it has weathered may storms during its history.
Bath has long been known for its important role in colonial affairs. The Town
incorporated in 1705, was the first town in North Carolina to be incorporated. It hosted the
first general assembly, was the port of entry for many colonials and was the home place of
Blackbeard the pirate.
Bath's history up to and including modern times is a pleasant year round home to
many people who enjoy the natural beauty, quiet tranquillity, good water oriented
recreation and life in a small rural community. The Town's history carries forward today
in its many historical and cultural features and districts. Past and future policies to
enhance these important resources are an important part of Town and state activities.
2

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
III. Population and Change
Beaufort County's population showed modest, but steady increases over the past
decades. Bath's population; however, showed mostly a decline, except during the period
1990-94. Overall, the many towns in Beaufort County showed erratic patterns of ups and
downs. Figure 1 shows historic patterns from 1970-1990 and estimates from 1991-1994.
Percent changes noting that Bath's increase from 1990-94 approached 30% are also shown.
FIGURE 1
Historic Population Pattems/Projections
Beaufort County and Municipalities
1970-1994
Change Change
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1970-94 1990-94
Beaufort
County 35,980 38,100 40,355 42,211 42,283 42,527 42,811 43,030 43,217 20% 2%
Aurora 620 N/A 698 719 654 652 654 651 641 3% -2%
Bath 231 N/A 207 237 154 189 188 199 199 -13% 29%
Belhaven 2,259 N/A 2,430 2,496 2,269 2,261 2,269 2,215 2,217 -1% - 2%
Chocowinity 566 N/A 644 828 624 Us 815 807 810 43% 30%
Pantego 218 N/A 185 181 171 171 171 171 171 -18% -0-
Washington 8,961 N/A 8,418 9,419 9,160 9,139 9,240 9,411 9,449 5% 3%
Washington
Park 517 N/A 514 553 486 486 487 475 488 -5% -0-
1970,1980,1990 Figures Official Census Figures
1975,1985,1994 Figures Estimates based on births, deaths, net migration
Source: LINC, Office of State Planning
Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc.
Future Town Populations
Population changes are a function of many variables (births, deaths, in and out
migrations, etc.), and exact figures are debatable, but they do provide a basis for local
planning purposes. Local policy can also have a great effect on population changes as
zoning, the provision of sewer services, etc. can affect where, when and at what levels
populations occur. For these and other reasons (market forces, tourism, etc.) past
population trends may not be indicative of future populations. In fact, taking into account
existing zoning and assuming 2.4 persons per household and an average occupancy rate of
75%, the Town may well see 575 people residing in the community in 2005. Conversely,
using only past death and birth rates and assuming no in migration, the 2005 figure would
3

be 143 persons. While those figures produce a "low" and "high" range of possible
populations, it can be assumed the actual population may be somewhere in between.
These observations were made in the 1991 Plan and seem to be also valid now in 1997.
Considering Coastal North Carolina's popularity as a year round destination, the county's
steady population increase, the Town of Bath's past policies toward modest growth and the
Town's ability to provide services to support growth, a more reasonable range might be
180-250 with a median figure of 227 being used for planning purposes. These figures also
do not include the population living in the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction, and housing
stocks there since the 1991 Plan indicate more people being affected by the Town's
planning activities. Bath's seasonal population results from many vacation houses being
occupied by tourists on day and overnight trips, boating activity and so forth. Specific
information on these populations are difficult to obtain and beyond the scope of this Plan.
Surfice it to say some modest seasonal population impacts do occur. Figure 5, later, shows
new housing construction activities since the 1991 Plan and this construction has
population implications.
The Towns Water Supply Plan, approved by the Town in March of 1996 includes
population projections developed for water supply purposes. Based on possible annexation
and historical trends in growth, those estimates are as follows:
Year Population
1992
200
2000
250
2010
300
2020
400
These ranges result from different assumption; nonetheless, most recently the Town
has grown. For planning purposes whether the Town has 575 persons residing in the Town
in 2005 or 300 people in 2010 is moot; the Towns population is growing of late.
Age ofopulation
Age figures normally are not produced for small municipalities by the census
except decennially. The most recent census age data for Bath was 1990, seven years ago,
so current county figures may be more helpful in drawing inferences about what maybe
occurring in Bath. Figure 2 shows county data by age groups:
n

FIGURE 2
Age of Population
Beaufort County by Year
Year
Total Population 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Total Population 42,283 42,527 42,811 43,030 43,217 43,330
Age 55 and older 10,630 12,931 10,819 13,284 11,012 11,124
% of total 25% 30% 25% 30% 25% 25%
Source: LINC, Office of State Planning
Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc.
The 1991 plan also noted that the Town had a fairly large elderly female population
and it is assumed this composition has changed little today. From 1990-95, county
populations of age 55 and older averaged between 25-30% of total populations and if these
figures are consistent with the Town's age composition, in 1990 the Town had 43 persons
age 55 and older; in 1994 that number was 50. Also in 1990 the Town's non -white
population was 10 people, a small percentage of the Town's total population.
IV. Housing
. Traditionally, type and age of housing are factors that affect a community and are
considered for planing purposes. While perhaps not so significant in Bath, due to its single
family nature and historic housing stock, this data can be useful. Census data shows
number of housing units in structures for the year 1990 in Figure 3:
FIGURE 3
Number of Housing Units in Structures 1990
1 Unit 1 Unit 2 3-4 Total
Detached Attached Units Units Units
Beaufort County 12,972 301 640 320 14,750
Bath 135 0 0 0 135
Source: Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A

According to this Census data, all housing units in Bath are single family detached
units. Housing age is shown in Figure 4 below:
FIGURE 4
Housing Age: Beaufort County/Bath
Year
March
Structure
1990- 1988 1984 1979
Built:
1989 -85 - -80 -70
Beaufort
County
507 1,854 21,311 5,107
1969
1959
1949
1939-
-60
-50
-40
Earlier
3,125
2,270
1,347
3,077
Bath 4 8 0 6 14 22 30 65
Source: Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3A
Clearly, the majority of houses in Bath were built prior to 1950; this fact adds
greatly to the Townes historic character. Data supplied by the Office of State Planning
show that 85% of all housing units have public sewer, 55 units are owner occupied, 20
units are renter occupied, 44 units are seasonal, 6 units are mobile homes and only 7 units
are substandard housing.
Recent Construction Activity
In the Town's October 1991 Land Use Plan, there was discussion about
construction activities in the Town's ETJ. Records from the Beaufort County Inspections
Department show housing and other activities beginning in November 1991 in Figure 5.
The figures below do not include storage, garage, swimming pools or commercial
activities, even though this type construction occurred. Please note that while a permit
issued may not result in a structure build, experience shows that in the vast majority of the
time construction does occur. Additions, repairs and rehabilitation activities were not
described in county data, but dollar values for these activities , (not presented here)
indicate work was done for housing purposes. While much work occurred in the Town's
ETJ (14 activities or 35%), significant work also occurred within Town limits (... 25
activities or 64% of all 39 activities reported). This indicates strong construction in the
planning area and attests to the Town's attractiveness as a place to live.
FIGURE 5
Date Description Location
11191 Dwelling Town of Bath
0

Date
1992
2/92
4/92
4/92
5/92
10/92
10/92
f i` N
1/93
3/93
6193
7/93
iWT,!
3/94.
4/94
9/94
10/94
1995
3/95
4/95
9/95
9/95
10/95
10195
12/95
1996
2/96
2/96
3/96
3/96
3/96
4/96
FIGURE 5
(continued)
Description Location
Dwelling
ETJ
Addition
Town of Bath
Dwelling
Town of Bath
Dwelling
Town of Bath
Dwelling
ETJ
Repair
Town of Bath
Dwelling
ETJ
Addition
Town of Bath
Dwelling
Town of Bath
Dwelling
Town of Bath
Dwelling
Town of Bath
Dwelling
ETJ
Dwelling
ETJ
Addition
ETJ
Dwelling.
Town of Bath
Rehab
Town of Bath
Dwelling
ETJ
Dwelling
Town of Bath
Addition
ETJ.
Rehab
Town of Bath
Dwelling
ETJ
Addition
Town of Bath
Rehab
Town of Bath
Rehab
Town of Bath
Rehab
Town of Bath
Rehab
Town of Bath
Addition
Town of Bath
7

FIGURE 5
(continued)
Date Description Location
1996
4/96
Dwelling
ETJ
4196
Dwelling
ETJ
5196
Rehab
Town of Bath
5196
Rehab
Town of Bath
6/96
Dwelling
ETJ
7/96
Dwelling
Town of Bath
8/96
Dwelling
ETJ
9/96
Rehab
Town of Bath
9/96
Addition
Town of Bath
10/96
Addition
ETJ
11/96
Dwelling
Town of Bath
Source: Beaufort County Inspections and Planning Department, January 1997.
V. Economy
Most economic indicators produced by the U.S. Census or the Office of State
Planning are compiled by county and may have little relevance to a municipality.
Therefore most town information must be generated locally.
The Town of Bath serves basically as a single family residential community whose
residents commute to work, are self-employed or are retired. Work destinations include
primarily Washington and to a lesser extent Belhaven, Greenville and the phosphate mine
near Aurora. Farming is important; there is some commercial fishing and one local
industry, Charcoal Services Corporation, employs some Town residents. In 1997, Bath
Elementary School employed approximately 70 people. Enrollment in this K-8 grade
school averages 650 students.
State -produced family income figures for 1970, 1980 and 1990 are in Figure 6
below and are indicative of local buying power. 1990 median family income in North
Carolina was $31,548; in the U.S. $35,225. Bath's median family income of $31,250
compares favorably with that of the state and is quite above that of Beaufort County.
8

FIGURE 6
INCOME
BEAUFORT COUNTY/BATH
1990,1980,1970
Median
Mean
Median
Per
Total
Less
5K-
10-
15-
25-
Family
Family
Household
Capita
Families Than 5K
9.9K
14.9K
24.9K
49.9K
50K+
Income
Income
Income
Income
Beaufort 1990
11,885
724
1,101
1,158
2,686
4,230
1,986
26,010
31,765
21,738
10,722
County 1980
11,015
1,460
2,073
2,213
3,312
1,737
220
14,401
16,682
11,984
5,193
1970
9,427
3,575
3,515
1,682
462
159
34
6,435
7,373
0
2,045
Bath 1990
36
3
2
8
5
5
13
31,250
49,237
13,000
17,042
1980
62
15
16
9
12
10
0
10,000
12,863
5,909
4,744
1970
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: LINC Office of State Planning
Education attainment is generally correlated with the work force and can be related
to buying power also. U.S. Census figures for 1990 for Bath show that almost half of
those who have attended schools have some college with no degree or have associate,
bachelor's or graduate degrees. This may indicate higher buying power, more valuable
housing and a greater tax base for the Town.
Tourism continues to be the biggest contributor to the Town's economy. The State
Historic Visitor Center in Town reported 23,008 visitors during 1996. This includes
visitors to the state dock, the facility at Bonners Point and the Center itself. Figures for
1995 were 29,401 and in 1994 was 25,250. Center staff attribute 1996 decline to weather.
Nearby Goose Creek State park also attracts sizeable number of tourists each year. The
Town's historic village atmosphere attracts people from afar as does its water oriented
recreation opportunities. Town officials are very aware of water oriented opportunities,
but are also continually concerned with increased sail and power boating and personal
watercraft use in the warmer months. Safety, water quality, noise and aesthetics are issues
arising from increased water use. Some sailboats are moored at the marina on Bath Creek
and boats may be launched for a fee at the marina on Back Creek. The Town regulates
marinas and moorings.
• While tourism remains the mainstay of local economic activity, some private sector
support services have been affected since the 1991 Plan and several businesses are now
closed.
Some area residents work in the phosphate mine south of the river and the company
also owns property in the Bath area. The Town would be affected by any future mining in
the area.
2

V1. Community Services - Carrying Capacity
Community services are vital to a municipality's existence; without certain services
town and city life as we know it may not be very pleasant. Typical services provided to
most larger towns include water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste collection and
disposal, fire and police protection, roads, recreation, libraries, schools, etc. CAMA
guidelines give Bath the opportunity to review the services it supplies, compare them to
expected future needs and see if discrepancies exist. If so, the Town can make adjustments
necessary in service delivery so Town life will be uninterrupted. This evaluation is called
a carrying capacity analysis. Information here will discuss existing services, design
capacity, current levels of use and ability to meet future needs.
Water System
The Town has a central water distribution system that supplies most areas within
Town limits. The Town's 1996 Water Supply Plan contains the following information.
The Town has two wells that are alternated every day. Both wells draw from the Castle
Hayne aquifer. They are both within Town limits in the central area of the Town. The
combined 12 hour yield in 1992 was .3095 million gallons. The treatment facility has a
capacity of .09 million gallons per day (mgd). Average annual daily water use in 1992 was
.021 mgd, and maximum daily water use was .023 mgd. In 1992 most water users were
residents; there were a few small businesses and several churches. The largest water user
is the Elementary School. Residential use accounts for 76% of water use, institutional uses
14%, and 10% is unaccounted for.
Estimates contained in the Water Supply Plan show in year 2010 a population of
300 people with an average daily demand of .032 mgd and peak demands of .035 mgd.
Year 2020 figures show a population of 400 with an average daily demand of .042 mgd
and peak demands of .046 mgd. The Plan notes it is unlikely that another water source will
be needed in the future and existing wells are adequate to handle any new projected needs.
The 1996 Plan also notes that goals for the next five years include investigating a storage
system (possibly elevated) and to update existing water softeners.
Wastewater System
The Town's wastewater collection and treatment facility was constructed in 1987.
The treatment plant, located on SR 1743 north of Town, is a non -discharge system, this
means discharges do not enter surface waters, but rather are sprayed on lands acquired for
this purpose. According to the Town's 1996 Water Supply Plan, the permitted capacity is
.04 mgd, and average annual daily discharge is .016 mgd. The lagoon storage capacity is
1.6 million gallons. The Town has recently upgraded the system by purchasing 32 acres of
additional land, 14 of which will be
used to bring the total spray area from six to 20 acres. There are plans to upgrade the
existing lagoon, as well as to have a second storage lagoon and improved chlorination.
10

Annual average daily discharge is far below design. Assuming increased
wastewater discharges at 100 gallons per day per person for residences, five gallons per
day per member for churches, 15 gallons per day per person for schools, and 40 gallons per
day per seat for restaurants, the existing system with planned upgrading should be
adequate for expected future growth.
The Town has historically supported private package treatment plants only for large
scale development beyond the treatment ability of the Town's system.
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
The Town contracts with Smithton Sanitation, a private contractor, for solid waste
collection and disposal. Collection is made each Monday of the week. Smithton also
provides curbside collection of recyclable material on regular Monday service days. The
recycle program is sponsored by the Town on a volunteer basis and Bath is the only Town
in the county other than Washington which sponsors this service.
Beaufort County participates in the regional disposal facility in Bertie County.
Estimates are that at current rates of use the Bertie facility has about four more years of
useful life and County Officials actively participate in addressing this problem.
The Town has also adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan as required by the
state.
Fire Protection
Bath is served by a volunteer fire department. The Town is wholly within the Bath
fire district. The station (recently expanded) is on Carteret Street. There are between 25-
30 active volunteers available to respond to calls during the day, and that figure increases
at night when more volunteers are at home. Equipment includes two 1,000 gallon pumper
trucks, a 1,500 gallon tanker and a 1,250 gallon tanker. Both response time and level of
service is deemed adequate for present and future needs. The Town has a mutual aid
agreement with other fire districts for additional assistance in times of major fires. The
Town's insurance rating is 9 based on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the highest rating.
Insurance ratings are based on many criteria including number of paid firemen, number of
fire hydrants that can be used for firefighting, etc. By comparison, Belhaven has a rating
of 8 and Washington a 5 rating.
Police Protection
Bath, as most small towns, does not have its own police force but rather relies on
the Beaufort County Sheriff's Department for this service, The Sheriff's Department
consists of a sheriff, a deputy sheriff, five full-time patrol deputies on duty 24-hours a day,
seven days a week and a number of investigators and clerical positions. Additional
manpower is proposed for the upcoming budget and for future years. As the county
continues to grow, these positions will be necessary to provide additional service.
County officials could not provide appropriate estimates of calls to Bath, as Bath is
included in a much larger service area.
11

Roads
The Town provides routine street maintenance on all public streets within the Town
limits. There is only one unpaved street in Town, Bowen Avenue, which forms the
northern town limits. There are no houses on this street. NC Department of
Transportation provides maintenance to roads on the state highway system. Roads and
streets seem adequate for present and future use. The recently adopted subdivision
ordinance provides that all public streets be built to DOT standards, thus ensuring
compatibility with existing public streets.
Recreation
The Town does not sponsor a formal, organized recreation program. The County
does have a volunteer sign-up program conducted at the elementary school during the
summer. Activities are organized and a small user fee is charged to pay for instruction,
supplies, etc.
Much water oriented recreation occurs on Bath and Back Creeks during the warmer
months. Town officials continue to express concern for safety, water quality, noise and
aesthetics due to these individual activities.
Libraries
Town residents use Bath Community Library on Carteret Street. Beaufort -Hyde -
Martin Regional Library and Brown Library in Washington also provide library use
opportunities.
Schools
Public education for school age students in Bath is a County function. Students
attend either Bath Elementary School (grades K-8) or Northside High School.
Town Administration
The Town has a mayor -council form of government with elections held every two
years. Town employees include an administrator and deputy clerk. The Town has a small
new office on Main Street. Office hours are 9-12 Wednesday and Friday. The Town
participates in the CAMA minor permit program, and building permits and inspections are
conducted by County employees.
VII. Ordinances — Regulations — Plans - Practices
Several ordinances and regulations affect land use in the Town's planning area. Y
Some are local such as the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Historic
District Ordinance. Zoning insures specific types of land use, such as commercial or
12

residential, are sited in a location that is appropriate for the Town, and that lot sizes are
adequate, that building setbacks ensure the public safety, etc. Recently adopted
subdivision regulations assure that when a larger parcel of land is divided into smaller
parcels for the purpose of sales, each smaller parcel has adequate access to streets, has
adequate drainage, etc. The Historic District Ordinance insures that new construction,
additions and repairs to buildings within the District are done in a way that protects the
historic integrity of the District. These local ordinances are enforced by the Town
Administrator.
Other local plans, policies and practices also have land use implications. Several
important are as follows. The Town has both a Water Supply Ian and Solid Waste
Management Plan that are state required. State approval of these documents is suppose to
ensure adequate provision of these services. The Town also has local service 1rovision
practice s that affect land use by determining when, where and under what circumstances
services are provided. Obviously these affect development patterns. Annexations in the
recent past have also affected land use and municipal patterns and future annexations, if
any, will have similar impacts.
There are numerous county, state and federal laws that have some impact on land
use in the Town's planning area. A few notable examples are Beaufort County's septic
tank regulations, the state's sedimentation and erosion control regulations, CAMA
regulations that require permits for development within Areas of Environmental Concern
(AEC) and the US Army Corps of Engineers enforcement of regulations affecting 404
wetlands. The Town also has participated in CDBG projects that improved the quality of
live for citizens.
It is also interesting to note the Town has a long history of encouraging strict
enforcement of all regulations protecting the natural resources within the Town's planning
area.
VIII. Previous Policy Assessment
The CRC's planning guidelines for this Land Use Plan update require each local
government to review policies in their last plan. This gives the local government an
opportunity to reflect on its past goals and determine if they have been reached. It also
provides a basis for the local government to start considering updating its goals.
Occasionally circumstances change at the local level in ways that make previous policies
obsolete or moot. Also, some previous policies may necessitate some other unit of
government (county, state or federal) taking action on behalf of the Town. For example,
while Bath encourages septic tank placement only on soils suitable to receive effluent, the
Town must rely on the County to carry out this policy as the County Health Department
has this responsibility.
Also some situations may not have changed, and if local opinions remain the same,
Bath may choose to repeat policies that were included in the 1991 Plan.
Bath's 1991 Plan includes approximately 125 polices or statements indicating a
local preference. The Planning Boards' review noted that 10 policies or statements were
13

moot or were not structured in such a way the Town could realistically achieve them. Of
the remaining 115 policies, the Town had either attempted to achieve or had achieved them
with two exceptions -- one dealing with commercial forestry, the other productive
agricultural lands. Thus the Town attempted or achieved 113,of the 115 policies that
might have been attainable, producing a 98% score, one quite enviable for a small Town
with limited resources. Policies achieved or attempted were given a "1", those "moot"
were so listed, those not achieved were given a "minus".
An outline of the 1991 policies and how they rated is in the Appendix.
IX. Existing Land Use
Much of the land use in the Town's planning area has remained basically
unchanged since the 1991 Plan. In 1994, the Town's municipal area was 2.5 square miles
and the ETJ is larger still. Agricultural uses dominate the ETJ and several tracts in Town.
Crops include corn, soybeans and tobacco. Forest land also is noted n the ETJ and is the
second largest land use.
These uses are generally compatible with other land uses and thus pose no
incompatibility. It should be noted, however, that as development pressures increase,
typically these low intensity uses are converted to higher intensity uses such as
subdivisions for residential purposes. The pattern is once a higher intensity use occurs,
baring manmade (including economic) or natural disaster, the intensity rarely returns to
lower use. The Town should be aware of this pattern as part of its subdivision process.
Residential use is very apparent in the planning area. Single family detached units
are the norm and only a few mobile or modular units are noted. While year-round units
predominate, there are also significant numbers of seasonal units. Several fairly new
subdivisions are noted including Catnip Point, Teaches Point, Cool Point, Bath Creek
Landing, Back Creek Estates and Teaches Cove.
Most older housing occurs in the Town's Historic District; newer housing has been
concentrated in the shoreline areas of Bath and Back Creeks. Potential for continued
development along these shorelines exists, and the Town should be aware of this potential.
Much of the Town's planning area is zoned in a way that considerable residential
development is permitted both in Town and in the ETJ.
Commercial land uses in the Town's planning area consists of services, tourism and
water oriented businesses. Service businesses are located along Carteret Street (Hwy. 92)
and include groceries, clothing, crafts and gifts, marina services, a restaurant and banking.
Other commercial uses are located on Main Street and include a real estate sales office, art
studio and a florist and gift shop. Several buildings that formerly housed commercial uses
on both Carteret Street and Main Street are now vacant. Approximately (uses are dynamic
and change from time to time) 43 non residential uses were noted by local count within the
Town's planning area as of this writing.
Tourist uses include the Bath State Historic Visitor Center, the Palmer -Marsh
House, the Bonner House, etc. As tourism is the Town's most active economic activity,
these service oriented uses receive much use.
14

Two marinas, the Harbour Motel and Marina on Bath Creek and the Quarterdeck
on Back Creek, offer boaters water access. Both provide a water oriented vista to visitors
coming from either west or east as they enter Town. Bath regulates marinas, dry stock
facilities and moorings through local ordinance and also relies on assistance from the state.
The Town's planning area also includes several cultural and institutional uses. The
Visitor Center and sites in the Historic District have been mentioned previously. The new
volunteer fire department building on Carteret Street replaces an older now vacant
structure on Harding Street. Several churches are located in Town and in the ETJ. The
Bath Community Library offers library service. Town residents place a high value on the
Town's historic nature and atmosphere, and local officials recognize this desirable
characteristic. The Town's zoning ordinance deals with the Historic District in
ways designed to both maintain and embrace this valuable resource. Several known
archaeological sites are currently being investigated and results may add to the Town's
historical treasures. The Town office is now located on Main Street.
Only one industrial use is noted east of Town in the Town's ETJ. Charcoal
Services Corporation manufacturers filters used in various industries.
A list of commercial, office and institutional, and office and industrial uses found
in the Town and ETJ follows:
Commercial, Office and Institutional and Industrial Land Uses
Bath Planning Area
1997
Church of God
Harbour Motel and Marina - Rich Real Estate Office
Bath Community Library
Cynthia's Gift
Historic Bath State Historic Site Visitor Center
Bath High School (vacant)
U. S. Post Office
ABC Store
Southern Bank
Frances C. Smith, LTD., men's and women's clothing
Volunteer Fire Dept.
Old Town Country Kitchen and Grill
Pamlico Marine Services
Brooks Grocery Store/Gas
Landlocked Storage (operated by the Quarterdeck)
Ruritan Building
Service Station: Cars (vacant)
The Quarterdeck
Charcoal Services Corporation (CSC)
Gateway Church of Christ
Bath First United Methodist Church
Historic Bath Realty

The Glebe House
Pirate's Treasure Novelty and Gift Shop
Edward Teach cottage
The Bonner House
Bath Elementary School
BMW Trucking
Bath Christian Church
Old Volunteer Fire Dept. (vacant)
The Hair Shoppe
Barrett/Tetterton Construction
Telephone Switch/Substation
St. Thomas Church, Office and Noe Building
Thyme and Tyde Take Out Deli
Van Der Veer House
New Town Office
Harry and Sharon Muir Art Studio/Real Estate Office
Star Properties Real Estate Office
Steele Magnolias Florist and Gift Shop
Palmer Marsh House
Swindell's Cash Grocery (vacant)
Vacant wooden store
Vacant brick store
Source: Coastal Consortium, Bath Planning Board, August 1997.
X. Natural and Manmade Constraints to Development
Various parts of the natural and manmade landscape have features that may pose
risks if development occurs there. For these reasons the CRC's planning guidelines
require local governments to review these features as part of their land use plan update.
No significant manmade hazards are noted within the planning area, although the risk of
fire exists throughout. There are generally three separate types of natural constraints to
development: areas with physical limitations (such as steep slopes, certain soil conditions,
or are low lying), areas that are fragile where development may be inappropriate, and areas
that have resource potential. Bath has all three of these areas within its planning authority.
Areas with physical limitations involve soils that have varying degrees of
suitability for development. Certain soil characteristics do not provide for adequate
drainage or may not compact appropriately in order to support buildings or roads. Steep
slopes may also exist, making development difficult or more costly. Areas that are located
in floodprone areas or where excessive erosion occurs are generally not suitable for
development due to the apparent risks involved.
Areas with soil limitations are discussed here. There are three major soil
associations in the Towns' planning area. The first is the Lenoir-Craven-Bladen
association. These soils extend from Back Creek west about three miles to SR 1334. Soils
16

in this group include moderately well to poorly drained soils. Soils here have a median
textured surface and firm clay subsoils. These soils pose severe limitations for septic tank
use. Severe implies the association has one or more properties that are difficult or costly to
overcome. Generally this group may require special design and intense maintenance, or
major soil reclamation, but please remember that specific sites within this association
should be evaluated on a lot by lot basis as specific conditions can only be determined in
this way. Slopes here range from level to about.15%. Soils in this association also pose
limitations for load bearing for roads and structures and also have high water tables and
some risk for flooding. Development here should generally be large lot residential uses.
The second association is the Bladen-Portsmouth-Bayboro combination. East of
Back Creek, north and south of NC 92, is where these soils are located. Soil characteristics
here include poor to very poorly drained soils with surface textures ranging from fine
sandy loam to mucky loam. Slopes are non-existent as the terrain is nearly level. Subsoils
range from brittle, sandy clay loam to very firm clays. Poor permeability, high water
tables, flooding hazards, severe limitations for septic tanks and limits for road construction
limit development potential here. Again lot by lot evaluations are required, but generally
lots should be large for single family residential uses.
The last association is the Lynchburg -Goldsboro -Dunbar group and is located
between Bath and Back Creeks extending north to SR 1743. While these soils have septic
tank limitations similar to those groups previously discussed, few limitations for structures
and roads are noted. Much of this area is within the corporate limits of the Town and the
Towns' wastewater treatment system may make this area more suitable for future
development.
Areas with steep slopes not already mentioned are found throughout the planning
area along both Back and Bath Creeks where erosion has occurred. Development here
may be at risk for obvious reasons.
Fragile areas include those features that could be damaged or destroyed by
inappropriate or poorly planned development. The first of these areas are the Public Trust
Areas waters of Bath and Back Creeks and the lands thereunder. The CRC has designated
Public Trust Areas as an AEC and requires permits for development therein. Permits,
depending on the size and type of development, are shared by the state and Town. These
permits insure that development will not unduly intrude into the public's rights of access,
navigation, recreation and commerce on these public waters and lands thereunder. The
state issues permits for major development, the Town for minor development.
Coastal Wetlands AECs also are found in the Town's planning area. These areas
are comprised of at least one of ten wetland vegetation species that is either regularly or
irregularly influenced by tides. If these conditions occur, then development permits are
required for any proposed development similar to that in Public Trust Areas described
above. Generally, the management of this AEC is designed to ensure their existence as it
provides high quality habitat for young marine species such as crabs and various fin fish.
Only water dependent uses (such as docks, piers and bulkheads, etc.) are permitted within
this AEC. Coastal Management staff in the Washington Regional Office note that a fringe
of these wetland plants are located throughout the shorelines of both Bath and Back
Creeks.
17

The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating certain wetlands
that occur throughout the planning area. These areas, called 404 wetlands, are not
necessarily associated with the shorelines of the creeks as Coastal Wetland AECs are. The
Corps basically requires permits for proposed dredging and filling of these areas.
Water supply area reas are also considered fragile as development may affect the
quality and quantity available for human use. All water used in the planning area is from
wells: either the central system in Town or individual wells in the ETJ. While phosphate
mining has lowered the water table in the Castle Hayne Aquifer in past years, recent
studies by the state conclude no problems are foreseen in the immediate future in terms of
quality or supply.
Current planning guidelines require local governments updating their land use
plans to develop their plans with an eye on small watersheds, if applicable. The intent here
is for local governments to understand the connections between existing conditions and
trends in land use and surface water quality. Emphasis shall be placed on identifying those
small watersheds in which water quality merits particular attention. The Division of
Coastal Management has provided information to assist in this exercise. According to this
data, Bath lies totally within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. Over 5,400 square miles drains
into the Tar -Pamlico watershed. Bath is located in a sub -basin of the watershed, sub -basin
0.7. This sub -basin extends from the Hwy 17 bridge in Washington to the Pamlico Sound
and is noted as being primarily estuarine in nature. Primary land use within this sub -basin
is agriculture with an urban area around Washington. Four major discharges are permitted
in this sub -basin, the largest being the phosphate mine near Aurora. This sub -basin is
further divided in. eight even smaller sub -basins. Bath lies within this 14 digit unit
03020104040030. One point seven (1.7%) percent of this watershed is occupied by the
Town.
State data on the quality of surface water in watersheds notes the types of uses
which should be or are being supported in each water body. Each of the four categories of
surface water are Full, Threatened, Partial and Non -supporting. Surface waters with tidal
influence (i.e. having salinity) have ,the prefix of "S". Several use classes for these surface
waters include SB and SC. Use class indicate the type use a water body is or should be
supporting. For example, class SB waters primarily support recreational uses including
swimming while SC waters should support aquatic life propagation and survival,
agriculture, secondary recreation including infrequent swimming and non-food related
uses. Additional supplemental classes also may apply. For example "Outstanding
Resource Waters" (ORW) is used to identify a particularly high quality water for natural
resource production. Also "Nutrient Sensitive" notes additional nutrients may result in
depleted oxygen or other reactions. ORWs do not exist in Bath.
Throughout the watershed there are sampling stations where water samples are
taken. These samples are then tested for a variety of items: various metals (mercury, zinc,
lead, etc.), the amount of dissolved oxygen, water temperature, turbidity and various
bacteria including fecal coliform. For a water body, to "fully support" it's intended use, no
more than 10% of any one of the pollutant can exist. Water bodies having "partially
supporting" status cannot have any one pollutant exceed 11-25% of the measurement, and
"non -supporting" status applies when any one pollutant exceeds 25% of the measurement.
18

. Bath Creek and Back Creek are both classed SB except in the upper reaches where
SC applies. All tributaries within the planning area are SC according to data supplied by
the state. Both Creeks and tributaries are also classed as "Partially Supporting" and
"Nutrient Sensitive".
While this data may be useful in understanding present conditions, there is no
apparent way to relate local land uses within the Town's relatively small planning area and
causes of water quality problems in the much larger watershed or subwatershed.
It can be noted, however, that Bath has a long, consistent history of concern of
water use and quality issues. Policies in the Town's previous Land Use Plans and Updates
consistently support high quality water. The Town's zoning pattern reflects this concern as
only two small areas along the Town's shoreline permit commercial uses. The Town's
Subdivision Ordinance ensures some level of site review that can be said to have positive
water quality implications. The Town's participation in the minor CAMA permit program
further indicates this commitment.
Areas with resource potential. The final category of natural constraints to
development typically include publicly owned forest lands, game lands or wildlife refuges,
of which there are none in the Town's planning area. Within the planning area however,
are areas used extensively for agriculture; these are noted as prime farmlands on state
supplied maps. Some areas have forest cover also. A sizable portion of the Town is used
as either publicly owned lands or is vacant.
The Wildlife Resources Commission recently designated both Bath and Back
Creeks from their source, including tributaries to their confluence with the Pamlico River,
as inland primary nursery areas. This designation notes that the area serves for important
fish propagation. This designation also has impacts on new and maintenance dredging and
filling activities. Submerged aquatic vegetation is also noted in the Handy Point area on
data supplied by the Division of Coastal Management.
A. Estimates of Land Use Demands
This data collection and analysis section shows there is adequate land available in
the Bath area to accommodate any expected future population growth, be it year round or
seasonal. Housing starts within the Town's planning area have been adequately provided
for within existing available land. The great amount of vacant land available throughout
the area also provides a wide range in site choices for future growth. Existing services and
anticipated improvements should be adequate to support growth.
B. Statements of Major Conclusions
Since the last plan update, Bath has seen modest growth. Single family housing
continuous to dominate. Numerous natural resources are still readily available for citizens
to enjoy, and previous Town policies have played a part in their protection. Modest
commercial activity has occurred and the Town also has a new office building and fire
station. The Town's per capita income compares with that of the state and exceeds that of
the county. The Town's historic and cultural resources still dominate the community in
desirable ways. Previous policies have also played a role in maintaining these resources.
19

The availability of, and expected improvements to community facilities will permit
the Town to seek modest, controlled and managed development in the future. Bath will
seek to continue being a small, historical, water oriented, predominately residential
community in a rural landscape.
XI. 1997 Policies
Webster's Third New International Dictionary's definition of policy includes "a
definite course or method of action selected (as by a government, institute, group or
individual) from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and usually
determine present and future decisions."
Applied to land use plans under the auspices of CAMA, policies provide a
framework of adopted statements that are used to guide future development decisions.
Policies differ from rules or regulations in that they are guiding principles rather than
precise, measurable standards. In land use planning, regulations should follow policies and
are one tool used to achieve the policy. For example, if the Town's policy for housing is to
provide for single family detached units, then the Zoning Ordinance would specify
standards to meet the goal by specifying location, requiring lot sizes designed to
accommodate single family housing, specific front, side and rear setbacks, height limits,
etc.
Policies in CAMA land use plans express a local desire for the future, but are quite
unique in planning in North Carolina as they are also used by various state and federal
agencies in making decisions as to how their operations affect a local government. For
example, development permits issued by the State's Division of Coastal Management must
be consistent with local land use plans, including policies, before that permit can be issued,
even if otherwise it meets all the regulatory standards. This gives the local government an
important opportunity to be a partnership player in land use decisions that involve state
agencies.
Policies here evolved from an evaluation of policies in the previous plan and a
careful review of the current conditions in 1997 in effect now (such as population changes,
new housing starts, adequacy of potable water, etc.) Numerous Planning Board meetings,
open to the public and adequately advertised, were held so those wishing to attend could
do so. Finally significant guidance was provided by the Planning Board after taking all of
these matters into consideration.
During policy development, alternatives were considered in various degrees; from
considering letting market forces and the economy drive land use decision making to
considering requiring more strict policies for development within AECs than those
imposed by the state. The Town believes policies presented here offer a reasonable
compromise between no control and overly restrictive control on issues that affect the
Town's character and quality of life.
In the current CRC Planning guidelines for Land Use Plans a new requirement has
been added in the policy section. Each local government's policy section "shall begin with
a general vision policy statement describing the type of community that the local
government would like to become in the next ten years"
20

As the reader progresses through this policy section, he should clearly see the
Town has many visions for the future and articulating only one proves to be difficult.
Nonetheless, the Town of Bath wants to maintain its low density predominately single
family residential character, preserve its historic character, attract economic activities that
provide for the local community and achieve all of those objectives in ways that conserve
the greatly valued water and other natural resources within the Town's planning area.
A. Resource Protection
In Bath issues discussed in this category include AECs, other wetlands,
culturaUhistoric resources, marina and floating homes, moorings, stormwater runoff
associated with agriculture, residential development, etc. Issues not relevant and not
discussed include development of islands. The reader should note discussion of these
issues in previous sections of the plan (data collection, constraints to development, existing
land use, etc.)
In the 1991 Plan, the Town had 54 policies in this category. In the CRC's planning
guidelines now in effect in 1997, 16 specific policy issues are noted. The development of
policies here includes reviewing those in 1991 to determine if they were still valid. The
following includes a statement of the current CRC's policy category, followed by current
Town policy. In cases where a previous policy was determined to be still valid, a number
in parenthesis proceeds the policy. This refers to that policy from the 1991 Plan that is still
valid today. New policies developed during this update have the notation (NP) preceding
them. Policies in the 199.1 Plan are included in the policy assessment section in the
Appendix.
RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES
issue - statement on community attitude toward resource protection (pages 16-19)
(NA) The Town's basic statement on resource protection is that of recognizing
the importance of its resources and insisting on their protection. All policies that follow
support this principle. Also the Town's zoning ordnance often has greater restrictions than
those resource protection regulations offered by various state agencies. Note that Town
zoning restricts location of additional commercial marinas and pier alignment standards far
exceed state regulations.
The reader should note the following issues are discussed elsewhere in the
Plan and thus are not repeated here. In each issue section reference is made to pages where
that discussion occurred. Also a statement following each selected policy notes how that
particular policy should be carried out. The reader should note that for those policies
requiring county, state or federal action, the Town unless otherwise stated, relies upon
those agencies for implementation.
21

issue discuss AECs
(note: discussion in previous sections of the Plan — pages 16-19)
(7) Bath recognizes the biological and ecological importance of coastal wetlands and
maintains a position of protection and preservation of this invaluable natural
resource. (implemented through local ordinance and by relying on the state)
(8) Development in Bath shall not cause significant damage to natural resources,
including coastal wetlands. (implemented through local ordinance and by relying
on the state)
(12) All development proposals must be within the strictest CAMA standards set forth
in 15 N.C.A.C. 7B and outlined in "A Handbook for Development in North
Carolina's Coastal Area" published by Division of Coastal management of EHNR.
(13) The following uses shall not be permitted in or near any coastal wetland or other
natural resource: open dumping of waste, including wastewater, dumping of trash,
further development of commercial wetdocking storage facilities, and multi -level
dry docking storage facilities. (implemented through local ordinance and by relying
on the state)
(14) The Town of Bath encourages and supports stricter enforcement of CAMA
regulations by CAMA permit officers, including regulation of bulkheading. (relies
on the state)
(15) The Town of Bath encourages and supports stricter enforcement of all water quality
regulations by the Division of Environmental Management. (relies on the state)
(17) Bath encourages and supports education and training workshops for all citizens of
Bath in coordination with EHNR and other groups whose primary interest is
protecting and preserving coastal wetlands and other AECs. (relies on state
initiatives for future education)
(18) Bath encourages shoreline development setbacks and/or vegetated buffers along the
perimeter of fragile wetlands and water bodies. (implemented by local
ordinancetrelying on the state)
(19) Bath discourages any further development of commercial marinas. (local zoning
prohibits)
(20) Only "water -dependent" uses shall be allowed in coastal wetlands, public trust
waters, and other areas of environmental concern. (implemented by local zoning,
relying on the state)
(21) Bath discourages improper infilling and dredging of wetlands and public trust
waters. (relies primarily on the state and US Army Corps of Engineers)
(22) The Town of Bath recognizes the environmental, aesthetic, and social importance
of public trust waters and maintains a position of protection and preservation of and
open public access to this invaluable natural resource. (relies on local zoning and
state implementation)
(23) The Town of Bath recognizes the right of all people of North Carolina to use and
enjoy the waters held in trust for their benefit by the State; the Town also
recognizes and accepts its role as protector and regulator of the quality and safety
of the public trust waters within its jurisdiction. (relies on local zoning and state
implementation)
22

(24) Bath discourages alienation of any public trust waters to any private transferee, or
to any public transferee for purposes that are not consistent with the Public Trust
Doctrine as it is recognized in North Carolina. (relies on the wisdom of the state
and local ordinances)
(25) Development shall not interfere with existing public rights of access to, or use of,
navigable waters or other public resources. (relies on local ordinance and the state
and federal agencies)
(28) Bath encourages use of public trust waters in an environmentally sound manner and
with regard to human health and safety. (relies on local ordinance and state and
federal agencies)
(29) Bath discourages expansion of phosphate mining operations in public trust waters.
(relies on local ordinance and state regulations)
(48) Bath prohibits further development of wet and dry storage marinas on Bath and
Back Creeks. (relies on local ordinance and the state)
(49) Bath prohibits upland excavation for marina basins. (relies on local ordinance and
the state)
(50) Bath prohibits floating home development on Bath and Back Creeks. (relies on
local ordinance and the state)
issue constraints to development (soils ,floodprone areas)
(note: discussion in previous sections of the Plan — pages 16-19)
(1) Development in areas identified with steep slopes (12% or greater) should be
restricted to large -lot single family units consistent with local zoning. (relies on
local ordinance and the state)
(2) Development in areas identified with a relatively high water table or other
limitations upon housing foundations or road construction should be restricted to
large -lot single family units consistent with local zoning. (relies on local ordinance
and the state)
(3) Use of septic tanks for existing and future development projects in identified areas
of potential septic difficulty shall be discouraged. (relies on the state)
(4) Where hook-up to the Bath wastewater system is available, small-scale
development projects shall be required to hook-up. (relies on local ordinance)
(5) Small-scale development in areas identified as areas of potential septic difficulty
where hook-up to the Bath wastewater treatment system is not available shall be
large -lot single family units. (relies on local ordinance and the state)
(43) Bath encourages the voluntary filling of unused septic tanks. (relies on the wisdom
of the county and state regulatory authority)
issue local resource development issues relative to AECs
(note: discussion in previous sections of the Plan)
(note: all above policies are also included on this issue, thus they are
not repeated here.)
23

issue protection of wetlands
(note: all above policies are also are included in this issue, thus they are
not repeated here)
issue other areas- other wetlands. ORWs shellfish waters culturaMistorical
resources
(note: discussion in previous sections of the Plan- pages 2, 14, 15, 17)
(26) Bath encourages removal of all existing pilings in public trust waters. (relies on
location action, statelfederal wisdom)
(30) The Town of Bath recognizes the environmental and biological importance of
Section 404 Wetlands and maintains a position of protection and preservation of
this invaluable natural resource. (relies on local ordinance and wisdom of US
Army Corps of Engineers)
(31) The Town of Bath encourages and supports enforcement of Section 404 regulations
by EPA and Army Corps of Permit Officers. (the Town relies on these agencies to
do their jobs)
ORWs do not exist in Bath and no policy is necessary; shellfish waters do not exist
in Bath and no policy is necessary.
issue • culturaMistorical resources (pages 2, 14, 15)
(36) Bath recognizes the historical, cultural, aesthetic, and social importance of its status
as the oldest town in North Carolina and maintains a position of protection and
preservation of its valuable cultural, historic, and scenic resources. (relies on local
ordinance and state guidance)
(37) Development in Bath shall not cause major or irreversible damage to valuable,
documented historic architectural or archaeological resources. (relies on local
ordinance and state guidance)
(38) Development on archaeological sites of historic significance in and around Bath
shall take place only if such development is consistent with state regulations
concerning those resources. (relies on wisdom of the state)
(39) Bath encourages compatible and discourages incompatible development within
Bath Historic District. Development within the Historic District shall have
architectural features in harmony with other buildings in the District. (relies on
local regulation)
(40) Bath will protect and preserve the scenic beauty of the Town, including natural and
manmade areas. The entranceway to Bath from the west across Highway 92
Bridge is especially important as an attractive greeting to Town, and should be
maintained as such. (relies on local ordinances, wisdom of DOT)
(41) Development shall be of a proportion suitable to the town; in no event shall
development be allowed to block or transform the scenic vistas in the Town. (relies on
local ordinances and various state agencies)
24

(45) Bath encourages the voluntary removal of all dilapidated structures. Before
demolition, however, every effort should be made to preserve or restore the
structures. (relies on local ordinance, state action)
(NP) Town Council (April, 1997) and Planning Board (May 6, 1997) passed a resolution
supporting the Town as a site for the placement of artifacts recovered from the sunken ship
thought to be Blackbeard's flagship, the Queen Anne's Revenge, recently located in
Carteret County waters.
issue protection otRotable water supplies
(note: discussion in previous section of the Plan — pages 8, 10, 16-19)
(9) All development projects shall limit the construction of impervious surfaces and
other areas prohibiting natural drainage to only the area necessary to adequately
serve the use of the lot. (relies on local ordinance and state and possibly federal
intervention)
(10) All development shall provide for adequate stormwater collection and drainage to
avoid untreated stormwater runoff from entering any coastal wetlands, surface
water, or other fragile area. (primarily relies on local ordinances, but occasionally
state and federal intervention)
(11) All development projects shall meet or exceed the standards of the NC
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. (relies on the wisdom of the state)
(32) The Town of Bath recognizes the importance of protecting the groundwater in the
Bath Planning Area since the main source of water for the public water system and
for individual private ells is the Castle-Hayne Aquifer. (relies primarily on the
wisdom of and integrity of the state)
(33) No development shall be allowed which would result in degrading of the
groundwater levels. County, state and federal regulations must be upheld in
dealing with groundwater. (relies on local regulations and state wisdom)
(34) The Town encourages all owners of individual wells to identify the land area
surrounding the wellheads and to remove existing and prevent future incompatible
land uses which could contaminate the well. (this should be accomplished through
joint local/state education efforts)
(35) The Town discourages phosphate mining activities which could lower, groundwater
levels in the Bath Planning Area. (relies on local regulations and state wisdom)
issue use of package treatment plants
(note: discussion in.previous section of the Plan — pages 10, i 1))
(4) . Where hook-up to the Bath wastewater system is available, small-scale
development projects shall be required to hook-up. (relies on local regulations,
policies and practices)
(5) Small-scale development in areas identified as areas of potential septic difficulty
where hook-up to the Bath'wastewater treatment system is not available shall be
large -lot single family units. (relies on local ordinance and county/state advise)
25

(6) Large-scale developments shall be required to install and provide for the operation
and maintenance of on -site package treatment plants or other approved sanitary
sewerage treatment systems approved by the state for treatment of waste generated
by the development. (relies on local ordinance, county/state requirements)
(47) Bath encourages the use of package treatment systems for large-scale development
projects. (relies on local regulations, service provision practices)
issue stormwater runoff associated with agricultural, residential
development. etc.
(note: discussion in previous section of the Plan - pages 13, 16-19)
(1) Development in areas identified with steep slopes (12% or greater) should be
restricted to large -lot single family units. (relies primarily on local ordinance and
occasional county/state intervention)
(2) Development in areas identified with a relatively high water table or other
limitations upon housing foundations or road construction should be restricted to
large -lot single family units. (relies primarily on local ordinance but occasionally
state wisdom and regulation)
(9) All development projects shall limit the construction of impervious surfaces and
other areas prohibiting natural drainage to only the area necessary to adequately
serve the use of the lot. (relies on local and state regulations) . ,
(10) All development shall provide for adequate stormwater collection and drainage to
avoid untreated stormwater runoff from entering any coastal wetlands, surface
water, or other fragile area consistent with state or federal regulations. (relies on
both local, state and federal standards)
(11) All development projects shall meet or exceed the standards of the NC
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. (relies on wisdom of the state)
(15) The Town of Bath encourages and supports enforcement of all water quality
regulations by the Division of Environmental Management. (relies on the state)
(16) Bath encourages the reduction of agricultural nonpoint source pollution (sediment,
nutrients, animal waste and pesticides) via such means as conservation tillage, filter
strips, sediment control structures, etc. (must rely on the wisdom of various state
agencies)
issue marina and floating homes., moorings/mooring, fields. ft stack facilities
(pages 9, 15)
(12) All development proposals must be within the strictest CAMA standards set forth
in 15 N.C.A.C. 7B and outlined in "A Handbook for Development in North
Carolina's Coastal Area" published by Division of Coastal management of EHNR.
(13) The following uses shall not be permitted in or near any coastal wetland or other
natural resource: open dumping of waste, including wastewater, dumping of trash,
further development of commercial wetdocking storage facilities, and multi -level
dry docking storage facilities. (relies on combination of local, state and federal
action)
M.

(19) Bath discourages any further development of commercial marinas. (local
regulation implements this policy)
(23) The Town of Bath recognizes the right of all people of North Carolina to use and
enjoy the waters held in trust for their benefit by the State; the Town also
recognizes and accepts its role as protector and regulator of the quality and safety
of the public trust waters within its jurisdiction. (relies on both local and state
regulations)
(24) Bath discourages alienation of any public trust waters to any private transferee or to
any public transferee for purposes that are not consistent with the Public Trust
Doctrine as it is recognized in North Carolina. (relies on both local, state and
federal actions)
(25) Development shall not interfere with existing public rights of access to, or use of,
navigable waters or other public resources. (relies on local, state and federal
action)
(48) Bath prohibits further development of wet and dry storage marinas on Bath and
Back Creeks. (relies on local.and state action)
(49) Bath prohibits upland excavation for marina basins. (relies on local and state
action)
(50) Bath prohibits floating home development on Bath and Back Creeks. (relies on
local and state action)
(51) Open heads and discharge from boats on Bath and Back Creeks is prohibited.
(relies on statelfederal monitoring/action)
(52) Dry stack storage facilities are prohibited in the Bath Planning Area. (relies on
local regulation)
(NP) The Town's Zoning Ordinance reflects these policies through prohibition of
additional commercial marinas and long term moorings as well as restricting various water
borne events. The Town acknowledges that jet skis, personal watercraft, and other vessels
often endanger public safety, and create wakes and noise that is unacceptable to the Town.
In the future the Town may choose to develop strict policies and/or regulations to deal with
these issues as well as the placement of private markers used for boat racing.
(NP) The Town is also concerned about high speed and unsafe water craft and vessels
creating wakes and turbulence in that these conditions affect safety of humans, property
and the environment. The Town may pursue local solutions in the future of circumstances
necessitate.
issue industrial impacts on La le areas
(note: all above on AECs, other resources that also apply here)
The Town's Zoning Ordinance includes specific standards for industrial
development that must be met in addition to policies here. (relies on local action)
27

issue development susceptible to sea level rise (pages 2, 16-19)
Please note all policies under marina and floating homes, moorings/mooring fields,
dry stack facilities above also apply on this issue and thus are not repeated.
The Town's relative high elevation does not make this issue as important as in
other coastal areas; however, policies are as follows:
(18) Bath encourages shoreline development setbacks and/or vegetated buffers along the
perimeter of fragile wetlands and water bodies. (relies on local ordinance and state
educational efforts)
(20) Only "water -dependent" uses shall be allowed in coastal wetlands, public trust
waters, and other areas of environmental concern. (relies on local regulations and
state actions)
issue • upland excavation for marinas
Please note all policies under marina and floating homes, moorings/mooring fields,
dry stack facilities above also apply on this issue and thus are not repeated.
issue • damage of marshes by bulkheads
Please note policies contained in AECs and other wetlands apply here and thus are
not repeated.
issue development of sound and estuarine islands
None exist within the Town's Planning Area so no policy was developed.
issue management measurers designed to reduce local sources o water
qualilXproblems (pages 9, 16-19)
Please note earlier discussion in the data collection section of the Plan. Also please
note all policies earlier on AECs, protection of water supplies and stormwater all apply in
this issue and thus are not repeated here.
B. Resource Production and Management
Issues discussed here include productive agriculture and forestry lands, mineral
production including phosphate mining, commercial/recreational fishing, development
impacts on resources, etc. All issues listed in the CRC's planning guidelines were relevant
and discussed. The reader again should note discussion of these issues in earlier sections
of the plan.
In the 1991 Plan the town had nine policies relative to this policy category. The
current CRC planning guidelines list eight issues to be discussed here. Please note the
same process and system is used in identifying current policies as was used in the Resource
Protection category earlier.
28

RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
issue statement on communiiv attitude toward resources production and
mans eg� ment - (pages 14, 16-19)
(NP) The Town recognizes the economic impact of agriculture and forestry on the Town
and region. The Town is also concerned about the visual and aesthetic problems resulting
from commercial and individual forestry practices. The Town supports best management
practices for forestry operations as well as for agriculture. The Town also notes cutting of
trees and other vegetation for building or development projects could affect Town
vegetation and thus may consider a local vegetation tree ordinance in the future.
issue productive ygncultural lands
(note: discussion in previous section of the Plan — pages 14, 17, 19)
(1) The Town of Bath recognizes the potential resource value of productive
agricultural lands and maintains a position of protection and preservation of
agricultural lands located in areas designed as "Rural" or "Conservation" on the
1997 Land Classification Map. (relies on land classification explanation, local
ordinances)
(2) Lands identified as the most productive agricultural lands not required for future
Town growth are to be restricted from non-agricultural uses. (relies on explanation
of land classification, local ordinances)
The Town's zoning also has great and immediate influence as to where and under
what circumstances development may occur in the future.
issue commercial forest lands
(Note: discussion in previous section of the Plan — pages 14, 17)
(3 The Town of Bath recognizes the potential value of commercial forest lands and
encourages and promotes commercial forestry in appropriate areas of the Bath
Planning Area where forests are preferable to residential and commercial
development. (local zoning helps carryout this policy, also relies on state
intervention in forestry matters)
(4) Commercial foresters should engage in best management practices (BMP) for the
industry, including rapid re -planting when tress are cut, and take other precautions
to prevent erosion and run-off problems caused by the forestry process. (relies on
state intervention/education for BMPs)
(NP) The Town encourages private foresters to engage in BMPs. The Town may in the
future review tree cutting and other activities that affect the Town's vegetation through a
vegetation or tree ordinance. (BMPs are carried out through state intervention and
education)
29

issue existing/potential mineral production areas
(note: previous discussion earlier in the Plan — pages 9, 17)
(11) All development projects shall meet or exceed the standards of the NC
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. (relies on the wisdom of the state)
(21) Bath discourages improper infilling and dredging of wetlands and public trust
waters. (relies on local ordinances and state/federal action)
(24) Bath discourages alienation of any public trust waters to any private transferee or to
any public transferee for purposes that are not consistent with the Public Trust
Doctrine as it is recognized in North Carolina. (relies on local ordinances,
state/federal intervention)
(29) Bath discourages expansion of phosphate mining operations in public trust waters.
(relies on local regulations, state/federal intervention.
(31) The Town of Bath encourages and supports stricter enforcement of Section 404
regulations by EPA and Army Corps of Permit Officers. (relies on federal
intervention)
(33) No development which would result in degradation of the groundwater or cause a
significant lowering of groundwater levels shall be allowed. (must rely on state
wisdom/intervention)
(35) The Town discourages phosphate mining activities which could lower groundwater
levels in the Bath Planning Area. (must rely on state wisdom/intervention)
issue commercial/recreational fishing - nursea/habitat areas ORWs.
trawling in'estuarine waters
All policies discussed previously on AECs apply here and thus are not repeated.
(NP) The Town acknowledges the Wildlife Resources Commission recent designation of
Bath and Back Creeks as primary inland nursery areas. The Town supports only activities
consistent with this designation.
There are no ORW or estuarine waters within the Town's planning area, so no
policies are developed.
issue • OffRoad Vehicles
This is not a concern of the Town as it is for some oceanfront communities, thus no
policy is necessary.
issue • residential, commercial/industrial development impacts on any resource
Earlier policies concerning issues such as AECs, wetlands, cultural/historical
resource, stormwater runoff, marinas, etc. contained in the Resource Protection Section all
apply here as do those addressing agricultural and forestry uses. These policies are not
repeated here for sake of brevity, but the reader is referred to them.
30

issue peat/phosphate mining, impacts
Policies contained in the category of existing/potential mineral production areas are
applicable here and are not repeated.
C. Economic and Community Development
The Town of Bath, like most small coastal towns, is concerned with activities that
stimulate the local economy and desires to continue it's economic development. However,
the Town also has a greater desire to preserve its historic character and its predominate low
density single family residential character. The Town also feels very strongly about
conserving its many natural resources that are an important part of the fiber of the
community. Economic activities cannot be separated from resource protection issues in
Bath. For these reasons the Town will promote and support only specific and limited
economic development. The Town's zoning ordinance goes into grant detail as to what
activities can occur where and under what conditions and will help implement policies
contained here.
In the 1991 Plan, there were 28 policies in this category. The CRC's current
planning guidelines list 11 specific issues. After reviewing the 1991 policies, the Board
found them still applicable now in 1997 and they are contained below. Numbers in
parenthesis preceding each policy reflect its number from the 1991 Plan. Again 1991
policies are contained in the appendix for reference. No numbers indicate a new policy for
1997. All issues presented here were discussed previously, Please see pages 8, 9, 15-18
for a better understanding of the complex relationships between economic issues and
resource protection matters.
issue basic statement on community attitude toward growth (pages 8, 9, 13,
14, 18, land classification)
(NP) The Town's basic statement on community attitude on growth is that of
recognizing the importance of economic activities that permit the Town to function, while
at the same time desiring to maintain and enhance the great historical, cultural and natural
resources and small town residential nature that are so much a part of the fabric of the
Town. This will be achieved through a combination of local, regional, state, and federal
activities. The reader should also note that many resource protection and production
policies described earlier also apply here.
issue O As ocations of desired industries (pages 8, 9, 13, 14, 15-18, land
classification)
(1). Bath supports the expansion of existing industry and recruitment of new industry
that is environmentally safe and compatible with the resource protection, water
quality, and other environmentally environmental -focused policies contained in this
Plan. (relies on local ordinances, occasional state intervention)
31

(2). Light, environmentally safe industrial activities in the Bath Planning Area shall be
located outside the Town limits on appropriate sites designated on the Land
Classification Map for such purposes. (relies on local ordinances, explanation in
land class section)
issue . local commitment to providing services (pages 9-12)
(8). Bath seeks to improve infrastructure and services to accommodate future growth in
a controlled manner. (relies on both local, state and federal action)
(9). Bath encourages expansion of Town police and fire departments, adequate
collection and disposal of garbage, improvements on streets and roads, and other
services necessary for current and anticipated future populations. (relies on local
and state actions)
(10). Expansion of community services to moderate -size development projects will be
the financial responsibility of the developer. (relies on local ordinances, practices
and state intervention)
(11). Bath encourages residential and small business development to take place within
Town limits before occurring outside of Town limits. (See discussion on transition
land class, relies on local regulations)
(12) Large-scale development projects which will require provision of substantial
municipal services and cause a rapid influx of population will be scrutinized
carefully to avoid possible adverse effects on the Town. (relies on local
ordinances)
issue desired urban growth patterns (pages 8, 9, 13, 14, 15-18, land
classification)
Residential development desires, assessment of services (pages 8, 9, 13,
14, 15-18, land classification)
NOTE: These two issues, because of their similar nature, are treated
together.
(3). Large-scale, multi -family unit subdivisions are not a desirable type of development
in the Bath Planning Area. (relies on local regulations)
(4). Single-family, small scale first and second home development within reasonable
limits is to be encouraged in the Bath Planning Area. (relies on local regulations)
(5). All residential development projects shall comply with policies dealing with
protection of natural resources and water quality contained in the this Plan. (relies
on local, state, federal action)
(6). Bath wishes to maintain and enhance the availability of adequate housing for
elderly and low-income persons. (relies on local action to initiate, statelfederal
support)
(7). Bath encourages the development of compatible restaurants, overnight
accommodation, and retail shops, particularly in the commercial district. (relies on
local regulations)
(15.) Bath encourages balanced development between historic and non -historic
properties. (relies on local/state regulations)
32

(16). Bath discourages commercial "strip" development in the Bath Planning area.
(relies on local ordinances)
issue redevelopment; including erosion threatened relocation (pages 8, 9, 13,
14, 15-18, land classification)
(13). Bath encourages the demolition of dilapidated housing and rebuilding on vacant
lots within the Town. (relies on local action, state and federal financial assistance)
(14.) Bath encourages the rehabilitation and productive use of older structures, including
Bath High School. (relies upon a combination of local, state, perhaps federal
action)
issue commitment state/federal programs (highways, bridges. CDBG. rural
water systems oil and gas exploration, expanded military air space.
etc. (pages 9, 11, 12, 13)
(17). Bath will examine thoroughly any potential energy siting proposals, including those
for electric generating plants and inshore fuel development of refineries, storage,
and transhipment facilities, before authorizing construction to ensure compatibility
of such proposals with Bath's policies on protection of natural resources and
preservation of the Town's historic rural character. (relies on mix of local, state.
and possibly federal action)
(18). Bath opposes all proposals for potential location of a nuclear energy facility in the
region. (relies on state/federal action)
(NP) Bath will support those state and federal programs that, on a case by case basis, the
Town feels will be beneficial to its broader economic development goals. The Town will
rely on both local ordinanceslactions and state and feral cooperation.
(NP) The Town is generally opposed to the idea of offshore oil and gas activities,
recognizing the potential negative impacts to coastal North Carolina as a whole. The
Town will rely on the wisdom of statelfederal agencies; with the local option of revisting
the issue as conditions may necessitate.
(NP) The Town is opposed to expanding military air space. The Town must rely on the
wisdom of state and federal agencies for implementation.
issue channel maintenance (pages 16-19)
(NP) The Town generally supports maintenance activities that enhance navigation and
public safety, as long as natural resources protection policies are taken into consideration.
(relies on local, state, and federal action)
issue ever facility site and development — see commitment to state/federal
programs - not repeated here
33

issue tourism (pages 2, 9, 13, 14, 15)
(NP) Bath supports tourism that maintains the quite, historic character of the community
and that does not dominate this character, in unacceptable ways. The Town will rely on
local regulations and state management of state sites in the area.
(NP) The Town Council (April, 1997) and the Planning Board (May, 1997) passed a
resolution supporting the Town as a site for the placement of artifacts recovered from the
sunken ship thought to be Blackbeard's flagship, the Queen Anne's Revenge, recently
located in Carteret County. Such a resolution was also passed by other entitles and other
area local governments. Obviously the Town believes this would enhance the town's
historic character. Implementation would be by state action.
(19). The Town of Bath will promote tourism and controlled development of the
recreation industry. (relies on local regulations)
(20). Bath encourages and will continue sharing promotional efforts for historic
properties located in Bath with the State of North Carolina. (relies on local/state
action)
(21). Bath recognizes the need for public access to the water for recreational fishing,
swimming and boating. (relies on local/state action)
(22). Bath will preserve the scenic entranceway to Bath on NC 92 East. (relies on
local/state action)
(23) Bath encourages development of crafts/arts/cottage industries that would appeal to
tourism shoppers. (relies on local/state action and regulations)
issue public beachfwater access (pages 2, 12-18)
(24). Bath will be alert to opportunities to provide public accessways to the waters of
Bath and Back Creeks for recreational boaters, fishermen and swimmers, including
"urban waterfront" access. (relies on local actions supported by stateffederal
programs)
(25). Bath encourages safe recreational use of the public trust waters within its
jurisdiction. (relies on state actions, may revisit in the future)
(26). Bath will maintain a balance between recreational use of public trust waters and the
need for water safety and water quality. (relies on local policy and statelfederal
actions, may revisit the issue in the future)
(27). All public access facilities sited in or near public trust waters must be designed to
adequately fulfill parking needs (including trailer space at boat launches) as well as
sanitation needs (including drinking water, toilet facilities, and if appropriate,
shower and dressing rooms) and refuse collection and disposal for the maximum
number of visitors expected daily during peak seasonal use. (will rely on both local
and state action)
(28). All public accessways must meet or exceed state standards for site location. (will
rely on local/state standards)
34

D. Continued Public Participation
At the beginning of this Plan update the Town adopted a Citizen Participation Plan
advising of ways the public could participate in this Plan update, means for continued
participation, and means for obtaining involvement in policy development. The Town also
invited, in writing, other local governments in the county to participate in issues of mutual
concern.
That Participation Plan and accompanying documentation is included in the
Appendix and not repeated here, but please note that following each meeting a Town
Newsletter was made available to area residents advising of the status of the Plan. Also
articles were published in a local newspaper for the same reason.
In the 1991 Plan, the Town had two policies in this category; the CRC's guidelines
now list four issues in this category.
(NP) Town policy for this Plan and future citizen involvement is to rely upon and
implement its adopted Citizen Participation Plan as contained in the Appendix.
E. Storm Hazard Mitigation. Reconstruction. and Evacuation
In the 1991 Plan, the Town had 32 policies related to this issue. CRC guidelines
now list 12 issues for which policies should be developed. The Town has concluded its
past policies far exceed present CRC requirements and has determined these policies are
still valid now in 1997 and are contained below. Policies existing in the 1991 Plan are
preceded by numbers linking them to the policy from the 1991 Plan.
While many areas in Beaufort County and elsewhere in coastal North Carolina
suffered considerable damage from hurricane Bertha and Fran in 1996, Bath remained
relatively untouched. Some piers, docks and bulkheads were damaged by high water and
wave action, but the Town's relatively high elevation prevented much damage seen in
other low lying areas. Wind damage was also minimal. Even so, the whole Town could
be said to be in harms way from future storms and subject to storm damage.
Therefore, the Town is certainly ever alert to the dangers of storm damage and
keeps a very serious vigilance for storm events. Beaufort County has an Emergency
Operations Plan that defines courses of action in disaster relief, recovery and
reconstruction that affects the county. A Control Group, made up of elected
representatives (or their designee) from each Town in the county sits as a member. The
Control Group has input into county policy in these matters and Bath has a representative
on the Group.
The Town believes it is positioned to deal with storm disaster recover, mitigation,
and evacuation as well as any community in the county. The following policies will help
the Town maintain its integrity in the event of a storm event. During review and
development of these policies the Town considered having no proactive local policies. It
also considered relying solely upon state and federal intervention. Neither alternative was
acceptable. All the following policies are from the 1991 Plan and determined to still be
valid. Following each policy statement is a brief explanation of how the policy should be
carried out.
35

STORM HAZARD MITIGATION POLICIES
1. The use of bulkheads along coastal waterways is to be avoided wherever possible.
Bath encourages strict enforcement by CAMA permit officers of CAMA regulations
regarding bulkheads. (relies upon state regulations)
2. The building practices required by the NC Building Code and the National Flood
Insurance Program will be followed and strictly adhered to. Particular attention will
be paid to the construction standards dealing with the effects of high winds. (relies
upon local, county, state action)
3. All new public structures built by the Town will be designed to withstand the impact of
coastal storms. (relies upon local, county, state action)
4. All AECs in the Bath Planning Area will be protected from in -appropriate development
which would subject the natural resources to increased risk from coastal storms. (relies
upon local, state action)
5. Bath requires that the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan filed with the EMC be
strictly adhered to. (relies upon state action)
6. Bath supports the local CAMA permit officer in discouraging the construction of
hotels, restaurants, and similar large commercial structures in erosion -prone areas.
(relies on local regulation)
7. The most hazardous areas and those susceptible to severe flooding are to be restricted
to very low residential development, if they are developed at all. (relies on local
regulation)
8. Bath encourages public acquisition of the most hazardous areas whenever feasible in
order to preclude all possibility of in appropriate development by private landholders.
(relies on local initiation— state/federal grants)
9. Bath will consider methods for acquisition of hazardous areas that are also appropriate
for public accessways to the water. (relies upon local action, state/federal funding)
10. The Town of Bath will work with the County to ensure that current evacuation plans
and routes for the area are the most effective and as up to date as possible. (see
"control group" above)
11. The Town will maintain Bath Elementary School as an evacuation center. (rely on
local/county action)
12. New public buildings will be located and designed to provide evacuation shelter from
coastal storms if the need for additional shelter space is warranted. (relies on local
zoning and county enforcement of building code)
13. The Town will encourage developers of multi -family projects and hotels to provide
evacuation shelters for the residents, employees, and occupants of their facilities.
(relies on county enforcement of building code and good faith of developers)
14. The Town of Bath will seek to increase public awareness of hurricane and coastal
storm preparation, including locations of evacuation routes and shelter sites.
(will distribute information as needed, also see "control group" above)
15. The Town of Bath will seek to increase awareness of and ensure compliance with
hazard mitigation building practices before development takes place. (relies upon
county enforcement of building code)
CM

16. Bath will coordinate its educational efforts with and promote educational programs by
state, county, and federal agencies on coastal storm preparedness. (rely on state,
county, federal initiation)
17. The Town of Bath will follow the guidelines set forth in he Beaufort County Disaster
Relief and Assistance Plan. (self explanatory)
18. The Town will follow courses of action and ensure implementation of its policies will
compliment the County Disaster Plan. (self explanatory)
19. The Town will integrate recovery and reconstruction activities with the broader set of
planning goals and objectives of the community. (rely on local action, state and federal
compliance)
20. Reconstruction following a disaster or storm related destruction shall take place in
accordance with policies'existing at the time of the storm. Development following a
storm should have the same characteristics of development allowed at the time of the
storm. (self explanatory)
21. While regulation of septic tanks and package treatment plants are within the
jurisdiction of the County Health Department and/or the State, the Town will urge that
these facilities be designed and located so that they will be less likely to be damaged,
or cause damage or serious inconvenience by flooding. (rely on county/state use of this
policy)
22. The Town, in accordance with local zoning and building codes, may allow
reconstruction of structures which have been substantially damaged and are located in
high hazard areas. (rely on local/county codes)
23. During reconstruction, the Town will seek to relocate high density structures away
from high storm hazard areas. (rely on local/county codes and judgment)
24. During reconstruction decision -making, the Town will seek to encourage
redevelopment patterns which recognize and utilize natural mitigation features of the
coastal environment. Redevelopment should take into consideration any changes in
natural conditions brought about by the storm. (rely on local/county codes and
judgment)
25. Bath will have a "Recovery Task Force" with designated members and allocated
responsibilities in place to deal with reconstruction activities following a coastal storm
or other disaster. Members include the Town Administrator, Assistant Administrator,
Utility Director, Wastewater System Operator, Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief and
various volunteers. (self explanatory)
26. The Recovery Task Force will work with and coordinate its efforts with all necessary
county, state, and federal agencies. (self explanatory)
27. During reconstruction, the Town will make every effort to development its capacity to
identify and orchestrate various post=storm reconstruction resources, while at the same
time ensuring maximum local control over the reconstruction process. (self
explanatory)
28. The Town will consider a moratorium on requests'for amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance for an appropriate period of time following a disaster. (local action)
29. The Town will explore the possibility of adopting a construction moratorium which
would be triggered by a disaster or major destruction. The temporary moratorium on
all new development would remain in effect until all reconstruction in the Planning
Area is complete. (rely on local judgment and action)
37

30. The Town will prioritize all clean-up efforts according to the following schedule:
(1) Service facilities (electricity, water, sewer, etc.) should be repaired first.
(2) Public facilities which could be used for additional shelter should be
repaired next.
(3) Roads and streets should be repaired next.
(4) A "worst damage" approach should follow afterwards.
31. During reconstruction, the Town will limit the construction of public facilities and
structures and the reconstruction of damaged facilities and structures in high hazard
areas. (rely on local regulations/county enforcement of building code)
32. Public facilities such as water, sewer, and roads will be extended or rebuilt in damaged
high hazard area only when absolutely necessary, and only to such size and degree
necessary to serve the level of density existing before the storm. (rely on local
regulations and judgment and cooperation with other agencies)
F. Other local issues of importance
The CRC's guidelines note local governments may and should develop policies on
issues of local importance. These issues may not exist in the CRC's guidelines or they
may transcend one or more issues identified by the CRC.
In 1991, the Town identified water quality problems and long term accumulative
impacts of development as issues important enough to merit special consideration. Two
policies were developed then; they are still valid today and are listed below. Additionally,
the issue of loud noise is now an issue in 1997 to the extent a new policy attempts to
address the matter. Again, numbered polices reflect 1991 policies still valid, (NP) are new
policies for 1997.
1. For stated policies addressing the issue of water quality, see Policy Sections on: Septic
Tank Use, Coastal Wetlands, Public Trust Waters, 404 Wetlands, Water Supply Areas,
Protection of Potable Water Supply, Stormwater Runoff, Marina and Floating Home
Development, and Commercial and Recreational Fisheries. (see implementation
techniques on each policy)
2. The Bath Planning Board in considering the cumulative impacts of the project and
other existing and approved projects, will scrutinize all proposals for development
projects to ensure the project will not cause long-term negative impacts on water
resources. (will rely on local judgment in conjunction with resource protection
policies)
(NP) The Town is concerned about loud noises from vessels, aircraft, both military and
civilian, and loud music and other noises from automobiles and houses. These noises
disrupt the quite Town atmosphere. (Town may pursue specific actions in the future to
deal with noise if circumstances necessitate.
38

LAND CLASSIFICATION
XII.: Land Classification
The CRC's land use planning guidelines include a land classification system (see
.0213, T15A:07B) that is designed to allow a local government to show geographically .
where certain intensities of desired land uses will occur. This system is designed primarily
for county applications and some classes simply do not apply to the Town of Bath.
CAMA Land Classification does not and should not deal with the same level of
detail that zoning does (such as permitted uses, lot size, percent lot coverage, setbacks,
etc.), but rather speaks to a hierarchy of intensity of land uses and the services (or lack
thereof) to support those uses. It helps local governments define a community character in
a geographic way and is carried out for the most part by -the Town's zoning regulations, its
water and sewer provision practices and other policies and regulations. The land class
system provides guidance as to where areas are to be developed as well as those areas that
may receive limited or no development. The land class framework must be used in
conjunction with Town policies in order to be effective, and hopefully state and federal
agency users of this Plan acknowledge it.
The State's system includes the seven classes: Developed, Urban Transition,
Limited Transition, Community, Rural, Rural with Services and Conservation. These
classes are discussed extensively in the planning guidelines and are not repeated here. Of
these classes, only the Developed, Transition, Rural and the Conservation are used in Bath.
Developed - This class provides for intense development and redevelopment of
existing urban areas and acknowledges the minimum services of roads, water, sewer,
utilities, police and fire protection, garbage service, etc. will be provided in order to
support urban type development.
This classification applies to property within Town limits and along portions of
Bath and Back Creeks within the ETJ area. (While some of the areas in the ETJ that are
classed as developed are not connected to the Town's water or sewer system, otherwise
they meet the intent and character of the Developed Class and thus are shown as such.)
Town policy is these areas contain sufficient lands to meet the anticipated
population growth and as such, most developed should occur here before it occurs in those
areas classed as Transition.
Transition - The state guidelines include two subclasses of this class, Urban
Transition and Limited Transition. In the 1991 Plan, the Town defined two subclasses of
the Urban Transition Class, Residential and Industrial and they are used again here. The
purpose of the Transition Class and subclasses is to provide for future urban development
on suitable lands that will be provided with the necessary, urban type services to support
this anticipated growth. This class also notes areas so classed are in a "transition" state of
development, going from a lower intensity use (undeveloped, farm land, forest land, etc.)
to a higher intensity use (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and this transition is
expected and deemed desirable.
The Urban Transition -Residential Class includes areas north of the Town limits on
both sides of SR 1741 which has much development potential due to good soil conditions,
adequate road access, and proximity to the Town's waste water system.
M,

The Urban Transition Class identifies Charcoal Services east of Town. This class
may also be applied in the future to other areas identified as having industrial development.
potential. In this sense, this class is also a "floating" class that may be applied to industrial
sites in the future that simply are unknown now in -1997.
The two urban transition subclasses reflect the Town's desire for those areas to
develop not necessarily after those vacant lands shown in the previous Developed Class.
(This practice differs from contemporary planning theory and practice and the CRC's
guidelines for reasons discussed next.) While much of the area shown in the Developed
Class can accommodate anticipated population growth, and for the most part has urban
services in place, ownership patterns in those areas may preclude property development.
The two subclasses of the Urban Transition Class provides choices within these
areas due to the potential for land sales that may not exist within the Developed Class. The
Town used this system in its 1991 Plan and the same logic applies now in 1997: that when
possible (and in theory) urban type development should be encouraged within areas shown
as Developed, the Town's modified versions of the urban Transition areas may provide the
needed incentive to allow and encourage eventual urbanization within these pre -designated
sites.
The Limited Transition Class provides for some consolidated development within
areas that have, or will have, some limited services, but are typically at densities lower than
those within the Urban Transition Classes. The Town anticipates these areas to be
primarily for rather low density residential development.
The reader should also note that while the Town is trying to show areas in any of
the Transition Classes or subclasses that, are suitable for future urban type development,
any future growth within these areas will also be guided by two other important
ingredients: the Town's zoning ordinance and the Town's policies on resource protection
and water quality.
The Rural Class provides for agriculture, forestry management, and the low
intensity uses not necessitating urban type services. The CRC guidelines also note that
certain land uses, due to the noxious or hazardous nature and impacts on adjacent land uses
may be appropriate here (such as solid waste disposal, mining operations, junk yards, etc.)
If these uses are permitted they must be sited in such ways that minimize their negative
impacts and in the strictest compliance with zoning and Town policies for resource
protection and management. Other uses consistent with this class include very low
density, large lot residential uses.
Most of the area within the Town's ETJ is included in this class, and typically this
class is the largest classification for towns such as Bath.
The Conservation Class is designed to recognize and acknowledge long term
management and protection of significant natural, cultural and historic areas as well as
those subject to natural hazards. The state guidelines note that due to the uniqueness of
these areas, limited development or no development should occur, and that which does
occur should be in such a way that it does not negatively affect the character of the area.
State guidelines also note that AECs and other similar areas should be included in this
classification.
40

In Bath, all AECs, public trust areas, coastal wetlands, and "404 Wetland" areas
regulated by the US Army Corp of Engineers, and all historic, archeological, recreational
and public water access areas are included in this class. Development within these areas
must conform to the strictest local zoning provisions, CAMA development permit
requirements, Corps regulations, etc. As some of these areas are small and do not lend
themselves to precise mapping, plan users should be guided by this discussion, Town
policies and specific site determination by the appropriate regulatory agency in
determining the conservation land classification.
XIII. Relationship of Policies and Land Classification
Policies developed during this 1997 Plan Update acknowledge the low density
residential and historical character of the Town and the great desire to continue this in the
future.
Policies note that primarily residential development will continue in Town, and that
residential development along the shores of Bath and Back Creeks will continue. The
Town still desires limited commercial land uses, primarily on Main and Carteret Streets,
and these desires are reflected in the Developed and Transition Land Classes. Resource
protection policies note the very strong desire to protect and maintain the waterways and
other naturally important areas in the planning area and are reflected in the Conservation
land class. Low density development, forestry and agriculture activities primarily in the
ET7 are reflected in the rural land class.
It should be noted that many policies will transcend a wider range of growth
management issues and will have impacts in all land classes.
XIV. Intergovernmental Coordination
At the beginning of this 1997 Plan Update, a Citizen Participation Plan was
developed and available to all persons interested in the Town's future. Also all
municipalities in the county and county government itself was advised in writing the Town
would be updating it's Plan, the Planning Board would have responsibility and the time,
place and dates of Planning Board meetings. All interested parties were invited to
participate in these meetings. A series of newspaper articles were published in the
newspaper having countywide circulation about the status of the Planning Board's efforts.
These articles also encouraged interested parties to participate on issues of common
concerns. After each Planning Board meeting, a Town newsletter explaining the status of
the Plan Update was available to area residents.
Town policies of relying on various county, state and federal agencies offers good
opportunities to achieve local, state, regional and national goals and consultation with
these agencies during plan preparation offered opportunities for input.
41

TOWN OF BATH
NOTE: EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
LINE OBTAINED FROM MAP BY HOOD
RICHARDSON, RLS., DATED FEBRUARY 24,
1990, RECORDED IN BEAUFORT COUNTY
REGISTER OF DEEDS, PLAT CABINET E'
SLIDE 24-2.
GRAPHIC SCALE
EXISTING LAND USE N
A
LEGEND
C3TOWN LIMITS
Q EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION LINE
PROPERTY LINES
t CHURCH
GRID COORDINATES
EXISTING LAND USE
' AGRICULTURAL
COMMERCIAL/O & I/RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
E—] VACANTNVATER/FOREST
2000 0 2000 4000 6000 Feet
SK
3. THE DIGITAL DATA FOR THIS MAP
CAME FROM BEAUFORT COUNTY
TAX OFFICE, LAND RECORDS. TAX
MAPS ARE DIRIVED FROM ACTUAL
DEEDS AND ORTHOPHOTOS TIED
TO THE NORTH CAROLINA GRID
SYSTEM. THE TIC MARK
COORDINATES AT THE INTERSECTION
OF NC 92 & MAIN STREET ARE:
E. 2650767.94
N. 635895.26
North Carolina
Department of
A94*Commerce
Division of
Community
Assistance
MAP PREPARED 2/17/98

BATH PLANNING AREA
LEGEND
LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
DEVELOPED NOTE: EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
LIMITED TRANSITION LINE OBTAINED FROM MAP BY HOOD
URBAN TRANSITION RESIDENTIAL RICHARDSON, RLS., DATED FEBRUARY 24,
URBAN TRANSITON INDUSTRIAL 1990, RECORDED IN BEAUFORT COUNTY
CONSERVATION (WATER) REGISTER OF DEEDS, PLAT CABINET "IF
RURAL SLIDE 24-2.
* North Carolina
Department of
AMA*Commerce
Division of Graphic Scale
Community 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet
Assistance
Map Prepared 8/5197

t
Town of Bath
Citizen Participation Plan
1996-97 CAMA Land Use Plan Update
In accordance with section .OZ IS of the CRC's Land Use Planning Guidelines, the Town
Council has added by resolution this Citizen participation Plan to provide w1equate
participation opportunities to town residents, property owners, and other interested parties.
1) The Planning Board is responsible for updating the 1991 plan. The Planning Board will
supervise and guide this plan updat* and shall make recomnnendations to the Town Council
regarding the preliminary and final Plan Update.
2) A monthly newsletter, following each Planning Board urea (twill be distributed to
residents of the Town and extraterritorial planning area. The newsletter will advise of Issues
discussed at the meeting and of matters for the upcoming meeting.
3) The Planning Board will meet at 7:00 p.m. on the first Monday of each rnonth during this
Land use Plan Update. These meetings will begin in March. Meetings will be In the Noe
Building. All meetings are open to the public and interested citizens are encouraged and welcome
to attend. A list of meeting dates is attached.
4) Ali local governments in Beaufort County will be notified of the Town of Bath's Land Use
Plan Update and their attendance is welcomed and encouraged.
S) News Items concerning the Town's Plan Update will be submitted to the Washington Daly
Nm periodically to advise Interested parties of the update.
6) Other participation opportunities will bei provided if the need arises such as
presentations to civic groups, etc.
7) When the final Land Use Plan Update is completed, the Town Council will hold a public
hearing to consider adopting the final plan. Advertising and holding this hearing shall be In
accordance with, Section .0402(s) in the CRC's Land Use Planning Guidelines that call for at
least a 30 day notice that states the time, date, place, and purpose of the hearing, that a copy of
the plan will be available for public review during the 30 days, and that all parties having
interest in the plan shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
This resolution is adopted on this �A da of —
(SEAL)

• INCORPORATED 1703
HISTORIC BATH
OLDEST TOWN IN THE STATE
BATH. NORTH CAROLINA 27808
March 4,. 1997
Mr. Sam Jarvis
P.O. Box 6
Bath, North Carolina 27808-0006
bear Mr. Jarvis:
As you may know, this year the Town of Bath is updating its CAMA Land -
Use Plan in accordance with the Coastal Area Management Act. This update
is required at least every five years and is guided by the Coastal Resources
Commission's (CRC's) Land -Use Planning Guidelines, T1 51:07B. Other local
governments in the area that are also updating their plans this year include
Beaufort County, the towns of Aurora, Belhaven, Chocowinity, and the City
of Washington.
One section of the CRC's Planning Guidelines, .0212 (c) notes that "Meetings _
should be held with the planning and governing boards of all adjoining plan-
ning jurisdictions to discuss planning concerns of mutual interest." While
the intent here is clear, the guidelines are silent on which local govern-
ment should be responsible for these meetings or how they should be structured
and conducted.
Therefore, the Planning Board of the Town of Bath serves notice by this
letter and attached list ofmeeting dates, times, and place that all -
Planning Board meetings are open to the public and officials from your
unit .of government are invited to attend to discuss ". planning concerns
of mutual interest" and other matters.
We look forward to your cooperation in this matter and if you have any
questions, please feel free to call Bubs Carson, town adminsitrator,
at 923-0212 or 923-6471.
Sincerely,
>-na,t7 ''o
Mary Ruth Hardy
Chairperson, Bath Planning Board
mrh
W

BEAUFORT COUNTY MAYORS
0=0 H: Bonner
P.O. Box 86
Aurora, NC 278.06-0086
Saco Jarvis
P.O.Box 6
13atb. NC 27908-0006
Charles O. Boyette
P.O. Box 220
Belhaven, NC 27810-0220
CHOCOWINITY
James Mobley, Jr.
P.O. Box 143
Chocowinity, NC 27917-0145
PAM99
Glenda A. Jackson
P.O. Box 87
Pantego, NC 27860.0087
]�ASI�NC}TON .
L. Stewart Rumley
P.O. Box 1998
Washington, NC 27889.1988
WASHINGTON PARK
Thomas B. Richter
P.O. Box 632
Washington, NC 27839.0632
Frank Bonner, Chairman
Beaufort County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1027
Washington, NC 27989.1027

Town of Bath Planning Board Meetings
CAMA Land Use Plan Update
All meetings at 7:00 p.m. in the Noe Building in Bath
March 3,1997
April 7, 1997
May 5, 1997
June 2,1997
July 7, 1997
August 4, 1997
September 1, 1997

PAGE 2 — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1997
ABOUTTOWN Bath to
And Here and There `VASHP( ,Work on
On the Pamlico ��
�!update .
The Bath Planning • Board is
responsible for the Plan Update and
will make recommendations to the
Town Council on the update. The
Planning Board will meet the first
Monday of each month, beginning
in March at 7 p.m. in the Noe Build-
ing.
All meetings are open to the pub-
lic and interested citizens are invited
to attend.. ....!
Following each monthly meeting;
a newsletter advising of issues dis-
cussed and of matters to be dis-
cussed at the upcoming meeting will ;
be distributed to planning area resi-
dents.
Planning Board members include
Chairman Mary Ruth Hardy, Mary
Ann .Haskell, Doris Langley, Jasper
Nolan, Jack Rivers, Lynn Smith and
Bazelle Womick.
The town received a• planning
grant from the Division of Coastal
Management and contributes local
money and staff time to complete
the update. The town has hired John
Crew, Coastal Consortium, Consult-
ing Planners Inc. from Washington I
to assist in the update.
When completed in September,
the plan will be endorsed by the
town, then sent to the CRC for certi-
fication review. Upon certification,• 'i
the plan becomes a part of the state's
coastal management plan and is=
used by state agencies in making ;
decisions on how their programs
affect the town. �.
BATH — The Town of Bath
recently started its required five-
year CAMA Land Use Plan Update.
The Coastal Area Management Act
mandates that the 20 coastal coun-
ties and towns therein update their
plans every five years, and the
Coastal Resources Commission has
developed guidelines to assist in
these updates.
Plans include policies on future
growth and economic development,
conservation of natural resources
and other important matters and help
local governments define their,
future desires.
Locally, Bath joins Beaufort:
County and the towns of Aurora,
Belhaven, Chocowinity and the City.
of Washington in updating their'
plans during 1996-97.
Coastwide, a total of four counties
and 19 towns also will be updating -
plans this year.
County and municipal plans are
staggered each year so that all 20
county and 78 municipal plans are
not done in the same year.
Each plan update gives the local
government opportunities to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of their previ-
ous policies, discuss issues of
importance today, and establish new
policies for future development so..;
the goals of the community are clear. y
Plan updates help local govern
ments answer important questions
about • themselves: Where is : otir
community now? What are we.like?
Where do we want to go? Whal.dof
we want to be like? and How 'dq we;
get there? What tools, such as nur I
zoning ordnance, sewer connection":
policy, etc..., do we use to attain -our.
go -Is?; ~:

;n
•.h
lugS#_ �q 4-Y
Bath working on update
0.
BATH — The Bath Planning
Board met on Tuesday at 7 p.m. in
the Noe Building to continue its
work on the land -use plan update.
Due to schedule conflicts, the
board is now meeting on the first
Tuesday of each month rather than
the first Monday as previously
advertised.
At the April meeting, the board
reviewed various town community
services, such as water supply,
wastewater disposal, fire and police
protection, solid waste collection,
etc. For the most part, these services
appear to be adequate for expected
populations for the Plan Update peri-
od.
The board also noted ordinances
and regulations — local, state and
federal — that affect the town.
Changes in land use since the 1991
plan were discussed. Natural con-
straints to development, such as poor
soils, areas subject to flooding, wet-
land areas and navigable waters all
pose some limits'to development and
the board noted these conditions. .
At the May 6 meeting, the board
will begin establishing draft policies
on topics such as natural resource
production and resource protection.
Future meetings will deal with eco-
nomic and community development
and storm hazard mitigation. The
draft of the plan is scheduled to be
completed by late summer for Town
Council review.
The town received a grant to help
cover the cost of the update and John
Crew, Coastal Consortium, Consult-
ing Planners Inc. in Washington, is
providing technical assistance.

PAGE 8A— WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, SATURDAY, MAY.17,1997.
Bath works9n.-landmuse
BATH — The Town Planning Board met on May 6 at
7 p.m. in the Noe Building to continue work on its
required five-year land -use plan update. The board has
been woiking since November to update its plan in
accordance with CAMA requirements.
At the meeting, the board considered numerous poli-
cies dealing with natural resource protection and natural
resource production issues. Discussions included con-
sidering more stringent control within CAMA Areas of
Environmental Concern then those required by the state,
as well as letting the economy and market forces dictate
when and where development occurs.
During its discussion, the board reviewed'its policies
from the 1991 Plan, and noted that many of those poli-
cies are still valid now in 1997, and thus no change is
needed.
The board also discussed new issues not existing in
1991 such as the long term mooring of vessels in the
Request From Page 1A
plan
town's waterways. ' '
At the June meeting, the board will discuss economic
and community development issues, storm hazard miti-
gation and citizen participation policies. Finally, -land
classification and a map will be drawn showing where
policies will apply..
The preliminary plan should be completed later this
summer for the Town Council to forward to the Coastal
Resources Commission for their review. When certified
by the CRC, the plan is used by state agencies in mak-
ing decisions as to how their programs affect the town.
The town received a grant from the state to help
finance the plan update and hired Coastal Consortium,
Consulting Planners Inc. from Washington to provide
technical assistance.
The Planning Board meets the first Tuesday of each
month at 7 p.m. in the Noe Building and interested citi-
zens are invited to attend.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS. FRIDAY JUNE 13, 1997— PAGE 3A
Bath at
work on
land plan
. BATH — The Bath Planning
Board met on June 3 in the Noe
Building to continue its work on the
Land Use Plan Update.
The board reviewed draft policies
established at the May meeting on
natural -resource production and pro-
tection issues. Some revisions were
made.
The board then established draft
policies on economic and communi-
ty development, public participation
and storm hazard mitigation, recon-
struction and evacuation matters.
These draft policies will be
reviewed again in July.
The board discussed relationship
of policies with land classification,
intergovernmental coordination and
reviewed its previous land-classifi-
catiop map.
After noting changes that have
eccurred since the 1991 plan, the
board made some modifications to
the map.
The board also reviewed existing
land uses again, which were dis-
cussed at a previous meeting.
Barring unforeseen events, the
Planning Board hopes to present a
draft plan to the Town Council .
sometime following the July, meet-
ing.
Once the Town Board endorses
-the draft plan, it will be transmitted
. to the Coastal Resource Commis-
sion for its review and comments.
Once the plan has state approval,
-it will be used by the town to guide
future development and will also be
used by state agencies in their deci-
.sion making as to how their activi-
ties affect the town.
John Crew, the consultant hired to
assist the town, said, "The Planning
Board has been very active in devel-
.oping local policies that really do
reflect the town's position on rpany
important issues. The plan will be an.
excellent statement as to how the
.community hopes to proceed in the
future."
Crew also noted that Bath joins
Beaufort County and the towns of
Belhaven, Washington, Chocowini-
ty and Aurora in updating their plans
this year. Crew said all 20 coastal
counties and about 75 municipal
governments update their plans
every five years in accordance with
state law.
The Planning Board meets the first
Tuesday of every month at 7 p.m. in
the Noe Building. Interested citizens .
are invited to attend.

PAGE 2A — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1997
Bath working on plan update
BATH — The Bath Planning
for review. Following CRC reviews
Board met at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the
and changes. if necessary, the plan
Noe Building to continue its work on
will be locally adopted following an
the CAMA Land Use Plan Update.
advertised public hearing. then sent
Draft policies established at the June
back to the CRC for their approval.
meeting on economic and communi-
Following CRC approval the plan
'
ty development, citizen participation,
becomes the official policy document
storm hazard mitigation and local
for town use and state agencies will
issues were reviewed and some
changes were noted.
also use the plan in making decisions
as to how their various programs
Existing non-residential land uses
affect the town.
CAMA Land Use Plans must be
were also discussed from a previous
list and needed changes were noted
updated every five years and the state
on the existing land use map. Rela-
provides grant monies to help finance
tionships between policies and land
the effort.
classification and intergovernmental
coordination were also discussed.
The July' fneeting marks the end of
most of the board's formal work on
the update. The board will review a
completed draft plan during July and
at the August meeting any changes
the board deems appropriate will be
made.
Upon completion the draft plan
'Will be submitted for Bath Town
Council review and with its endorse-
ment, the draft will be transmitted to
the Coastal Resources Commission

PAGE 6A — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, THURSDAY. AUGUST 7, 1997
F,.,..--..
Bath Planning Board
works on plan update
BATH — At its Tuesday meeting
in the Noe Building, the Bath Plan-
ning Board made some minor
changes to its 1997 CAMA Prelim-
inary Land Use Plan Update.
The board has been working
since last fall on the update, which
is required by the state very five
years.
Plan updates are used by local
officials to guide growth and devel-
opment in ways that reflect town
values.
Plans are used by state officials in
making decisions as to how they
deliver their services at the local
government level.
The Preliminary Plan will be pre-
sented to the Town Council at its
Aug. 11 meeting.
Following. council review, the
Preliminary Plan will be transmit-
ted to the Coastal Resources Com-
mission for their review.
The CRC may suggest changes
for the town to consider, and fol-
lowing those changes the councils
will adopt the plan. I
The locally adopted plan is then;
sent back to the CRC for their cer-
tification.
State grant funds and local funds
and services are used to finance
plan updates.
This 1997 update is the town's
fourth plan, haying previously,
completed plans in 1980, 1986 and
1991.
John Crew, Coastal Consortium,
Consulting Planners Inc. in Wash-
ington, has been providing techni-
cal assistance with the update.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS,TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24,1998,
Planning
Bath's Board
makes update changes:,.
p g .
BATH — At its Feb.17 meeting
plan for public hearing to beheld in
in the Noe Building, the Bath Town
April. .1
Planning Board voted to transmit
Any interested party may com-
revisions to the town's Sketch Land
ment on the revisions to the plan. .
Use Plan Update to the Town Board
public...hearing notice will be
for its consideration...
.. advertised.concerning this matte,,
The revisions are in response to..:
•'�.Tfie Town Councitwill cbnsider
state comments dated Nov. 3 on the
the Planning Boards recommenda-
town's preliminary plan update
tion at its March 9 meeting. CAMA
submitted to the state in Septem-
requires coastal local government r
ber.
to update their plans every five
The Planning Board's recommen-
years.
dation to the Town Board also
The town's last plan was certified
includes to advertise the revised
by the CRC in December 1991.

PAGE BA — WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY. MARCH 11, 1998
Bath Council gets behind center'
By Jennifer Murphy
Staff Writer
BATH — The Bath Town Council endorsed
plans to establish the Bath Community Center and
renovate the former Bath Fire Department station
to house it, after hearing project coordinators John
Everett and the Rev. Gary Fulton on Monday night.
Fulton described the predicament the center
faces — finding the funding to repair the structure
so it meets building codes. Meanwhile, a board of
directors and teens interested in the proposed cen-
ter are working to turn their dream into reality.
The board of directors recently decided to. let
teens and senior citizens use the building. The
teens will get to use the upstairs section, and the
senior citizens would get the downstairs area.
Fulton said there's a plan to make use of the
communications lower that's outside the building.
Fulton said he has been working with WCPE, a
24-hour radio station, to bring classical music to
the area by installing a translator on the towcr.'I'hc
station's broadcasts would reach area schools.
Fulton said research has shown that exposure to
classical music increases the intelligence of chil-
dren.
Everett asked that the project be blessed Gy the
council, which it gladly gave.
lie informed the bck-trd about plans in the works
for a fund-raising event, tentatively scheduled for
May.
'town attorney Wayland Sermons told the coun-
cil that he and Josic Houkway. chairman of the
Historic Bath Commission, attended a two-day
meeting last month concerning the distribution of
the Blackboard artifacts recovered from the Queen
Anne's Revenge, the famous pirates flagship. The
artifacts will be shared by several coastal history
attractions in North Carolina.
John Crew, a Coastal Consortium wdrkcr who's
been working on the town's land- use plan, said the
document is ready to be adopted, pending a public
forum to gather input from town residents cunccrn-
ing the plan. The public Bearing is scheduled for
7:30 p.m. April 13. Copies of the plan arc available
at the *Ibwii Hall, the Bath Library, Sermons office
in Washington, and by contacting council mem-
bers.
In other business, the council:
— Authorized Sermons to ask the N.C. Division
of Environmental Management to increase the
'amount of wastewater the town can treat. The town
wants to hook up more people before summer
arrives.
— Instructed Bubs Carson, the town administra-
tor, to contact Smithton Sanitation about improv-
ing its services.'1'hc firm provides trash collection
in the arca. The council's action was the result of
numerous complaints about the collection service.
— I leard from Mayor Barbara Modlin about the
Fun Day committee, which is chaired by George
Mohorn.
The committee is looking for vendors and crafts
distributors to participate in the April 19 event.
Applications to participate in the event are avail-
able at the Historic Bath Center at the corner of
Harding and Carteret streets. Vendors and distribu-
tors arc required to pay a $10 fee.
Prospective vendors and distributors should con-
tact Mohorn at 923-5571 or Connie Alberia at 92.3-
7741.
A hake sale, to raise funds for Fun Day, will be
held April 4 in Brook's Grocery store.

' PAGE 6B - WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11,1998
LEGAL NOTICES must be placed by 12 noon,
two days prior to publication.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Town of Bath CAMA Sketch Land Use Plan Up-
date
In accordance with GS 113-110(e), T15A.07B 1
0402, et al the Town Board will hold a public
hearing on Monday the 13th day of April at 7:30
pm in the Noe Building. The purpose of the hear-
ing Is to consider adopting the Town's 1997
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Sketch
Land Use Plan Update. CAMA requires land use
plans to be'updated at least every five years and
the Planning Board and Town Board have been
working on the Plan during 1997.
Copies of the plan proposed for adoption are '
available for public inspection:St the Town office
during its normal working hours on Wednesday
and Friday momings. A copy of the Plan will be
available at the Bath Community Library dung
its open hours. Each Town Board member will
have a copy of the Plan available for public re-
view. Finally, the Town attorney will also have a
copy of the Plan at his office available for review
during normal working hours.
Following the public hearing, the Town Board may .
adopt the Plan and transmit it to the Coastal Re-
sources Commission (CRC) for. their certlficatfon
review.

WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1998 — PAGE 3A'-� ;
Bath -Board givesi
support to update;
of land -use plan,�
By Jennifer Murphy
Staff Writer
BATH — The Bath Board of
Commissioners unanimously adopt-
ed the town's revised land -use plan
after a brief, uneventful public hear-
ing Monday night.
The only public comment about
the plan was a request for clarifica-
tion of the purpose of land -use plans
in general.
The plan serves as an articulation
of the town's policies concerning
development. It sets the guidelines
for state agencies to consider as they
work with the town on development
issues.
For example, the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management would consult
a town's land -use plan before issu-
ing permits for bulkheads and piers
within town limits. A local govern-
ment may have ordinances that
restrict construction and develop-
ment more stringently than the state
regulations.
Jane Daughtridge, a district plan-
ner for the N.C. Department of Envi-
ronment and Natural Resources, will
take the plan before the Coastal
Resources Commission's Planning
and Special Issues Committee for
approval at an upcoming conference
in Wilmington.
"I would urge you to have some
representation at that meeting," she
said. "The mood of the committee
has been to wonder if some mem-
bers of local government are aware
of what is in their land -use plan."
Town attorney Wayland Sermons
assured her that the CRC would be
aware of Bath officials' involvement
with and awareness of the town's
land -use plan.
State law requires that land -use
plans be updated every five years.
John Crew, a representative of
Coastal Consortium, helped the
town prepare the plan.
He said the submission of a sketch
plan this year rather than the full
plan that the town has submitted prei.
-
viously was an improvement.
"Ibe previous plan.had 200 pages
front and back," he said. "The -I
revised sketch plan is 60: ' — +
Crew said he "took the previous ; ;
plan, which was exhaustive and
quite frankly terrifically boring, and
made something a little easier 'to';...
understand." a

Bath Town Newsletter
The Town of Bath is updating its CAMA Land Use Plan this year. CAMA requires
these updates every five years to give local governments the opportunity to review past
goals and to develop new goals to guide growth for the next five years. This year in
addition to Bath, Beaufort County, Aurora, Belhaven, Chocowinity and Washington will also
be updating their plans.
The Town received a grant from CAMA to help with the cost of the update. The
Town has hired John Crew, Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc., to help with the
update.
The Planning Board is responsible for the update and will make recommendations to
the Town Council in the early fall. The Planning Board will meet the first Monday of each
month at 7 Pm in the Noe Building. All meetings are open to the public and interested
citizens are invited to attend.
At the organizational meeting in February, the Planning Board developed a Citizen
Participation Plan, established meeting dates and time, notified the other local governments
in the county that Bath is updating its plan, and reviewed the CAMA planning requirements.
At the March meeting, the Planning Board reviewed its policies and goals from the
1991 Plan and discovered that most of the 125 policies had been attempted or met.
Several policies were noted to be obsolete, but otherwise an excellent score was given ....
quite good for our Town. The Board also reviewed information about our population,
housing, new housing construction and our economy.

Bath Town N ews l ette r
The Planning Board continues its' work on updating it's CAMA Land Use Plan
Update required every five years. Due to schedule conflicts, the Board is now meeting on
the 1 st Tuesday of each month rather than the 1 st Monday as previous advertised.
Meetings are still at 7 PM in the Noe Building and interested parties are invited to attend.
At the April 1 st meeting the Board reviewed various Town community services such
as water, wastewater, fire and police protection, etc. and learned that these services for the
most part, are adequate for expected future populations for the update period.
Ordinances and regulations affecting the Town were also reviewed. Changes in
land use since the 1991 Plan were discussed. A discussion on natural constraints to
development showed areas with soil limitations, areas subject to flooding, wetland areas
and public trust waters (navigable waters) all pose some limits to development because of
safety, affecting the natural conditions in an unacceptable way or restricting public
navigation.
At the May 6th meeting the Board will begin establishing draft policies on topics
such as natural resource production and natural resource protection. Future meetings will
deal with economic and community development, storm hazard mitigation and recovery.
The Board hopes to complete the draft plan by late summer for Town Council review.

Bath Town Newsletter
The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, May 6th in the Noe Building to continue
working on the Town's CAMA five year Land Use Plan Update. In accordance with state
planning guidelines, the Board considered numerous policies that deal with natural
resource protection and natural resource production. Discussions included alternatives
that consider more stringent control within CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's)
than those required by the state, as well as letting the economy and market forces dictate
when and where development occurs.
During the discussions, the Board reviewed policies it developed as part of the
Town's 1991 Plan Update, and noted that some of those policies are still valid now in 1997,
and thus no change is needed. The Board will develop draft policies in these and other
issues.
At the June meeting, the Board will consider economic and community development
issues, storm hazard mitigation and citizen participation policies. Finally, land classification
and a map will be completed showing where these policies apply within the Town's
planning area.
The preliminary plan should be completed later this summer for the Town Council to
forward to the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) for their review. When certified by
the CRC, the Plan is used by state agencies as a guide to how their programs affect the
Town.
The Town received a grant from the state to help finance the required Update and
hired Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc. from Washington to provide technical
assistance.
The Planning Board meets the first Tuesday of each month in the Noe Building at 7
pm to work on the plan and the public is invited to attend

Bath Town Newsletter
The Town Planning Board met on Tuesday, June 3rd at 7 PM in the Noe Building to
continue working on the CAMA Land Use Plan Update.
The Board reviewed draft policies established at the May meeting on natural
resource production and protection issues. Some revisions were made. The Board then
established draft policies on economic and community development, public participation
and storm hazard mitigation, reconstruction and evacuation matters. These draft policies
will be reviewed again in July.
Additionally, the Board discussed relationship of policies with land classification,
intergovernmental coordination and reviewed its' previous land classification map. Noting
the changes that have occurred since the 1991 Plan, draft modifications to the land
classification map were also made.
. The Board also reviewed again existing land uses which were previously discussed
several meetings ago.
Barring unforeseen events, the Planning Board hopes to present a draft plan to the
Town Council for their consideration following the July meeting.
Once the Town Board endorses the draft plan, it will be transmitted to the CRC for
their review and comments. * Once the Plan has state approval, it will be used by the Town
to guide future development and state agencies will use the Plan in making decisions as to
how their activities affect the Town.
Bath joins Beaufort County and the Towns of Belhaven, Washington, Chocowinity,
and Aurora in updating their plans this year. All 20 coastal counties and about 75
municipal governments have plans and all will update them every five years in accordance
with state law.
The Planning Board meets the first Tuesday of every month at 7 PM in the Noe
Building and interested citizens are invited to attend.

Bath Town Newsletter
The Bath Planning Board met at 7 p.m., July 1 in the Noe Building to continue their
work on the CAMA Land Use Plan Update. Draft policies established at the June meeting
on economic and community development, citizen participation, storm hazard mitigation
and local issues were reviewed and some changes were noted.
Existing non-residential land uses were also discussed from a previous list and
needed changes were noted on the existing land use map. Relationships between policies
and land classification and intergovernmental coordination were also discussed.
The July meeting marks the end of most of the Board's formal work on the Update.
The Board will review a completed draft plan during July and at the August meeting any
changes the Board seems appropriate will be made.
Upon completion the draft plan will be submitted for Town Council review and with
their endorsement, the draft will be transmitted to the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) for review. Following CRC reviews and changes, if necessary, the Plan will be
locally adopted following an advertised public hearing, then sent back to the CRC for their
approval. Following CRC approval the Plan becomes the official policy document for Town
use and state agencies will also use the Plan in making decisions as to how their various
programs affects the Town.
CAMA Land Use Plans must be updated every five years and the state provides
grant monies to help finance the effort. All 20 coastal counties and approximately 75 towns
have approved land use plans.

Town of Bath Newsletter
Bath Planning Board Completes Preliminary Draft of CAMA Land Use Plan Update
At its August 5t' meeting in the Noe Building the Bath Planning Board made some minor
changes to its 1997 CAMA Preliminary Land Use Plan Update. The Board has been working since
last fall on the update, which is required by the state every five years.
Plan updates are used by local officials to guide growth and development in ways that reflect
Town values. Plans are used by state officials in making decisions as to how they deliver their
services at the local government level.
The Preliminary Plan will be presented to the Town Council at their August I Ith meeting.
Following council review, the Preliminary Plan will be transmitted to the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC) for their review. The CRC may suggest changes for the Town to consider, and
following those changes the Council will adopt the plan. The locally adopted plan is then sent back
to the CRC for their certification.
State grant funds and local funds and services are used to finance plan updates. This 1997
update is the Town's fourth plan, having previously completed plans in 1980, 1986, and 1991.
John Crew, Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc. in Washington has been providing
technical assistance with the update.

1991 Policy Assessment
Score A. Resource Protection Policies
1 1. Development in areas identified with steep slopes (12% or greater)
should be restricted to large -lot single family units.
2. Development in areas identified with a relatively high water table or
other limitations upon housing foundations or road construction
should be restricted to large -lot single family units.
1 3. Use of septic tanks for existing and future development projects in
identified areas of potential septic difficulty shall be discouraged.
1 4. Where hook-up to the Bath wastewater system is available, small-scale
development projects shall be required to hook up.
1 5. Small-scale development in areas identified as areas of potential
septic difficulty where hook-up to the Bath wastewater treatment
system is not available shall be large -lot single family units.
Moot 6. Large-scale developments shall be required to install and provide for
the operation and maintenance of on -site package treatment plants for
treatment of waste generated by the development.
1 7. Bath recognizes the biological and ecological importance of coastal
wetlands and maintains a position of protection and preservation of
` this invaluable natural resource.
1 8. Development in Bath shall not cause significant damage to natural
resources, including coastal wetlands.
t 9. All development projects shall limit the construction of impervious
surfaces and other areas prohibiting natural drainage to only the
area necessary to adequately serve the use of the lot.
10. All development shall provide for adequate stormwater collection and
drainage to avoid stormwater runoff from entering any coastal
wetlands, surface water, or other fragile area.
11. All development projects shall meet or exceed the standards of the
N.C. Sedimentation,Pollution Control Act of 1973.
1 12. All development proposals must be within the strictest CAMA standards
set forth in 15 N.C.A.C. 7B and outlined in "A Handbook for
Development in North Carolina's Coastal Area" published by Division
of Coastal Management of EHNR.

Score
13. The following uses shall not be permitted in or near any coastal
1 wetland or other natural resource: open dumping of waste, including
wastewater, dumping of trash, further development of commercial wet -
docking storage facilities, and multi -level dry docking storage
facilities.
14. The Town of Bath encourages and supports stricter enforcement of CAMA
• regulations by CAMA permit officers, including regulation of
bulkheading.
1 15. The Town of Bath encourages and supports stricter, enforcement of all
water quality regulations by the Division of Environmental
Management.
1 16. Bath encourages the reduction of agricultural nonpoint source
pollution (sediment, nutrients, animal wastes and pesticides) via
such means as conservation tillage, filter strips, sediment control
structures, etc.
1 17. Bath encourages and supports education and training workshops for all
citizens of Bath in coordination with EHNR and other groups whose
primary interest is protecting and preserving coastal wetlands and
other AEC's.
i 18. Bath encourages shoreline development setbacks and/or vegetated
buffers along the perimeter of fragile wetlands and water bodies.
i 19. Bath discourages any further development of commercial marinas.
M
1 20. Only "water -dependent" uses shall be allowed in coastal wetlands,
public trust waters, and other areas of environmental concern.
21. Bath discourages improper infilling and dredging of wetlands and
public trust waters.
i 22. The Town of Bath recognizes the environmental, aesthetic, and social
importance of public trust waters and maintains a position of
protection and preservation of and open public access to this
invaluable natural resource.
Z 23. The Town of Bath recognizes the right of all people of North Carolina
to use and enjoy the waters held in trust for their benefit by the
State; the Town also recognizes and accepts its role as protector and
regulator of the quality and safety of the public trust waters within
its jurisdiction.
1 24. Bath discourages alienation of any public trust waters to any private
transferee, or to any public transferee for purposes that are not
• consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine as it is recognized in
North Carolina.
1 25. Development shall not interfere with existing public rights of access
to, or use of, navigable waters or other public resources.

Score
i 26. Bath encourages removal of all existing pilings in public trust
waters.
1 27. Bath encourages the opening up of waters previously closed to fishing
due to low-grade classification.
i 28. Bath encourages use of public trust waters in an environmentally
sound manner and with regard to human health and safety.
1 29. Bath discourages expansion of phosphate mining operations in public
trust waters.
1 30. The Town of Bath recognizes the environmental and biological
importance of Section 404 Wetlands and maintains a position of
protection and preservation of this invaluable natural resource.
1 31. The Town of Bath encourages and supports stricter enforcement of
Section 404 regulations by EPA and Army Corps of Permit Officers.
1 32. The Town of Bath recognizes the importance of protecting the
groundwater in the Bath Planning Area since the main source of water
for the public water system and for individual private wells is the
Castle-Hayne Aquifer.
1 33. No development shall be allowed which would result in degradation of
the groundwater or cause a significant lowering of groundwater
levels.
Moot 34. The Town encourages all owners of individual wells to identify the
land area. Surrounding the wellheads and to remove existing and
prevent future incompatible land uses which could contaminate the
well.
1 35. The Town discourages phosphate mining activities which could lower
groundwater levels in the Bath Planning Area.
1 36. Bath recognizes the historical, cultural, aesthetic, and social
importance of its status as the oldest town in North Carolina and
maintains a position of protection and preservation of its valuable
cultural, historic, and scenic resources.
1 37. Development in Bath shall not cause major or irreversible damage to
valuable, documented historic architectural or archaeological
resources.
1 38. Whenever possible, development in and around Bath shall not take
place if unrecorded archaeological sites of historic significance are
discovered.
i 39. Bath encourages compatible and discourages incompatible development
within Bath Historic District. Development within the Historic `
District shall have architectural features in harmony with other
buildings in the District.

Score
1 40. Bath will protect and preserve the scenic beauty of the Town,
including natural and man-made areas. The entranceway to Bath from
the west across Highway 92 Bridge is especially important as an
attractive greeting to Town, and should be maintained as such.
1 41. Development shall be of a proportion suitable to the Town; in no
event shall development be allowed to block or transform the scenic
vistas in the Town.
1 42. Bath opposes the expansion of military airspace in Beaufort County.
i 43. Bath encourages the voluntary filling of unused septic tanks.
Moot 44. Bath opposes all proposals for potential location of a nuclear energy
facility in the area.
1 45. Bath encourages the voluntary removal of all dilapidated structures.
Before demolition, however, every effort should be made to preserve
or restore the structures.
1 46. Bath encourages continued monitoring of the incidence of coliform
pollution in the Town's water system.
1 47. Bath encourages the use of package treatment systems for large-scale
development projects.
1 48. Bath prohibits further development of wet and dry storage marinas on
Bath and Back Creeks.
I 49. Bath prohibits upland excavation for marina basins.
1 50. Bath prohibits floating home development on Bath and Back Creeks.
i 51. Open heads and discharge from boats on Bath and Back Creeks is
prohibited.
1 52. Dry stack storage facilities are prohibited in the Bath Planning
Area.
B. Resource Production and Management Policies
i 1. The Town of Bath recognizes the potential resource value of
productive agricultural lands, and maintains a position of protection
and preservation of agricultural lands located in areas designated as
"Rural" or "Conservation" on the 1991 Land Classification Map.
2. Lands identified as the most productive agricultural lands not
required for future Town growth are to be restricted from non-
agricultural uses.
T

Score
3. The Town of Bath recognizes the potential value of commercial forest
lands, and encourages and promotes commercial forestry in appropriate
areas of the Bath Planning Area where forests are preferable to
residential and commercial development.
1 4. Commercial foresters should engage in best management practices (BMP)
for the industry including rapid re -planting when trees are cut, and
take other precautions to prevent erosion and run-off problems caused
by the forestry process.
5. The Town of Bath recognizes the potential value of commercial and
recreational fisheries, and maintains a position of protection and
preservation of nursery and habitat areas in order to maintain and
promote the commercial and recreational fishing industries.
l 6. Bath will take advantage of opportunities that arise for providing
access to public trust waters for recreational fishing, including
boat access, where appropriate.
7. The Town of Bath maintains the position that the possible negative
environmental effects of phosphate mining outweigh any economic
benefits that may be derived therefrom, and will discourage phosphate
mining operations within the Town's planning jurisdiction and
adjacent areas.
1 8. Bath encourages neighboring communities to develop policies
prohibiting expansion of the phosphate mining industry into their
planning jurisdiction.
1 9. The mining of phosphate and other substances is prohibited in the -
public trust waters of Bath.
C. Economic and Community Development Policies
l 1. Bath supports the expansion of existing industry and recruitment of
new industry that is environmentally safe and compatible with the
resource protection, water quality, and other environmentally -focused
policies contained in this Plan.
2. Light, environmentally safe industrial activities in the Bath
Planning Area shall be located outside the Town limits on appropriate
sites designated.on The Land Classification Map for such purposes.
1 3. Large-scale, multi -family unit subdivisions are not a desirable type
of development in the Bath Planning Area.
4. Single-family, small scale first and second home development within
reasonable limits is to be encouraged in the Bath Planning Area.
1 5. All residential development projects shall comply with policies
dealing with protection of natural resources and water quality
contained in this Plan.

W
Score
1 6. Bath wishes to maintain and enhance the availability of adequate
housing for elderly and low-income persons.
1 7. Bath encourages the development of compatible restaurants, overnight
accommodation, and retail shops, particularly in the commercial
district.
1 8. Bath seeks to improve infrastructure and services to accommodate
future growth in a controlled manner.
1 9. Bath encourages development for expansion of Town police and fire
departments, adequate collection and disposal ofgarbage,
improvements on streets and roads, and other services necessary for
current and anticipated future populations.
1 10. Expansion of community services to moderate -size development projects
will be the financial responsibility of the developer.
1 11. Bath will encourage that residential and small business development
happen within Town limits before occurring out of Town limits.
i 12. Large-scale development projects which will require provision of
substantial municipal services and cause a rapid influx of population
will be scrutinized carefully to avoid possible adverse effects on
the Town.
1 13. Bath encourages the demolition of dilapidated housing and rebuilding
on vacant lots within the Town.
1 14. Bath encourages the rehabilitation and productive use of older
structures, including Bath High School.
1 15. Bath encourages balanced development between historic and non -
historic properties.
1 16. Bath discourages commercial "strip" development in the Bath Planning
Area.
17. Bath will examine thoroughly any potential energy siting proposals,
including those for electric generating plants and inshore fuel
development of refineries, storage, and transhipment facilities,
before authorizing construction of to ensure compatibility of such
proposals with Bath's policies on protection of natural resources and
preservation of the Town's historic rural character.
Moo: 18. Bath opposes all proposals for potential location of a nuclear energy
Sea ##44 facility in the region.
earlier
i 19. The Town of Bath will promote tourism and controlled development of
the recreation industry.
1 20. Bath encourages and will continue sharing promotional efforts for
r historic properties located in Bath with the State of North Carolina.

Score
1 21. Bath recognizes the need for public access to the water for
recreational fishing, swimming, and boating.
'1 22. Bath will preserve the scenic entranceway to Bath on N.C. 92 East.
1 23. Bath encourages development of crafts/arts/cottage industries that
would appeal to tourism shoppers. K
l 24. Bath will be alert to opportunities to provide public accessways to
the waters of Bath and Back Creeks for recreational boaters,
fishermen and swimmers, including "urban waterfront" access.
1 25. Bath encourages safe recreational use of the public trust waters
within its jurisdiction.
1 26. Bath will maintain a balance between recreational use of public trust
waters and the need for water safety and water quality.
1 27. All public access facilities sited in or near public trust waters
must be designed to adequately fulfill parking needs (including
trailer space at boat launches) as well as sanitation needs
(including drinking water, toilet facilities, and, if appropriate,
shower and dressing rooms) and refuse collection and disposal for the
maximum number of visitors expected daily during peak seasonal use.
1 28. All public accessways must meet or exceed state standards for site
location.
D. Continuing Public Participation Policies
1 1. Bath encourages participation in land use discussion by all sectors
of the population.
l 2. Bath will continue to educate the citizens of the Bath Planning Area
about issues facing the area regarding matters of resource
protection, resource production, community development, and storm
hazard mitigation.
E. Storm Hazard Mitigation Policies
1 1. The use of bulkheads along coastal waterways is to be avoided
wherever possible. Bath encourages strict enforcement by CAMA permit
officers of CAMA regulations regarding bulkheads.
1 2. The building practices required by the N.C. Building Code and the
National Flood Insurance Program will be followed and strictly
adhered to. Particular attention will be paid to the construction
standards dealing with the effects of high winds.
3.' All new public structures built by the Town will be designed to t
withstand the impact of coastal storms. '

Score
1 4. All AEC's in the Bath Planning Area will be protected from
inappropriate development which would subject the natural resources
to increased risk from coastal storms.
1 5. Bath requires that the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan filed
with the EMC be strictly adhered to.
1 6. Bath supports the local CAMA permit officer in discouraging the
construction of hotels, restaurants, and similar large commercial
structures in erosion -prone areas.
1 7. The most hazardous areas and those susceptible to severe flooding are
to be restricted to very low residential development, if they are
developed at all.
1 8. Bath encourages public acquisition of the most hazardous areas
whenever feasible in order to preclude all possibility of
inappropriate development by private landholders.
Moot 9• Bath will consider methods for acquisition of hazardous areas that
are also appropriate for public accessways to the water.
l 10. The Town of Bath will work with the County to ensure that current
evacuation plans and routes for the area are the most effective and
as up to date as possible.
' 1 ll.,The Town will maintain Bath Elementary School as an evacuation
center.
1 12. New public buildings will be located and designed to provide
evacuation shelter from coastal storms if the need for additional
shelter space is warranted.
Moot 13. The Town will encourage developers of multi -family projects and
hotels to provide evacuation shelters for the residents, employees,
and occupants of their facilities.
1 14. The Town of Bath will seek to increase public awareness of hurricane
and coastal storm preparation, including locations of evacuation
routes and shelter sites.
1 15. The Town of Bath will seek to increase awareness of and ensure
compliance with hazard mitigation building practices before
development takes place.
Moot 16. Bath will coordinate its educational efforts with and promote
educational programs by state, county, and federal agencies on
coastal storm preparedness.
17. The Town of Bath will follow the guidelines set forth in the Beaufort
County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan.
T l 18. The Town will follow courses. of action and ensure implementation of
its policies will compliment the County Disaster Plan.

Score
:! 19. The Town will integrate recovery and reconstruction activities with
the broader set of planning goals and objectives of the community.
1 20. Reconstruction following a disaster or storm related destruction
shall take place in accordance with policies existing at the time of
the storm. Development following a storm should have the same
characteristics of development allowed at the time of the storm. t
1 21. While regulation of septic tanks and package treatment plants are
within the jurisdiction of the County Health Department and/or the
State, the Town will urge that these facilities be designed and
located so that they will be less likely to be damaged, or cause
damage or serious inconvenience by flooding.
1 22. The Town will seek to prevent reconstruction of structures which.have
been substantially damaged and are located in high hazard areas.
Where reconstruction of such sites is allowed to take place, it will
only be allowed at low density.
Moot 23. During reconstruction, the Town will seek to relocate high density
structures away from high storm hazard areas.
Moot 24. During reconstruction decision -making, the Town will seek to
encourage redevelopment patterns which recognize and utilize natural
mitigation features of the coastal environment. Redevelopment should
take into consideration any changes in natural conditions brought
about by the storm.
1 25. Bath will have a "Recovery Task Force" with designated members and
allocated responsibilities in place to deal with reconstruction
activities following a coastal storm or other disaster.
1 26. The Recovery Task Force will work with and coordinate its efforts
with all necessary county, state, and federal agencies.
1 27. During reconstruction, the Town will make every effort to develop its
capacity to identify and orchestrate various post -storm
reconstruction resources, while at the same time ensuring maximum
local control over the reconstruction process.
1 28. The Town will consider a moratorium on requests for amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance for an appropriate period of time following a
disaster.
29. The Town will explore the possibility of adopting a construction
moratorium which would be triggered by a disaster or major
destruction. The temporary moratorium on all new development would
remain in effect until all reconstruction in the Planning Area is
complete.
7

Score
30. The town will prioritize all clean-up efforts according to the
Ib following schedule:
(1) Service facilities (electricity, water, sewer, etc.) should
•
be repaired first.
(2) Public facilities which could be used for additional shelter
should be repaired next.
(3) Roads and streets should be repaired next.
(4) A "worst damage" approach should follow afterwards.
Moot 31.
During reconstruction, the Town will limit the construction of public
facilities and structures and the reconstruction of damaged
facilities and structures in high hazard areas.
Moot 32.
Public facilities such as water, sewer, and roads will be extended or
rebuilt in damaged high hazard area only when absolutely necessary,
and only to such size and degree necessary to serve the level of
density existing before the storm.
F. Water Quality Impacts and Long -Terms Accumulative Impacts of Development
1 1.
For stated policies addressing the issue of water quality, see Policy
'
Sections on: Septic Tank Use, Coastal Wetlands, Public Trust Waters,
404 Wetlands, Water Supply Areas, Protection of Potable Water Supply,
Stormwater Runoff, Marina and Floating Home Development, and
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries.
1 2.
The Bath Planning Board will scrutinize all proposals for development
projects to ensure the project will not cause long-term negative
impacts on water resources, considering the cumulative impacts of the
project and other existing and approved projects.