Land Use Plan-1990

DCM COPY " ` r" ` DCM COPY
lease do not removeHH!
Division of Coastal Management ColRy
TOWN OF BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA
1990 LAND USE PLAN
PREPARED FOR
THE TOWN OF BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA
BY
T. DALE HOLLAND CONSULTING PLANNERS
NOVEMBER, 1990
Adopted by the Town of Beaufort: November 26, 1990
Certified by the CRC: February 1, 1991
The preparation of this document was financed in part through a
grant provided_ by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOWN OF BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA
1990 LAND USE PLAN
PREPARED FOR
THE TOWN OF BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA
BY
T. DALE HOLLAND CONSULTING PLANNERS
NOVEMBER, 1990
Adopted by the Town of Beaufort: November 26, 1990
Certified by the CRC: February 1, 1991
The preparation of this document 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.

BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA
1990 LAND USE PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
'
Page
A.
Establishment of Information Base
I-1
'
B.
Population and Housing
I-3
1. Population
I-3
a) Permanent Population Growth
I-3
b) Composition and Age
I-7
2. Housing Characteristics
I-8
'
3. Summary
I-10
C.
Economy
I 12
'
D.
Existing Land Use
I-16
1. Urban and Developed Land
I-16
a) Residential
I-16
'
b) Commercial
I-18
c) Industrial
I-18
d) Institutional
I-18
e) Transportation and Public Utilities
I-19
f) Airport
I-19
g) Vacant Land
I-19
' 2. Existing Land Use Problems I-19
3. Development Potential I-24
4. Existing Ordinances and Land Use Controls I-25
a) Zoning Ordinance I-25
b) Subdivision Regulations I-26
c) Flood Plain Development Ordinance I-26
d) Floating Home Ordinance I-26
e) Storm Hazard Mitigation and Post -Disaster
Reconstruction Plan
I-26
f) Thoroughfare Plan
I-26
g) Building Code
I-26
h) Minimum Housing Code
I-26
E. Development Constraints: Land Suitability
I-27
'
1.
Topography/Geology
I-27
2.
Flood Hazard Areas
I-27
3.
'Soils
I-28
4.
Manmade Hazards/Restrictions
I-33
5.
Fragile Areas
I-34
'
a) Coastal Wetlands
b) Estuarine Waters
I-34
I-34
c) Estuarine Shorelines
I-34

Page
'
d) Public Trust Areas
I-36
e) Historic and Archaelogical Sites
I-36
f) Rachel Carson Estuarine Sanctuary
I-37
g) Freshwater Wetlands
I-37
6. Areas of. Resource Potential
I-38
a) Agricultural and Forest Lands
I-38
b) Public Parks
I-38
c) Marine Resources
I-39
F.
Development Constraints: Public Facilities
I-40
1. Water Supply
I-40
2. Sewer
I-40
3. Solid Waste Disposal
I-42
4. Schools
I-42
5. Transportation
I-43
'
6. Police
7. Fire
I-44
I-44
8. Emergency Services
I-44
9. Recreation
I-44
10. Administration
I-45
SECTION
II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
'
A.
Projected Demand for Development
II-1
1. Demographic Trends
2. Commercial and Industrial Land Use
II-1-
II-1
3. Housing Trends
II-3
4. Public Land Use
II-3
5. Areas Likely to Experience Major Land Use Changes
II-4
Summary
II-4
B.
Projected Public Facilities Needs/Availability
II-5
C.
Redevelopment Issues
II-5
I
SECTION
III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
III-1
through
III-3
SECTION
IV: POLICY STATEMENTS
'
A.
B.
Resource Protection Policy Statements
Resource Production and Management Policies
IV-2
IV-6
C.
Economic and Community Development
IV-7
D.
Continuing Public Participation Policies
IV-10
E.
Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and
Evacuation Plans
IV-12
I

Page
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
A. Developed Class V-1
B. Urban Transition Class V-1
C. Limited Transition V-1
D. Rural with Services Class V-2
E. Conservation Class V-2
APPENDICES
Appendix I Town of Beaufort Assessment of 1985 Policy
Statements
Appendix lA/B Methodology for Estimating 1987 Population
Appendix II Applicable Sections of the 15 NCAC 7H Use Standards
Appendix III Town of Beaufort Citizen Participation Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Total Year -Round Population and Percent Change
by Township and Municipality - Carteret County, 1960-87
I-4
Table 2:
Peak Seasonal Population and Percent Increase
by Township
and Municipality - Carteret County, 1970-87
I-5
Table 3:
Total Peak Population and Percent Change by
Township
and Municipality - Carteret County, 1970-87
I-6
Table 4:
Population Characteristics by Age Group -
Beaufort
and Carteret County, 1970-88
I-7
Table 5:
Percentage Change in Population by Race and Sex -
Beaufort
and Carteret County, 1970-88
I-7
Table 6:
Town of Beaufort Housing Summary - Tenure and
Vacancy,
1970 and 1980
I-9
Table 7:
Town of Beaufort 1980 Housing Conditions
I-10
Table 8:
Per Capita Income, 1979-1985 - Beaufort,
Carteret
County, North Carolina
I-12
Table 9:
Employed Persons 16 Years and Older by Industry
Town of
Beaufort, 1980
I-12
Table 10:
Poverty Status - Town of Beaufort, 1980
I-13
Table 11:
Town of Beaufort - 1990 Industrial Employers
I-14
Table 12:
Existing Land Use within Town Limits
I-21

1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page
Table 13: Existing Land Use in Extraterritorial Area I-22
Table 14: Existing Land Use - Total Beaufort Planning Area I-23
Table 15: Soil Conditions for Building Site Development I-30
Table 16: Town of Beaufort - Minimum Recreational
Facility Needs I-45
Table 17: Total Year -Round Population Projections by
Township and Municipality, Carteret County, 1987-2000 II-2
Table 18: Forecast Land Use Within Total Planning
Jurisdiction II-4
LIST OF MAPS
Town of Beaufort Location Map
Map-1
- Town of Beaufort Existing Land Use
I-17
Map
2
- Flood Hazard Areas
I-29
Map
3
- Soils Map
I-32
Map
4
- Areas of Environmental Concern
I-35
Map
5
- Community Facilities
I-41
Map
6
- Land Classification
III-4

t=r
8cols in Mlles
0 25 50 75 100
)RT

SECTION I
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I
A. ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION BASE
This 1990 Land Use Plan Update for the Town of Beaufort is
prepared in accordance with requirements of the North Carolina
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Specifically, this document
complies with Subchapter 7B, "Land Use Planning Guidelines," of the
North Carolina Administrative Code, as amended, November 1, 1989.
The 7B guidelines define the following intent of land use plans:
"Local governments, through the land use planning process,
address issues and adopt policies that guide the development
of their community. Many decisions affecting development are
made by other levels of government, and local policies must
take account of and coincide with established state and
federal policies. Most decisions, however, are primarily of
local concern. By carefully and explicitly addressing these
issues, other levels of government will follow local policies
that deal with these issues. State and federal agencies will
use the local land use plans and policies in making project
consistency, funding, and permit decisions. Policies which
consider the type of development to be encouraged, the
density and patterns of development, and the methods of
providing beach access are examples of these local policy
decisions.
The land use plan shall contain the following basic
elements:
(1) a summary of data collection and analysis,
(2) an existing land use map,
(3) policy discussion,
(4) a land classification map."
The guidelines further give the following objectives which local
plans should meet:
-- Identification of existing constraints to development, land
use incompatibility problems, and environmentally -sensitive
areas.
-- Provision of land use guidelines to assist private indi-
viduals in supporting local government commitment to planned,
environmentally sound residential/commercial development
endeavors.
-- Analysis of intergovernmental issues and incorporation of
local land use policies into the regional, state and federal
1 planning framework.
-- Provision of policy decisions that will allow more efficient
and equitable review of permit/grant requests by state and
federal agencies.
I-1

-- Establishment of an initial planning data base that will
allow cost-effective review and updating of the land use
planning document in the future.
Listed below are some of the sources and documents utilized
during preparation of this.Land Use Plan:
-- Carteret County 1986 Land Use Plan Update
-- Town of Beaufort 1985 Land Use Plan Update
-- USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Carteret County
-- NCDOT, Planning and Policies Section
-- Town of Beaufort Staff
-- Carteret County Schools
-- North*Carolina Office of State Budget and Management
-- North Carolina Division of Archives and History
-- Flood Insurance Study, Town of Beaufort
-- Town of Beaufort Zoning Ordinance
-- Town of Beaufort Subdivision Ordinance
-- North Carolina Division of Community Assistance
-- North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
-- North Carolina Department of Economic and Community
Development
-- Town of Beaufort Storm Hazard Mitigation Plan and Post
Disaster Reconstruction Plan, 1984
- Carteret County Thoroughfare Plan
These sources were supplemented by "windshield" surveys conducted
to obtain data on existing land use patterns.
I-2

B. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Population
a) Permanent Population Growth, 1970-1988
Carteret County has experienced tremendous population growth
since 1970. Most of the growth has occurred within the incor-
porated areas. During the 70's and 801s, the municipalities
experienced a 479% increase in population, while the unincorpo-
rated areas experienced an 84% increase. Beaufort had a substan-
tial increase in population from 1970 to 1987 of 1180 permanent
residents for a 35% increase. Except for Morehead City, all other
Carteret County municipalities had a substantially higher rate of
growth than Beaufort.
Table 1 provides a complete summary of year-round population
growth within Carteret County. The county has been one of the top
four growth areas within coastal North Carolina since 1960. This
growth is the result of many factors including: a national trend
of migration to non -metropolitan areas; expansion of military
facilities and activities; industrial development; tourism; and
the emergence of the area as a retirement center.
Beaufort's permanent year-round population is supplemented by
a large peak seasonal population. Tables 2 and 3 define the
town's peak seasonal population and relationship to the permanent
population. Beaufort does not experience the same influx of
seasonal population as do the. beach communities. However, the
town's seasonal population increased by 184.8% from 1970 to 1987.
The town's ratio of peak to permanent population is consistent
with the county's other non -beach communities.
1 I-3

TABLE 1
TOWN OF BEAUFORT
Total Year -Round Population and Percent Change
By Township and Municipality -
Carteret County, 1960-1987
Township
Municipality or Area
Total Population
Percent Change
Overall
1960
1970
1980
198711]
60-70
70-80
80-87
60-87
1)
Atlantic
Total
902
814
810
808
- 9.8
- 0.5
- 0.2
-10.4
2)
Beaufort
Beaufort
2,922
3,368
3,826
4,548
15.3
13.6
18.9
55.6
Uninoarporat:ed Areas
3,324
2,779
3,166
3,350
-16.4
13.9
5.8
0.8
Total Z+aenship
6,246
6,147
6,992
7,898
- 1.6
13.7
12.9
26.4
3)
Cedar Island
Total
255
290
333
353
13.7
14.8
6.0
38.4
4)
Davis
Total
446
456
492
509
2.2
7.9
3.5
14.1
5)
Harkers Island Total
1,362
11639
1,910
2,038
20.3
16.5
6.7
49.6
6)
Harlowe
Total
629
762
956
1,047
21.1
25.5
9.5
66.5
7)
Marshallberg
Total
416
525
580
606
26.2
10.5
4.5
45.7
8)
Merrimon
Total
344
330
426
471
- 4.1
29.1
10.6
36.9
9)
Morehead City
Atlantic Beach
76
300
941
1,586
294.7
213.7
68.5
1986.8
Morehead City
5,583
5,233
4,359
6,740
- 6.3
-16.7
54.6
20.7
Indian Beach
0
0
54
67
-
-
24.1
-
H
Pine Knoll Shores
0
0
646
932
-
-
44.3
-
'"
Unincorporated Areas
4,395
6,396
9,803
11,415
45.5
53.3
16.4
159.7
Total Township
10,054
11,929
15,803
20,740
18.6
32.5
31.2
106.3
10)
Newport
Newport
861
1,735
11883
2,573
101.5
8.5
36.6
198.9
Unincorporated Areas
11783
2,191
3,586
4,246
22.8
63.7
18.4
138.1
Total Township
2,644
3,926
51469
6,819
48.5
39.3
24.7
157.9
11)
Portsmouth
Total
8
2
0
0
-75.0
-
-
-
12)
Sea Level
Total
389
347
540
631
-10.8
55.6
16.9
62.2
13)
Smyrna
Total
597
517
637
693
-13.4
23.2
8.8
16.1
14)
Stacy
Total
291
257
322
353
-11.7
25.3
9.6
21.3
15)
Straits
Total
1,070
1,166
11520
1,687
9.0
30.4
11.0
57.7
16)
White Oak
Cape Carteret
52
616
944
1,239
1084.6
53.2
31.2
2282.6
Emerald Isle
14
122
865
1,752
771.4
609.0
102.5 12414.3
Unincorporated Areas
1,719
1,758
2,493
2,841
2.3
41.8
14.0
65.3
Total Township
1,785
2,496
41302
51832
39.8
72.4
35.6
226.7
Total Municipalities
91508
11,374
13,518
19,437
19.6
18.8
43.8
104.4
Total Unincorporated Areas
17,930
20,229
27,574
31,048
12.8
36.3
12.6
73.2
Total County
27,438
31,603
41,092
50,485
15.2
30.0
22.6
84.0
Source: State Data Center, N.C. Office of State Budget
and Management; and T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners.
[1]
See Appendix
IA for explanation of how
1987 populations by township were
estimated.

Mar r m m m m m m Mao " M m. " M" M
TABLE 2
TOWN OF BEAUFORT
Peak Seasonal Population and Percent Increase
By Township and Municipality -
Carteret County, 1970-1987
Township
Municipality
Peak
Seasonal Population
Percent Change
Overall
1970
1980
1987[l]
70-80
80-87
70-87
1)
Atlantic
Total Township
179
412
623
130.2
51.2
248.0
2)
Beaufort
Beaufort
843
1,704
2,401
102.1
40.9
184.8
Uninoorparatsd Areas
559
664
843
18.8
26.9
50.8
Total
1,402
2,368
3,244
68.9
37.0
131.4
3)
Cedar Island
Total Township
71
131
185
84.5
41.2
160.1
4)
Davis
Total Township
115
249
370
116.5
48.6
221.7
5)
Harkers Island
Total Township
767
11555
2,270
102.7
46.0
196.0
6)
Harlowe
Total Township
170
356
525,
109.4
47.5
208.9
7)
Marshallberg
Total Township
137
263
377
92.0
43.3
175.2
8)
Merrimon
Total Township
67
133
193
98.5
45.1
188.1
9)
Morehead
Atlantic Beach
51475
13,017
18,434
137.8
41.6
236.7
Indian Beach
0
4,470
7,681
-
71.8
-
Morehead City
11384
2,109
3,261
52.3
54.6
.135.E
H
Pine Knoll Shores
0
31227
51546
-
71.9
-
Unincorporated Areas
3,540
1,109
1,283
-68.7
15.7
-63.8
Total Township
10,399
23,932
36,205
130.1
51.3
248.2
10)
Newport
Newport
352
503
11053
42.9
109.3
199.1
Unincorporated Areas
445
1,483
21011
233.2
35.6
351.9
Total Township
797
1,986
3,064
149.2
54.3
284.4
11)
Sea Level
Total Township
74
87
99
17.6
13.8
33.8
12)
Smyrna
Total Township
113,
207
292
83.2
41.1
158.4
13)
Stacy
Total Township
52
66
79
26.9
19.7
51.9
14)
Straits
Total Township
248
328
401
32.2
22.2
61.7
15)
White Oak
Cape Carteret
346
960
21560
177.5
166.7
639.9
Emerald Isle
975
8,628
13,435
784.9
55.7
1277.9
Unincorporated Areas
408
1,279
31160
213.5
147.1
674.6
Total Township
11,729
10,867
19,155
528.5
76.2
1008.9
Total Municipalities 9,375 34,618 54,289 269.3 56.8 479.1
Total Unincorporated Areas 61945 8,322 12,793 19.8 53.7 84.2
Total County 16,320 42,940 67,082 163.1 56.2 311.0
Source: Carteret County 1985 Land Use Plan; T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners.
[1] See Appendix IB for explanation of how 1987 populations were derived.

TABLE 3
TOWN
OF BEAUFORT
Total Peak Population and Percent
Change
by Township and Municipality -
Carteret County, 1970-87
POPULATION
PERCENT INCREASE
1970 Pooulat on
1980 Population
1987 Po uI tion
1970-80
1980-87
Overall 1970-8
Permanent Peak
Ratio (1]
Permanent Peak
Ratio
Permanent Peak
Rat o
Permanent Peak
Ratio
Permanent Peak
Ratio
Permanent Peak
Ratio
1) Atlantic
Total Township
814
993
1.22
810
1,222
1.51
808
1,431
1.77
- 0.5
23.1
23.8
- 0.2
17.1
17.2
- 0.7
44.1
45.1
2) Bea:fort
Beoxfort
3,368
4,211
1.25
3,826
5,530
1.45
4,548
6,949
1.53
13.6
31.3
16.0
18.9
23.7
5.5
35.0
65.0
22.4
maiaoorp =rted Zteas
2,779
3,338
1.20
3,166
3,830
1.21
3,350
4,193
1.25
13.9
14.7
0.8
5.8
9.5
3.3
20.6
25.6
_ 4.2
Total TON"hip
6,147
7,549
1.23
6,992
9,360
1.34
7,898
11,142
1.42
13.7
24.0
8.9
12.9
19.0
5.2
28.4
47.6
14.6
3) Cedar Island (2]
Total Township
292
363
1.24
333
464
1.39
353
538
1.52
14.0
27.8
12.1
6.0
15.9
9.3
20.9
48.2
22.6
4) Davis
Total Township
456
571
1.25
492
741
1.51
509
879
1.73
7.9
29.8
20.8
3.5
18.6
14.6
11.6
53.9
38.4
5) Barkers Island
Total Township
1,639
2,406
1.47
1,910
3,465
1.81
2,038
4,308
2.11
16.5
44.0
21.1
6.7
24.3
16.6
24.3
79.1
43.5
6) Harlowe
Total Township
762
932
1.22
956
1,312
1.37
1,047
1,572
1.50
25.5
40.8
12.3
9.5
19.8
9.5
37.4
68.7
23.0
7) Marshallberg
Total Township
525
662
1.26
580
843
1.45
606
983
1.62
10.5
27.3
15.1
4.5
16.6
11.7
15.4
48.5
28.6
8) Merrimon
Total Township
330
397
1.20
426
559
1.31
471
664
1.41
29.1
40.8
9.2
10.6
18.8
7.6
42.7
67.3
17.5
9) Morehead City.
Atlantic Beach
300
5,775
19.25
941
13,958
14.83
1,586
20,020
12.62
213.7
141.7
-23.0
68.5
43.4
-14.9
428.7
246.7
-34.4
Forehead City
5,233
6,617
1.26
4,359
6,468
1.48
6,740
10,001
1.48
-16.7
97.7
17.5
54.6
54.6
10.0
28.8
51.1
17.5
H
Indian Beach
0
0
-
54
4,524
83.78
67
7,748 115.64
-
-
-
24.1
71.3
38.0
-
-
-
Pine Knoll Shores
0
0
-
646
3,873
6.00
932
6,478
6.95
-
-
-
44.3
67.3
15.8
-
-
-
Unincorporated Areas
6,396
9,936
1.55
9,803
10,912
1.11
11,415
12,698
1.11
53.3
9.8
-28.4
16.4
16.4
0.0
78.5
27.8
-28.4
Total Township
11,929
22,328
1.87
15,803
39,735
2.50
20,740
56,945
2.75
32.5
78.0
33.7
31.2
43.3
10.0
73.9
155.0
47.1
10) Newport
Newport
1,735
2,087
1.20
1,883
2,386
1.27
2,573
3,626
1.41
8.5
14.3
5.8
36.6
52.0
11.0
48.3
77.7
17.5
Unincorporated Areas
2,191
2,636
1.20
3,586
5,069
1.41
4,246
6,257
1.47
63.7
92.3
17.5
18.4
23.4
4.3
93.8
37.4
22.5
Total Township
3,926
4,723
1.20
5,469
7,455
1.36
6,819
9,883
1.45
39.3
57.8
13.3
24.7
32.6
6.6
73.7
109.3
20.8
11) Sea Level
Total Township
347
421
1.21
540
627
1.16
631
730
1.16
55.6
48.9
- 4.1
16.9
16.4
0.0
81.8
73.4
- 4.1
12) Smyrna
Total Township.
517
630
1.22
637
844
1.32
693
985
1.42
23.2
34.0
8.2
0.8
16.7
7.6
34.0
56.3
16.4
13) Stacy
Total Township
257
309
1.20
322
388
1.20
353
432
1.22
25.3
25.6
0
9.6
11.3
1.7
37.3
39.8
1.7
14) Straits
Total Township
1,166
1,414
1.21
1,520
1,848
1.22
1,687
2,088
1.23
30.4
30.7
0.8
11.0
13.0
0.8
44.7
47.7
1.7
15) White Oak
Cape Carteret
616
962
1.56
944
1,904
2.02
1,239
3,799
3.07
53.2
97.9
29.5
31.2
99.5
52.0
101.1
295.0
96.8
Emerald Isle
122
1,097
8.99
665
9,493
10.97
1,752
15,187
8.66
609.0
765.4
22.0
102.5
60.0
-21.1
1336.1
1284.4
- 3.7
Unincorporated Areas
1,758
2,166
1.23
2,493
3,772
1.51
2,841
6,001
2.11
41.8
74.1
22.8
14.0
59.1
39.7
61.6
177.1
71.5
Total Township
2,496
4,225
1.69
4,302
15,169
2.53
5,832
24,987
4.28
72.4
259.0
49.7
35.6
64.7
69.2
133.6
491.4
153.3
Total Municipalities
11,374
20,749
1.82
13,518
48,136
3.56
19,437
73,726
3.79
. 18.8
132.0
95.6
43.8
53.2
6.5
70.9
255.3
108.2
Total Unincorporated Areas
20,229
27,174
1.34
27,574
35,896
1.30
31,048
43,841
1.41
36.3
32.1
- 3.0
12.6
22.1
8.5
53.4
61.3
5.2
Total County
31,603
47,923'
1.52
41,092
84,032
2.04
50,485 117,567
2.33
30.0
75.3
34.2
22.9
40.0
14.2
59.7
145.3
53.3
Source: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners.
(1]Ratio of peak/permanent population.
(2]Note: Includes remaining Portsmouth Township population (2 total individuals
in 1970).

b) Composition and Age
The N.C. State Data Center does not estimate population by
race, sex, or age for municipalities for intercensal years.
Tables 4 and 5 were completed using 1970 and 1980 U.S. Census data
for Beaufort and Carteret County and some 1987 population esti-
mates by race, sex, and age for Carteret County prepared by the
N. C. State Data Center. To estimate Beaufort's 1987 population
in terms of race, sex, and age, it was assumed that various seg-
ments of the town's population continued the same pattern of rela-
tive growth from 1980-1988 as was displayed from 1970-1980.
Table 4
Population Characteristics by Age,Group
-
Beaufort and Carteret County
1970-1988
Percentage of Total
Population
Beaufort
Age Group 1970 1980 1988
Carteret County
1970 1980
1988
0-4 5.8 5.2 4.7
8.3
6.8
6.8
:.�
5-19 27.2 21.2 16.5
28.7
23.1
19.7
20-29 10.8 15.8 18.6
15.3
18.1
16.4
30-39 10.6 11.7 12.9
11.4
13.8
15.9
40-49 12.5 10.1 8.1
12.5
10.5
12.0
50-59 13.4 12.6 11.8
10.3
11.3
10.3
60-69 12.4 13.4 14.5
8.0
9.4
10.2
70 & Up 7.3 10.0 12.9
5.5
7.0
8.7
Total 100% 100% 100%
100%
100%
100%
.�
Source: 1970 and 1980 U. S. Census
N.C. State Data Center
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
Table 5
Percentage Change in Population
by Race and Sex - Beaufort and Carteret
County
1970-1988
Beaufort
Carteret County
1970 1980 1988
1970
1980
1988
Male Population 47% 48% 49%
49%
50%
50%
'
Female Population 53% 52% 51%
51%
50%
50%
Total Population 100% 100% 100%
100%
100%
100%
White Population 69% 76% 81%
89%
90%
91%
Non -White Population 31% 24% 19%
11%
10%
9%
Total Population 100% 100% 100%
100%
1000
100%
Source: 1970 and 1980 U. S. Census
N.C. State Data Center
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
I-7

Table 4 indicates that the age of the Carteret County and
Beaufort populations has increased significantly since 1970. In
1970, 19.7% of the Beaufort population was 60 years old or older.
By 1987, the percentage of persons 60 years old or older had
increased to 27.4%. The town's 1988 percentage of elderly (60 and
older) as well above both the county (18.8%) and state percent-
ages. The 1988 percentage of population 65 and older for North
Carolina was only 12.0%.
The town's entire pre-school and school age population has
been decreasing since 1970 (33% to 21.2%). The decrease has been
higher than that for all of Carteret County (37% to 26.5%). The
only non -elderly age groups within the town which increased their
portion of the total population were the 20-28 and 30-39 age
groups which increased 7.8% and 2.3% respectively. The increases
for those age groups in Carteret County were slightly different
with the 20-28 group increasing only 1.1% and the 30-39 group
increasing 4.5%.
There may be several reasons for Beaufort's having a signifi-
cant increase in the age of its population. First, Beaufort has
established residential communities which have been occupied by
established families with increasing average ages. Secondly, the
town has developed a reputation as a retirement community. The
increase in elderly population also'is consistent with a trend in
Carteret County for an in -migration of elderly people from 1970 to
1987. An increase in the number of multi -family dwelling units
from 1985-1990 may provide more affordable housing to younger
families and individuals, leading to an increase in the number and
percentage of the younger to middle-aged groups.
For years, the non -white population percentage in Beaufort has
been higher than the non -white population percentage in Carteret
County. However, since 1970, the percentage of non -whites has
decreased from 31% to 19%. This decrease in the percentage of
non -whites within Beaufort is primarily the result of migration
patterns occurring since 1970. Between 1970 and 1987, the total
number of non -white residents decreased from 1042 to approximately
864. Simultaneously, the total white population increased from
2,319 in 1970 to 3,683 in 1987.
2. Housing Characteristics
Beaufort's housing stock is primarily composed of year-round
dwelling units. Table 6 provides a 1970 and 1980 comparison of
the tenure and vacancy status of the town's housing supply.
Detailed 1990 statistics are not available.
I-8

Table 6
Town of Beaufort Housing Summary
Tenure and Vacancy
1970 and 1980
Item 1970 1980
Total Year -Round Units 1,269 1,734
Occupied Units 1,132 1,557
Renter 263 557
Owner -occupied 869 1,000
Vacant Units 137 177
For Sale 17 9
For Rent 54 71
Held for occasional use - 42
Other vacant 66 55
Source: 1970 and 1980 U. S. Census
From 1970 to 1980, the town's total housing supply increased
by 37%.... From 1980 to 1990, the supply increased another 404
dwelling units for a total housing count of 2,138. In both 1970
_.
and 1980, the majority of the town's occupied housing units were
owner -occupied. However, the percentage decreased from 77% in
1970 to--64% in 1980. Home ownership was slightly higher within
Carteret County as a whole. In 1980, 75% of the county's housing
_. units were owner -occupied. Based on field surveys, the town's
multi -family housing increased from 444 units in 1985 to 669 units
in 1990. It is anticipated that the 1990 Census will show a
further decline in the percentage of the town's owner -occupied
'
units.
In both 1970 and 1980, the town had extremely low vacancy
rates of 5% and 3% respectively. This was substantially lower
than the county vacancy rates of 11% in 1970 and 13% in 1980. The
relatively low vacancy rate is believed to be the result of a
strong pattern of in -migration and the availability of dwelling
units which have been maintained in standard condition.
In 1980, only 4% of the town's total housing stock did not
have bathrooms or had only a half -bath. Table 7 provides a
summary of 1980 housing conditions.
1 I-9

Table 7
Town of Beaufort
1980 Housing Conditions
Condition and Age
Number
Total Year -Round Units
1,734
(100%)
Age
0-4 yrs.
167
( 9. 6 %)
5-9 yrs.
250
(14.4%)
10-19 yrs.
168
(9.9%)
20-29 yrs.
298
(17.2%)
30-39 yrs.
267
(15.3%)
40 yrs. and older
584
(33.6%)
Condition
Lacking complete bathroom facilities
66
(3.8%)
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
57
(3.3%)
Lacking central heating equipment
488
(28.1%)
Type
Total Year -Round Units
1,734
(100%)
Single family, detached
1,207
(69.6%)
Single family, attached
32
(1.9%)
Duplex
127
(7.3%)
3- and 4-unit
188
(10.8%)
5-unit or more
94
(5.4%)
Mobile home
86
(5.0%)
Source: 1980 U. S. Census
The town's 1980 housing stock was much older than the
county's. Over 66% of the town's housing was twenty years old or -
older, while only 36% of the county's housing was over 20 years
old. The town has had strong historical preservation efforts
which have preserved housing and increased the average age of
housing within the town. However, overall housing conditions are
very good. Only 3.3% lack complete kitchen facilities and only
28% do not have central heating facilities.
3. Summary
The following provides a summary of significant demographic
and housing findings:
-- Since 1970, Carteret County has experienced tremendous
population growth; 479% in the incorporated areas and 84%
in the unincorporated areas.
-- Beaufort has experienced 55.6% permanent population growth
since 1960,and a 184.8% increase in seasonal population.
I-10

-- Since 1970, the age of Beaufort's population has increased
significantly and the school age population has decreased.
-- Since 1970, Beaufort's percentage of non -white population
has decreased from 31% to 19%.
-- Beaufort's housing stock is primarily composed of
1
year-round dwelling units.
-- From 1970 to 1990, the town's total housing supply
increased by 68%.
-- The town's housing conditions are good, with only 3.8% of
the -housing lacking complete bathroom facilities and only
3.3% lacking complete kitchen facilities.
1
I-11

C. ECONOMY I
Beaufort has maintained a strong
local economy. As
shown in
Table 8, the town has
maintained a per capita income above that of
both the state and Carteret County.
Table 8
Per
Capita Income,
1979-1985,
Beaufort,
Carteret County, North Carolina
1979
1985
,
Town of Beaufort
$6,274
$9,788
Carteret County
$6,146
$9,296
North Carolina
$6,132
$9,517
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, City and County Data Book, 1988. ■
Beaufort's relatively high per capita income is indicative of
the high number of teachers, professionals, businessmen, and
skilled workers who reside within Beaufort (see Table 9). The
1980 employment statistics for those residents 16 years and older
indicated a low level of semi -skilled workers. However, because
of its waterfront and harbor facilities, and easy sound and ocean
access, Beaufort has a significant number of its work force
employed in commercial fishing.
Table 9
Employed Persons 16 Years and Older by Industry
Town of Beaufort, 1980
Occupation
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining*
Construction
Manufacturing:
Nondurable goods
Durable goods
Transportation
Communication, other public utilities
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Business and repair services
Personal, entertainment, and recreational services
Professional and related services:
Health services
Educational services
Other professional and related services
Public administration
TOTAL EMPLOYED
Number
Emploved
153 (10.3%)
22 (1.4%)
67 (4.5%)
104 (7.0%)
68 (4.5%)
18 (1.2%)
83 (5.6%)
279 (18.8%)
63 (4.2%)
44 (2.9%)
68 (4.5%)
36 (2.4%)
301 (20.3%)
56 (3.7%)
185 (12.5%)
1,480 (100%)
Source: N.C. State Data Center, 1980 U.S. Census Tape File 3A
*While these are grouped together, this category is primarily
limited to fisheries employment within Beaufort.
I-12

Beaufort's high per capita income and skilled labor base
create a number of economic benefits including low unemployment, a
stable municipal tax base, and a growing, diversified economy. In
addition, the town's waterfront redevelopment, historic preserva-
tion efforts, and tourism industry have served to strengthen the
local economy. Local job opportunities appear to be strong. In
1980, 41% of the town's labor force traveled less than nine
minutes to their place of employment. An additional indicator of
the strength of a community's economy is the number of individuals
below poverty level. In 1980, Beaufort had over 77% of its indi-
viduals above the poverty level. However, over 400 individuals
remained below the poverty level.
The historical and continuing economic importance of
Beaufort's commercial fishing industry cannot be overemphasized.
It ranks fourth in total employment behind educational services,
retail trade, and public administration. The "multiplier effect"
of commercial fishing cannot be precisely calculated. However,
there is considerable "spin-off" from the industry into other
areas, including retail trade, wholesale trade, and manufacturing.
In addition, many individuals employed in other trades fish
commercially part-time. In Carteret County as a whole, there were
v. an estimated 1,067 part-time commercial fishing vessels licensed
in 1988.
In terms of land use policies, commercial fishing within
Beaufort and Carteret County as a whole is in a sensitive position
because approximately 50% of shellfish landings and 20% of finfish
landings are from estuarine waters. Finfish and shellfish in
estuarine waters are particularly prone to pollution from septic
tank effluent and built-up surface runoff -- both of which have
increased with residential and commercial development, despite
strict environmental regulations governing septic tank placement
and storm water retention. Of the 11,274 oyster and clam licenses
granted by the state in 1988, 3,326 (29%) were granted for
Carteret County -- by and large the highest percentage of any
county in the state.
Table 10
Poverty Status
Town of Beaufort, 1980
Income Level Individuals
Income below 75% of poverty level 369 (9.8%)
Income between 75 and 124% of poverty level 482 (12.7%)
Income between 125 and 149% of poverty level 226 (5.9%)
Income between 150 and 199% of poverty level 612 (16.2%)
Income 200% of poverty level and above 2,095 (55.4%)
Total enumerated by poverty status 3,784 (100%)
1 Source: N.C. State Data Center, 1980 U.S. Census Tape File 3A
I-13

Beaufort has a diversified industrial base. Table 11 provides
a summary of the industries, employment composition, product, and
union status.
Table 11
Town of Beaufort
1990 Industrial Employers
Employees
Year
Name Products/Services
M F
Est.
Union
Atlantic
Veneer Corp.* hard & softwood
295 155
1964
No
veneers
Beaufort
Fisheries* fish meal
113 3
1934
No
Concept
Marketing jewelry
7 20
1976
No
Garner,
Inc. hospital uniforms
(tot. 75)
1983
No
Mallinkrodt
pharmaceuticals
(tot. 6)
1980
No
Aqua-10*
fertilizer
7 1
1978
No
Sources:
North Carolina Community Profile,
1988, N.C.
Department
of Commerce, Economic Development Office
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
*Located
in Beaufort extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The town's economy is bolstered by the strength of Carteret
County's industrial development. Since 1970, manufacturing has
grown both in employment (43% growth) and earnings (78% growth).
In 1989, there were 62 manufacturing facilities located in
Carteret. County, including the industries located within the Town
of Beaufort. Thus, the town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction
contained 15% of Carteret County's total manufacturing facilities.
Beaufort's Atlantic Veneer Corporation is the largest veneer
operation in the United States.
Tourism and recreation are major factors in Beaufort's econ-
omy. The area's extensive shoreline resources make it a primary
vacation area for the entire east coast of the country. While the
greatest tourist impact on the local economy occurs from May to
September, visitation figures maintained for the county by the
Carteret County Economic Development Council indicate a substan-
tial year-round economic impact from both day and overnight visi-
tors. Restaurants and motels, sport fishing, retail trade, serv-
ices, construction, real estate, and finance industries ail bene-
fit from overnight and day visitors.
While tourism employment figures are not available for
Beaufort, it is estimated by the N.C. Division of Travel and
Tourism that in 1986, approximately 19.8% of Carteret County's
employed work force was directly or indirectly employed as a
result of tourism activities.
I-14

As mentioned earlier, approximately 10% of Beaufort's employ-
ment base is involved in fishing. However, more detailed commer-
cial fishing data for Beaufort is difficult to obtain. It is
obvious that commercial fishing has a substantial impact on
Beaufort's local economy. Since 1977, Carteret County has con-
sistently ranked first in the state in terms of total licensed
commercial fishing, vessels, total seafood landings (pounds), and
total dockside value of seafood landings. The dockside value of
Carteret County landings tripled from $7.9 million in 1977 to
$23.5 million in 1988. The county accounted for 30% of the 1988
total dockside value for the entire state. While estimates vary,
as much as 10% of the county's total population may be directly or
indirectly involved in the commercial fishing industry.
In summary, the Beaufort economy appears to be in good
condition. Per capita income ranks above that of both the state
and Carteret County. The community's high per capita income and a
skilled labor base have created a number of economic benefits
including low unemployment, a stable municipal tax base, and a
growing diversified economy. Local job opportunities are strong.
_. The local municipal economy is further bolstered by the Carteret
County economy which is also showing signs of .growth. Beaufort's
economy should remain strong throughout the planning period.
I-15

D. EXISTING LAND USE
Beaufort is a mixture of the old and the new. Areas having
major historical significance continue to be preserved and pro-
tected. Other commercial and residential areas are developing at
increasing densities. However, the major focal point continues to
be the Beaufort waterfront and central business district.
The following provides an analysis of uses by land use cate-
gory and a comparison of 1985 and 1990 land use acreages. Map 1
provides a delineation of current land use. The acreages and the
dwelling unit counts for both the city's incorporated area and the
extraterritorial jurisdiction are provided in Tables 12, 13, and
14.
1. Urban and Developed Land
a) Residential
Since 1985, important changes have occurred in single-family
and multi -family land use. Both have shown significant increases
within the incorporated area and in the town's extraterritorial
planning jurisdiction. Within the town's total planning jurisdic-
tion, residential land use increased by 120.5 acres and 417 dwel-
ling units from 1985 to 1990.
The greatest residential growth occurred within the town.
This was because of an increase of 225 multi -family dwelling
units. In fact, multi -family construction accounted for 68% of.
Beaufort's in -town residential growth. The majority of the multi-
family construction was located on Brentwood Drive and Eagles Bay
Court off N.C. 101 and south Glenda Drive. Other multi -family
developments were scattered throughout the older central town
areas. The in -town single-family development primarily occurred
on scattered lots. No new major single-family subdivisions of
land occurred within the town limits between 1985 and 1990.
Within the extraterritorial area, almost all of the residen-
tial growth has been conventional single-family construction. The
only other growth has a very slight increase in the number of
mobile homes. Single-family construction was concentrated in
three areas. First, some growth occurred in the eastern edge of
town at the terminus of Mulberry Street. The second and most
dominant new area of single-family residential growth was the con-
struction dwellings between Gibbs Creak and Davis Bay and off of
Marshalls Road next to Turner Creek. The third significant area
of new single-family growth was west of N.C. 101 in the Riverside
Drive and Copeland Road areas. Other single-family growth was
dispersed throughout the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
I-16

NnY.I.IwN q �.. 01,w N
M.—
ft ow
�r
t
hw
4
TOWN OF BEAUFORT
DaSTIM LAND USE
1 JANUARY.1990
MAP
LEGEND
- - - ---"-- "-"
4L
TRANSPORTATION 8 UTILITIES
•� �•�
�' ;• PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL
PARKS 8 OPEN SPACE
AGRICLLTUREIVACANT
4TED EXTRA -TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY
—...�.» CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY

b) Commercial
Beaufort historically has -had a large amount of commercial
land use for a town of less than 5,000 population. Many compara-
ble North Carolina coastal communities have less than 5% of their
incorporated land area devoted to commercial usage. Beaufort had
9.8% and 120 of its incorporated area in 1985 and 1990, respec-
tively, devoted to commercial usage. Much of this commercial
development may be attributed to the town's waterfront development
and position as a tourist center.
While the commercial development within the extraterritorial
area has lagged behind that within the town, significant commer-
cial development did occur from 1985 to 1990. Most of the growth
took place along U.S. 70 north of Beaufort. The area is rapidly
becoming commercialized. Without proper control, the U.S. 70
north corridor will become a continuous strip of commercial devel-
-
opment. Most of the development proposals have been for integrat-
ed site developments or "shopping centers". Therefore, the oppor-
tunity for good design and traffic control exists.
Several annexations have occurred within the U.S. 70 north
area. These have involved property intended for commercial devel-
opment. Growth of the town farther northward along U.S. 70 is
expected.
c) Industrial
Industrial development occupies only a small portion of
Beaufort's land area. Most of the industrial development within
the Beaufort area is located within the extraterritorial jurisdic-
tion. The largest industrial land use, Atlantic Veneer and
Plywood, is located on the east end of Mulberry Street. Other
major industrial uses are concentrated around the Michael J.
Smith Airport. Extension of water and sewer service into the
extraterritorial jurisdiction may encourage the spread of indus-
trial development away for the town. However, industrial develop-
ment is expected to continue to occupy only a small percentage of
the land area within Beaufort's planning jurisdiction.
d) Institutional
The Town of Beaufort contains a significant amount of public
and institutional land use. The town serves as the county seat
and contains the county's administrative, law enforcement, and
court facilities. The main county complex is located south of
U.S. 70 between Turner and Craven Streets. There has been almost
no change in land use acreage within the town between 1985 and
1990. Within the town limits, other institutional uses include
Beaufort government facilities, mariners' museum, public library,
churches, cemeteries, and Beaufort Elementary School and Beaufort
Middle School.
In 1985, there were only 17 acres of institutional land use
within the extraterritorial area. Most of that area was occupied
by Beaufort or Carteret County facilities. Since then, the extra-
'
I-18

territorial institutional land use acreage has increased to 70.5
acres. Most of the increase is the result of the construction of
the Freedom Park and ball field facilities, which is owned by
Carteret County.
e) Transportation and Public utilities
This category includes all roadways, utility holdings, town -
owned services such as water and sewer lines, and electric utility
systems. The Michael J. Smith Airport is discussed as a separate
land use category. The town provides complete water and sewer
service to all properties within the town limits. Subdivision
developments within the extraterritorial area have added new
streets and utility systems since 1985. Approximately 2.7 miles
of paved road have been constructed since 1985. Within the plan-
ning period, further extensions of water and sewer utilities into
the extraterritorial area will occur, serving as a catalyst for
development. The major transportation problem is the disruption
to vehicular and rail access along. U.S. 70 at Beaufort Channel
when the existing road and rail drawbridges are raised.
f) Airport
The Michael J. Smith Airport is a major land use, occupying
403 acres. The facility is located northwest of Beaufort between
N.C. 101 and the Newport River. The Beaufort -Morehead City
Airport Authority was preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
in 1990 for a terminal expansion and the extension of Runway 8/26.
Both improvements are required for the airport to serve light jet
aircraft and commuter airlines. Extension of the runway would
necessitate the relocation of N.C. 101. This could be an impor-
tant land use issue during the planning period.
g) Vacant Land
The vacant land area within the town increased by 16 acres
from 1985 to 1990. The reason for this increase was the annexa-
tion of over 67 acres between 1985 and 1990. Much of that acreage
was vacant. If the annexations had not occurred, the total vacant
land within the town would have decreased by approximately 51
acres. Within the extraterritorial area, the vacant land
decreased by approximately 263 acres. Most of this decrease
occurred as a result of land lost to the annexations, residential
development, and some industrial growth. The decrease of vacant
land within the extraterritorial jurisdiction will continue
through the planning period.
2. Existing Land Use Problems
The Town of Beaufort has maintained an active planning
program. This has involved the enforcement of both zoning and
subdivision regulations within both the town and its extraterri-
torial jurisdiction. Beaufort's planning efforts have served to
lessen the adverse impacts of some land use planning problems.
Based on field analysis, discussions with the town staff and Board
I-19

of Commissioners, and input from the public at -large, the follow-
ing land use issues have been identified. These issues must be
addressed in the policy section of this plan:
-- The effects of sea level rise on the Town of Beaufort.
-- Construction of a new bridge on U.S. 70 at Beaufort
Channel to alleviate disruptions to east -west traffic.
-- Continued expansion of the Michael S. Smith Airport.
-- Extension of water and sewer utilities into the town's
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
- - Coordination of the development/improvement of the Beaufort
sewage treatment system with Carteret County's plans and
policies for the development of sewage treatment
system (s) .
-- The impact of offshore drilling on the Town of Beaufort.
-- Protection of the Rachel Carson National Estuarine
Sanctuary which includes Carrot Island, Town Marsh, and
Bird Shoal.
-- Control of strip commercialization along U.S. 70 north.
Continued protection of the town's Historic District.
_-
- Consideration of alternatives to rail transport across
Beaufort Channel. The existing drawbridge causes dis-
ruptions to rail transportation.
r
CJ
1 I-20

TABLE 12. EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN TOWN LIMITS
Percent
Density
Land Use
Acres
of Total
Units
(Units/Acre)
[1]
(2]
[1]
[2]
[1]
[2]
Ill
[2]
Single Family
294.4
308.6
41.1
39.0
1263
1358
4.3
4.40
Mobile Home
22.4
24.5
3.1
3.0
98
ill
4.4
4.53
Multi -family
51.2
73.4
7.1
9.0
444
669
8.7
9.11
Total Residential
368.0
406.5
51.3
51.0
1805
2138
4.9
5.26
Commercial
70.4
91.8
9.8
12.0
Industrial
22.1
12.8*
3.1
2.0
Public and
Institutional
67.1
67.6
9.4
' 8.0
Utilities
4.4
4.4
.6
1.0
Agricultural,
Forested and Vacant
184.4
200.4
25.7
26.0
Totals
716.4
783.5
100.0
100.0
[1] Source: 1985 Beaufort Land Use Plan.
(2] Source: Field Survey, T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners, December 1989.
*The actual industrial land use did not decrease. Property occupied by a building
supply dealer was reclassified from industrial to commercial.
I-21

TABLE 13. EXISTING LAND USE IN EXTRATERRITORIAL AREA
Land Use Acres
Ill [2]
Single Family 146.5 228.5
(includes mobile homes
on individual lots)
Mobile Hattie Parks 5.1 5.1
Total Residential 151.6 233.6
Percent Density
of Total Units (Units/Acre)
Ill (2] Ill [2] [1] [2]
6.3 10.1 209 289 1.4 1.3
_2 .2 36 40 7.0 7.8
6.5 10.3 245 329 1.6 1.4
commercial
7.2
14.0
.3
.6
Industrial
75.8
102.0
3.3
4.5
Public and
Institutional
21.6
126.7
.9
4.4
Airport
403.6
403.6
17.4
17.9
Utilities
3.8
.2
Agricultural,
Forested and Vacant
1665.8
1402.9
71.6
62.1
Totals
2325.6
2258.5
100.0
100.0
(1] Source: 1985 Beaufort Land Use Plan.
[2] Source: Field Survey, T. Dale Holland Consulting. Planners, December 1989.
I-22

TABLE 14. EXISTING LAND USE - TOTAL BEAUFORT PLANNING AREA
Percent
Density
Land Use
Acres
of Total
Units
(Units/Acre)
[1]
[2]
Ill
[2]
Ill
[2]
(1]
(2]
Single Family (incl.
440.9
537.1
14.5
17.7
1472
1647
3.3
3.07
mobile homes on
individual lots)
Mobile Homes
27.5
29.6
.9
1.0
134
151
4.9
5.10
Multiple Family
51.2
73.4
1.7
2.4
444
669
8.7
9.11
Total Residential
519.6
640.1
17.1
21.1
2050
2467
3.9
3.85
Commercial
77.6
105.8
2.6
3.5
Industrial
97.9
114.8
3.2
3.7
Public and
Institutional
88.7
166.2
2.9
5.5
Airport
403.6
403.6
13.3
13.2
Utilities
4.4
8.2
.1
.3
Agricultural,
Forested and Vacant
1850.2
1603.3
60.8
52.7
Totals
3042.0
3042.0
100.0
100.0
[1] Source: 1985 Beaufort Land Use Plan.
(2] Source: Field Survey, T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners, December 1989.
I-23

3. Development Potential
Growth should continue at a slow rate within the town's incor-
porated area. In 1990, only 200 acres of vacant land remained
within the corporate area. In 1990, development proposals had
been received for approximately 1/3 of that acreage. Most devel-
opment within the planning period may be expected to occur within
the extraterritorial jurisdiction area. Approximately 1400 acres
of vacant land exist. Water and sewer services may be extended to
much of that property during the planning period. This will serve
to stimulate growth.
Since 1985, the following has occurred which will stimulate
growth:
-- 225 multi -family units were constructed within the
corporate limits.
-- Growth within Carteret County has been strong, 84%
population growth since 1960. In fact, from 1970-1987,
Carteret County was the fourth fastest growing CAMA-
regulated county, and from 1980-1987, it was the fifth
fastest growing county within the state.
-- Beaufort negotiated an agreement with Carteret County to
take over the water system serving the Merrimon community
and S.R. 1163 area. This will extend town water service
beyond the extraterritorial jurisdiction and provide a
stimulant for growth.
-- Improvements have occurred at the Michael J. Smith Airport,
including the resurfacing of Runway 8-26 and the construc-
tion of a safety zone.
-- Water and sewer service has been extended to all areas
within the town's corporate limits.
-- School facilities serving the town have been improved.
(See Schools discussion, page I-37).
-- The Carteret County Thoroughfare Plan was updated with
specific improvements proposed which will benefit Beaufort.
(See the Transportation discussion, page I-38).
Beaufort's physical features also serve as a stimulant for
growth. Only small portions of the town's total land area contain
'
fragile areas or areas of environmental concern. In addition,
most of the town's land area is suitable to marginally suitable
for development.
1 I-24

4. Existing Ordinances and Land Use Controls
The Town of Beaufort has enforced zoning and subdivision regu-
lations since 1977 and 1979 respectively. These provide the basis
of the town's planning and land use control programs. The town
has established extraterritorial planning jurisdiction and
enforces land use controls within that area. As annexation
actions occur, the town should continuously extend its extrater-
ritorial area.
a) Zoning Ordinance
Beaufort's zoning ordinance is generally consistent with the
N.C.G.S. 160A-381 which is the enabling legislation for the prep-
aration of zoning ordinances for municipalities. The ordinance
provides for 13 separate zoning districts which may be divided
into residential, business, industrial, open space, and historic
districts. There does not appear to be a need for the creation of
additional districts.
The zoning ordinance has an unusual administrative/enforcement
aspect which is described by the following excerpt from the 1985
Land Use Plan:
"Beaufort's ordinance is unusual in that its Board of
Adjustment is structured to include the Town Board of
Commissioners as members. The Board of Adjustment is
a quasi-judicial body; it makes determinations under
the zoning ordinance as to variances, special excep-
tions, and appeals covering interpretation of require-
ments. The Town Board of Commissioners, on the other
hand, is a legislative body that passes local laws and
oversees the administration of town government. In
keeping with standard zoning enforcement procedures
and the general practice of separating legislative and
judicial governmental functions, the Town should con-
sider appointing Board of Adjustment members .other
than Town Commissioners."
The recommendation for establishment of a separate and
independent Board of Adjustment should be reconsidered and
implemented.
A second significant aspect of the zoning ordinance is the
Historic District. The historic heritage of Beaufort is among its
most valued and important assest. It is the intent of the
Historic District regulations to promote the educational,
cultural, and general welfare of the public through the preser-
vation and protection of historical buildings, places and areas,
and to maintain such lands as examples of past architectural
styles.
I-25

b) Subdivision Regulations
The Town of Beaufort subdivision regulations are consistent
with N.C.G.S. 160A-371 which is the enabling legislation for adop-
tion of subdivision regulations of municipalities. However, the
regulations should be updated to ensure consistency with current
state statutes and to consider the following: allowance of pri-
vate streets; updated requirements for information to be shown on
preliminary and final plats; and delineation of freshwater wet-
lands and other areas of environmental concern.
c) Flood Plain Development Ordinance
The Town of Beaufort participates in the National Flood
Insurance Program and complies with all related regulatory
requirements. Development proposals and subdivision plats are
reviewed to ensure consistency with the flood insurance program.
d) Floating Home Ordinance
In 1983, the town adopted an ordinance establishing areas and
required registration and fees for live -aboard boats anchoring in
Taylor's Creek. The ordinance prohibited the discharge of
untreated sewage or other waste materials. Subsequent to 1985,
legal action against the town's ordinance was pursued by an indi-
vidual. The ordinance was found to be unconstitutional. Beaufort
has not repealed the ordinance. However, the town intends to
repeal the ordinance and adopt a new Floating Home Ordinance which
'
will be legally defensible.
e) Storm Hazard Mitigation and Post -Disaster Reconstruction
Plan
In June, 1984, the Town of Beaufort adopted a detailed Storm
Hazard Mitigation Plan and Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan. The
plan has satisfactorily served the town and will continue to be
utilized as the town's storm mitigation plan.
f) Thoroughfare Plan
In 1989-1990, the Carteret County Thoroughfare Plan was being
updated and public hearings were being conducted throughout the
county. The draft document was endorsed by the Town of Beaufort.
g) Building Code
The Town of Beaufort enforces the North Carolina State
Building Code.
h) Minimum Housing Code
In 1989, the Town of Beaufort adopted a minimum housing code.
The code sets minimum standards to which residential structures
must be maintained. The town's Building Inspections Department
enforces the code.
I-26

E. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY
1. Topography/Geology
The area within Beaufort and its extraterritorial jurisdiction
is flat with the elevation generally varying less than three feet.
Elevations range from mean sea level to approximately twelve feet
above mean sea level. Topography is not considered to be a
serious constraint to development.
Carteret County is underlain by an eastward -thickening wedge
of sedimentary deposits of Pleistocene -age, ranging from 2,000
feet thick in the northwest portions of the county to almost 7,000
feet thick beneath the easternmost sections of offshore strand.
Because of the depth of the surficial sand/silaceous deposits,
little is known of the composition of underlying deposits. Well
logs indicate that shell fragments and calcareous material are
consolidated into a limestone at a depth of less than 120 feet
west of Morehead City, and at increasing depths further eastward.
Microfossils obtained from some well samples indicate that the
uppermost consolidated limestone is probably part of the Yorktown
formation.
The Beaufort water system obtains water from an aquifer locat-
ed in the Yorktown/Castle Hayne formations. Based on existing
analysis of well yields, the groundwater supply is adequate to
serve existing demand. However, salt water intrusion may be an
increasing concern as demand for water grows. About 2,500 square
miles of the Castle Hayne aquifer, including the portion underly-
ing Carteret County, have been designated as a capacity use area
by the N.C. Groundwater Section due to large (68 MGD in 1986)
groundwater withdrawals by the Texas Gulf phosphate mine near
Aurora. A capacity use area is defined as an area where the use
of water resources threatens to exceed the replenishment ability
to the extent that regulation may be required.
The United States Geological Survey would be willing to under-
take a two to three-year study of the limestone aquifer in
Carteret County if requested to do so by the Carteret County Board
of Commissioners or one or more of the county's towns. The cost
would be shared 50% by the federal government and 50% by local
government(s). The cost of the study could be $500,000 or higher,
depending on time and drilling demands. Information from this
study would be extremely useful in determining optimum locations
for future water wells, and estimating whether or not the ground-
water supply will meet demand throughout the planning period.
2. Flood Hazard Areas
The Town of Beaufort has a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
The map designates "A" flood zones, which are areas that will
experience rising flood waters with little or no wave action. The
I-27'

I
"A" zone is specifically defined as Special Flood Hazard Areas
inundated by the 100-year flood, determined by approximate
methods; no base flood elevations are shown or flood hazard
factors determined.
During a 100-year flood, the FIRM indicates that flood water
from Town Creek will meet water from Turner Creek, making.the
south end of the peninsula an island. Approximately 30 percent of
'
Beaufort's planning jurisdiction is within the 100-year flood
plain and over 50 percent of its area is above the 500-year flood
level. Map 2 delineates the 100-year flood plain area.
Flooding resulting from sea level rise may be a long-term
problem. Over the last 100 years, the sea level has risen approx-
imately one foot. Most experts agree that the rate of sea level
rise will increase over the next one hundred years. The maximum
increase has been forecast to be as much as four to seven feet.
An increase of that magnitude would be disastrous to the town and
its extraterritorial area. Over 50% of the town's planning juris-
diction could be inundated and most of the incorporated area would
be flooded. The impact of sea level rise has serious.adverse
implications for Beaufort. The rate of rise should be carefully
monitored. The vacant areas on the south side of Front Street are
zoned R-8. This zoning allows only non-commercial docks and
piers. This type of control will reduce the adverse impacts of
'
sea level rise. However, the town should cooperate with Carteret
County to develop additional programs and controls to respond to
the impact of sea level rise.
3. Soils
A detailed soils survey of Carteret County has been completed
by the Soil Conservation Service. Based on that survey, there are
20 different soil types located within Beaufort's planning area.
These soil types are delineated on Map 3 and their conditions for
site development are provided in Table 15. Most soils within the
'
Beaufort planning area are either suitable or moderately suitable
for development. However, because of a high water table, limita-
tions exist for shallow excavation.
n
1 I-28

s m M ON M r r M M M M M M.= M
TI.........11...f W. - - ft...-A 1. -1
INDARY
7 100' w ow 12W
MAP 2

r M M M M M = = = = = = = = = M= M M
H
w
,o
Soil Name and
Map Symbol
Altavista
(AaA)
Augusta
(Ag)
Arapahoe
(Ap)
Baymeade
(ByB)
Carteret
(CH)
Conetoe
(CnB)
Corolla -Urban
(Cu)
Hobucken
(HB)
Kureb
(KuB)
Leon
(in)
TABLE 15. SOIL CONDITIONS FOR BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT
Dwellings Dwellings Small
Shallow without with Commercial Local Roads
Excavations Basements Basements Buildings and Streets
Severe:
wetness,
cutbanks cave.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
cutbanks cave,
wetness.
Severe:
cutbanks cave.
Severe:
cutbanks cave,
ponding.
Severe:
cutbanks cave.
Severe:
cutbanks cave,
wetness.
Severe
ponding.
Severe:
cutbanks cave.
Severe:
cutbanks cave,
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
flooding,
wetness.
Slight
Severe:
flooding,
ponding.
Slight
Severe
flooding.
Severe
flooding,
ponding.
Slight
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
flooding,
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
flooding,
ponding.
(Slight
Severe
flooding,
wetness.
Severe:
flooding,
ponding.
Slight
Severe:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
flooding,
wetness.
Slight
Severe:
flooding,
ponding.
(Slight
Severe•
flooding.
Severe
flooding,
ponding.
Slight
(Severe:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Moderate:
low strength,
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
(Slight
Severe:
ponding,
flooding.
Slight
Moderate:
flooding,
wetness.
Severe
flooding,
ponding.
Slight -
Severe:
wetness.
Lawns and
Landscaping
Moderate:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
droughty.
Severe:
excess salt,
ponding,
droughty.
Moderate:
droughty.
Severe:
droughty.
Severe:
flooding,
ponding.
Severe:
droughty.
Severe:
wetness,
droughty.

(Table 15. Soil Conditions for Building Site Development, cont'd.)
Dwellings Dwellings Small
Soil Name and Shallow without with Commercial Local Roads Lawns and
Map Symbol Excavations Basements Basements Buildings and Streets Landscaping
Leon -Urban
(Lu)
Mandarin Urban
(Mc)
Mandarin
(Mn)
Murville
NO
Newhan
H �)
u' Seabrook
~ (Se)
State
(StA)
Tomotley
(Tfn)
Wando
(WaB)
Wando-Urban
(WOB)
Severe:
cutbanks
cave,
wetness.
Severe:
cutbanks
cave,
wetness.
Severe:
cutbanks
cave,
wetness.
Severe:
cutbanks
cave,
Severe:
cutbanks
cave,
slope.
Severe:
cutbanks
cave,
wetness.
(Severe:
cutbanks
cave.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
cutbanks
cave.
Severe:
cutbanks
cave.
Severe:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
ponding.
Severe:
slope.
Moderate:
wetness.
Slight
Severe:
wetness.
Slight-
Slight -
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Severe:
ponding.
Severe:
slope.
Severe:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
wetness.
Slight
(Severe:
wetness.
(Moderate:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
ponding.
Severe:
slope.
Moderate:
wetness.
Slight
Severe:
wetness.
Slight -
Severe:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Moderate:
wetness.
Severe:
ponding-
Severe:
slope.
Moderate:
wetness.
(Moderate:
low strength.
Severe:
wetness.
Slight-
night -
Severe:
wetness,
droughty.
Moderate:
droughty,
too sandy.
Moderate:
droughty,
too sandy.
Severe:
ponding.
Severe:
droughty,
slope.
Severe:
droughty.
Slight.
Severe:
wetness.
Moderate:
droughty.
Moderate:
droughty.
=r = M= m m= w==== m m m M! M=

r r r r� .� ■r .� r�� r r r� r r. r s
The preparation of this map was financed In part
through a grant provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program. through funds
Iprovided by the Coastal Zone Management Ad of
1972. as amended, which Is odmiristend by the
IIII Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric
Adminislration.
a P'-
BEAUFORT. N.C.
SOILS MAP
SCALE
n. zoo• goo, ear izoo.
MAP 3
LEGEND
SOILS
AaA
Altavista
Ag
Augusta
Ap
Arapahoe
ByB
Baymeade
CH
Carteret
CnB
Conetoe
Cu
Corolla -Urban
De
Deloss
KuB
Kureb
Ln
Leon
Lu
Leon -Urban
MC
Mandarin -Urban
Mn
Mandarin
Mu
Murville
Nd
Newhan
Se
Seabrook
StA
State
Tm
Tomotley
WaB
Wando
WUB
Wando-Urban
CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY —••
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY

1 4. Manmade Hazards/Restrictions
' The most significant manmade hazard within Beaufort's planning
jurisdiction is the Michael J.'Smith Airport. The airport is
located northwest of the town in an area of increasing develop-
ment. The Beaufort -Morehead City Airport Authority is considering
lengthening Runway 8-26 to accommodate "light" jet aircraft. This
extension could require relocation of a portion of N.C. 101 and
result in further impact of air operations on surrounding areas.
' Other manmade hazards within Beaufort's planning jurisdiction
include the following:
Atlantic Veneer, Mulberry Street, Beaufort
Propane/Propylene/Hydrochloric Acid/Caustic Soda-
Anhydrous/Isopropyl Alcohol/Casamite/Sodium Hypro-
chlorite/Fuel Oil/Kerosene/Perchlorothylene/Ammonium
' Chloride/Caustic Soda/Hydrogen/Sodium Hydroxide/Xylene/
Aliphatic Alcohol
Town of Beaufort
A. Town Garage - Unleaded & Diesel Fuel
B. Water Plant - Chlorine
C. Waste Treatment Plant - Chlorine
Beaufort Gulf Dock, 330 Front Street, Beaufort
Fuel Storage
Beaufort Ice & Coal Company
Ammonia (Ice Plant)
Beaufort Fisheries
Fuel Storage
Carteret Quick Freeze, End of Ann Street West, Beaufort
Ammonia (Ice Plant)
Topsail Marine Service, Front Street, Beaufort
Fuel Storage
Town Creek Marina, West Beaufort Road
Fuel Storage
U.S. Route 70
Transportation corridor utilized for the transit of
"hazardous material."
As a result of recently adopted federal regulations concerning
underground storage tanks, the threat of explosion or groundwater
contamination from existing underground storage tanks should
decrease.
Located immediately west of Beaufort's planning jurisdiction
is Radio Island. The island contains 25,000,000-gallon storage of
jet aircraft fuel. The fuel from these tanks is shipped westward
by rail and does not pass through Beaufort. However, the threat
of fire and explosions is a concern to the town of Beaufort.
I-33

5. Fragile Areas
In coastal. North Carolina, fragile areas are considered to
include coastal wetlands, sand dunes, ocean beaches, shorelines,
estuarine waters and shorelines, public trust waters, complex
natural areas, areas sustaining remnant species, unique geological
formations, registered natural landmarks, swamps, prime wildlife
habitats, scenic points, archaeological sites, historical sites,
and fresh water wetlands. The Town of Beaufort's planning juris-
diction includes or is adjacent to estuarine waters and shore-
lines, coastal wetlands, and public trust waters. Map 4 provides
a delineation of the Areas of Environmental Concern. These are
areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed by inappropriate
or poorly planned development.
a) Coastal Wetlands
The coastal wetlands are generally delineated on Map 4, Areas
of Environmental Concern. However, it is emphasized that the
specific locations of coastal wetlands can be determined only
through on -site investigation and analysis. Coastal wetlands are
defined as salt marshes regularly- or irregularly -flooded by tides
including wind tides, provided this shall not include hurricane or,
tropical storm tides. This area contains some, but not necessarily
all of the following marsh plant species: Cordgrass, Black Needle -
rush, Glasswort, Salt Grass, Sea Lavendar, Bulrush, Saw Grass,
Cat -tail, Salt Meadow Grass, and Salt Reed Grass. The coastal
wetlands are vital to the complex food chain found in estuaries.
They provide marine nursery areas and are essential to a sound
commercial fishing industry. Coastal wetlands also serve as
barriers against flood damage and control erosion between the
estuary and uplands.
b) Estuarine Waters
Estuarine waters are generally those waters found in estuaries,
bays, and salt water shorelines. They are the dominant component
and bonding element of the entire estuarine system, integrating
aquatic influences from both the land and the sea. The estuarine
waters are among the most productive natural environments within
Beaufort's planning jurisdiction. The waters support the valuable
commercial and sports fisheries of the coastal area which are
comprised of estuarine dependent species such as menhaden,
flounder, shrimp, crabs, and oysters.
c) Estuarine Shorelines
Estuarine shorelines are those non -ocean shorelines which are
especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse
effects of wind and water. They are intimately connected to the
estuary. The area extends from the mean high water level or normal
water level along the estuaries, sounds, bays, and brackish waters
for a distance of 75 feet landward. Development within the
estuarine shorelines influences the quality of estuarine life and
is subject to the damaging processes of shorefront erosion and
flooding.
I-34

ICI m m = = r= r r== m=! r m = = m
The preparation of INs map was financed In purl
through a grant provldod by the North Corobm
Coastal Management Ploarmo, through funds
11 addod by I Coastal Zone Management Ad of
1972, as amended. which Is administered by IM
Office of Oeoon and Coastal Resource
Management. Nallonal Ocoantc and Atmosphork
AdmlNstrollon.
HISTORIC
BEAUFORT, N.C.
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
MAP 4
SCALE
0' 2Co• .0o ear 1200'
11141
NOTES:
L ALL AREAS LYING 0-75• LANDWARD OF THE
2. ALL WATERS IN BEAUFORT'S PLANNING
MEAN HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ESTUARINE
JURISDICTION ARE CLASSIFIED AS ESTUARINE
WATERS ARE ESTUARINE SHORELINE AREAS
WATERS AS DESCRIBED BY 15 NCAC 7H.0206,
AND CLASSIFIED AS CONSERVATION LANDS.
OR PUBLIC TRUST AREAS AS DESCRIBED BY 15
BECAUSE OF MAP SCALE. THESE AREAS
NCAC 7RO207. ALL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
CANNOT BE ACCURATELY MAPPED. PRECISE
CONSISTANT WITH THE USE STANDARDS
LOCATIONS MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE
CONTAINED IN 15 NCAC 7RO206 AND .0207.
FIELD.
LEGEND
COASTAL WETLANDS
ESTUARINE SYSTEM ISLANDS +,�13i'et1r._utt..s_
CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY �•••—•••
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY
.......e.vvs�.
�� �I■■�■Is
se
IN I
av^s 90

L
d) Public Trust Areas
Public trust areas are all waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the
lands thereunder from the mean high water mark to the seaward limit
of state jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject to
measurable lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean high water
mark; all navigable natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to
the mean high water level or mean water level as the case may be,
except privately -owned lakes to which the public has no right of
access; all water in artificially created bodies of water contain-
ing significant public fishing resources or other public resources
which are accessible to the public by navigation from bodies of
water in which the public has rights of navigation; and all waters
in artificially created bodies of water in which the public has
acquired rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedication, or any
other means. In determining whether the public has acquired rights
in artificially created bodies of water, the following factors
shall be considered:
(1) the use of the body of water by the public,
(2) the length of time the public has used the area,
(3) the value of public resources in the body of water,
(4) whether the public resources in the body of water are
mobile to the extent that they can move into natural
bodies of water,
(5) whether the creation of the artificial body of water
required permission from the state, and
(6) the value of the body of water to the public for
navigation from one public area to another public area.
These areas are significant because the public has rights in
these areas, including navigation and recreation. The public trust
areas also support valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have
aesthetic value, and are important resources for economic develop-
ment.
It is impossible to map the public trust area. The areas must
be determined through in -field analysis and definition.
e. Historic and Archaeological Sites
The Town of Beaufort is nationally recognized for the signifi-
cance of its historic sites. A National Register Historic District
was established in Beaufort in the 19701s. However, a local
historic district was not established until 1985. The Historic
District is delineated on Map 4, Areas of Environmental Concern.
'
The Beaufort Historic District was described in the 1985 Land
Use Plan as "the most distinctively coastal historic community
along the North Carolina coast." While few of the buildings have
significant architectural merit, the area has maintained its
overall architectural and historic integrity. The specific local
architectural details for which the area is noted include roof
lines, chimneys, porches, and mantels.
I-36

The following structures located in Beaufort are listed in the
National Register of Historic Places:
Carteret County Home
Gibbs House
Jacob Henry House
Old Burying Ground
Highway 101
903 Front Street
229 Front Street
Block between Ann,
Craven, and Broad
Streets
Local significance
National significance
State significance
Local significance
The Beaufort Historical Association maintains a complex of
restored buildings on Turner Street within the Historic District.
The complex is an assortment of restored period buildings repre-
senting early coastal North Carolina life. The buildings are open
six days a week year round, and costumed hostesses provide guided
tours.
There are also some potentially significant historic and
archaeological sites scattered along Beaufort's.shoreline areas.
It is recommended by the town that the North Carolina Department
of Archives and Natural History be contacted prior to any land or
river/sound bottom disturbing activities.
f. Rachel Carson Estuarine Sanctuary
While the Rachel Carson Estuarine Sanctuary is primarily a
coastal wetland AEC, it demands special attention. The sanctuary
was established in 1983, and is composed of 2,025 acres of
islands, marshes, intertidal flats, tidal creeks and shallow
estuarine waters. The sanctuary lies across Taylor's Creek,
opposite the Beaufort waterfront. Specifically, the area includes
Carrot and Horse Islands, Bird Shoal, and Town Marsh.
The area supports significant coastal flora and fauna, includ-
ing a population of feral horses. Because of the diversity of
bird and plant life, the Nature Conservancy purchased Carrot
Island in the late 1970's. Because of the diverse vegetation and
wildlife, the sanctuary provides an excellent laboratory for study
of the estuarine system. The site has also been used for estu-
arine research because of its proximity to Duke University Marine
Lab and the National Marine Fisheries Lab on Pivers Island, and
the University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences and
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries Lab located in Morehead. The
sanctuary site has been acquired by the state and will be managed
in its natural state for educational and scientific research by
the N.C. Division of Coastal Management as part of its Estuarine
Reserve System.
g) Freshwater Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands are areas covered by water or that have
waterlogged soils for long periods during the growing season.
Plants growing in wetlands are capable of living in soils lacking
I-37

oxygen for at least part of the growing season. Some wetlands,
such as swamps, are obvious. Others are sometimes difficult to
identify because they may be dry during part of the year. Wet-
lands include, but are not limited to, bottomlands, forests,
swamps, pocosins, pine savannahs, bogs, marshes, and wet meadows.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone
interested in depositing dredged or fill material into "waters of
the United States," including wetlands, must apply for and receive
a permit for such activities. In 1990, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers are planning to mount
an increased enforcement effort of the Section 404 regulations to
meet the mandate by President Bush of "no net loss of wetlands."
Development interests and individuals who either knowingly or
'
through ignorance violate the provisions of Section 404 may face
substantial costs in restoring damaged wetlands as well as civil
and criminal penalties. While there are scattered wetland areas
located within Beaufort's planning jurisdiction, the specific
locations of wetlands areas must be determined through specific
on -site analysis.
Wetlands are a significant natural resource because they
provide recharge areas for groundwater; serve as filter traps for
sediment, pesticides and other pollutants; provide non-structural
flood control; buffer against shoreline erosion; serve as buffer
zones between upland activities and valuable aquatic -systems; and
provide habitats for numerous furbearing animals, endangered
species, and other wildlife.
6. Areas of Resource Potential
a) Agricultural and Forest Lands
'
Within Carteret County, there are extensive areas of prime
agricultural lands. The best soils for agricultural production
are the Deloss-Tomotley-Arapahoe soils association. Beaufort's
extraterritorial area includes large areas of Arapahoe soils.
Most of those areas are in active agricultural production. The
majority of the area within or adjacent to the town's corporate
'
limits are either in the Altavista -Augusta -State or Leon-Murville-
Mandarin associations. These soils are not considered prime
agricultural soils. It is anticipated that much of the prime
'
agricultural land located within the town's extraterritorial
jurisdiction will be converted to urban uses during the planning
period.
b) Public Parks
There are no parks within Beaufort's planning jurisdiction
which have regional or national significance. However, the
county's Freedom Park is located within Beaufort's extraterri-
torial jurisdiction. This facility contains a complex of
baseball/softball fields which attract people from throughout the
'
county. While the Beaufort waterfront is not technically a park,
it is an area that offers visual access to the sound and is
I-38

the location of many activities which are recreationally related.
The waterfront area does have some regional recognition and
significance. The N.C. Wildlife Commission leases land from the
town at the foot of Front Street for a boat ramp. Grayden Paul
Park, located at the foot of Pollock Street, is maintained by the
town as a water access park. The facility includes a dinghy dock,
a temporary (2-hour limit) boat dock, a swimming dock, and a small
gazebo. The Jaycee Park, a small town -owned park facility, is
also located on Front Street opposite the boat ramp.
c) Marine Resources
There are no major concentrations of subaquatic vegetation
within Beaufort's planning jurisdiction. However, the Rachel
Carson Estuarine Sanctuary contains productive estuarine waters.
In addition, important coastal wetland areas exist along the North
River. These areas should be protected as an important part of
Carteret County's marine environment. Commercial fishing and
other marine activities have long been important to Beaufort's
economy and history. Beaufort desires to protect the integrity
and quality of Carteret County's marine environment.
Also of significance to Beaufort's marine history and
resources is the North Carolina Maritime Museum. The museum was
originally opened in 1930 under the management of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Department of Conservation and
Development. In 1951, management of the museum changed to the
State Museum of Natural History under the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Agriculture. In 1975, the museum hired a full-time
curator and was opened to the public year round. The museum is
filled with exhibits documenting both maritime and natural history
of the North Carolina coast.
I-39

t
'
F. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Water Supply
'
Beaufort operates its own water system. Service is available
to the entire town and can be extended into the extraterritorial
areas as areas are annexed. The system underwent upgrading in
1985-1986 with the assistance of federal funding and a one -million
'
dollar general obligation bond referendum.
The system includes three wells with a total capacity of 2.02
million gallons per day (MGD). The maximum safe pumping capacity
is 1.01 MGD. All three wells are tied into the water distribution
system. Water storage is provided by two 200,OOO gallon elevated
tanks and one 300,000 gallon ground tank. The system is currently
capable of handling 800,000 gallons per day peak demand during the
summer months.
In 1990, the town executed an agreement with Carteret County
which provided for the town to assume operation of the water
system serving the Merrimon community and S.R. 1163 area. The
agreement provided for the town initially to operate the system
for two years, with an option to terminate the agreement. Ulti-
mately, the town may assume ownership of the system, adding over
one million dollars worth of improvements to the town's water
system.
' 2. Sewer
The Town of Beaufort has accomplished major renovations to its
sewer system within the last five years. In 1985, the system was
' hydraulically overloaded due to stormwater infiltration. The
average flows ranged from 700,000 GPD to 1.5 million GPD.
' Beaufort undertook an engineering study to identify the
sources of infiltration and developed a plan for the re-routing of
some stormwater and the replacement of some old or broken city
' sewer lines. In addition, the town undertook an expansion of the
treatment plant. The expansion was completed at a cost of 2.5
million dollars in November of 1988. The Environmental Protection
Agency funded 55% of the cost with the remaining funds provided by
the state and town.
As a result of the overall improvements, 100,000 GPD of infil-
tration was eliminated. The current flow averages 1 million GPD
and ranges from 850 GPD to 1.1 MGD. The treatment plant is a
Class III treatment facility and provides secondary treatment.
The town operates a certified laboratory which is staffed with one
full-time laboratory technician. Map 5 provides the plant
location.
1 I-40

M = = = = = = M = M = = A = = r
The preparation of this map was financed in part
through a grant provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, through funds
19Frovided by the Coastal Zone Management Ad of
I 72 as amended. which Is admWetered by the
I^I Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
BEAUFORT, N.C.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
MAP 5
SCALE
a zoo• �ar ear czar
LEGEND
I BEAUFORT/MOREHEAD CITY, AIRPORT
18 POLICE DEPT. 8 OLD R.R.
2 RESCUE SOUAD
STATION/TOWN HALL
3 BEAUFORT MIDDLE SCHOOL
19 CHURCH PARKING LOT (Public Use)
4 NEW WELL NO. 3 8 TREATMENT FACILITY
20 BEAUFORT RESTORATION CENTER
5 SCHOOL BUS GARAGE
21 PUBLIC PARKING
6 BEAUFORT ELEMENTARY
22 HAMPTON MARINERS MUSEUM
7 BEAUFORT HOUSING AUTHORITY
23 WATERFRONT PARK
8 TOWN GARAGE
24 POST OFFICE
9 POWER SUBSTATION
25 GRAYDEN PAUL PARK
10 BEAUFORT SANITATION 8 WATER
26 WELL NO. 18 WATER TREATMENT
DEPT. 8 WELL NO. 2
27 PUBLIC BOAT RAMP
11 CARTERET COUNTY COURT FACILITIES
28 TENNIS COURTS
12 CARTERET COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
29 SHOPPING CENTER
13 COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.
30 FREEDOM PARK BALL FIELDS
Al FIRE STATION
31 WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
IS BOARD OF EDUCATION
32 PUBLIC BOAT RAMP
16 BEAUFORT LIBRARY
CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY �••• •••
17 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
EXTRA -TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY

'
3. Solid Waste Disposal
Beaufort operates a town -wide refuse collection system. Twice
per week pick-up service is provided to 1,722 single-family homes,
392 apartments, and 138 businesses. Other pick-up services
include eight trash can racks on Front Street, 16 street contain-
ers, and four 55-gallon drums located in parks. Both collection
routes are about 14 miles long.
Collection is accomplished by a three-man crew using one
30-yard rear loading packer. The collection averages one load per
day. At times during the peak tourist season, a second truck is
needed.
'
The town disposes of its waste in the Carteret County Land-
fill, which is located on Hibbs Road. It is a 32-mile round trip
to the landfill. Barring any unforeseen major changes in federal
'
or state laws governing solid waste disposal, the county will have
to expand its existing landfill, or construct another landfill, by
the fall of 1991. The replacement landfill may be a regional
facility located in Craven County. Pamlico, Carteret, and Craven
counties will participate in the development of the facility.
The location of the facility -and its anticipated life expectancy
'
have not yet.been determined.
4. Schools
'
The Town of Beaufort is served by the Carteret County school
system. Two facilities, the Beaufort Elementary School and the
Beaufort Middle School, are located within the Town of Beaufort.
The town's high school -aged students attend East Carteret High
School, which is located north of Beaufort adjacent to U.S. 70.
The following provides a summary of school enrollment:
1984 1985 Change
Beaufort Elementary School 609 679 +70
Beaufort Middle School, 390 353 -37
East Carteret High School 862 749 -113
The following excerpt from the draft 1990 Carteret County Land
'
Use Plan describes the status of the county's school system:.
"According to the Carteret County Board of Education,
capacity for each school in the county system is defined
'
by the state basic education plan, and can vary signif-
icantly year to.year by classroom and school. In gen-
eral, all county schools in the western part of the
county* -- in particular, Beaufort and Morehead Elemen-
tary and West Carteret High -- are currently overcrowded.
'
While less crowded than the western township schools, the
schools serving the eastern part of the county are also
technically at or over capacity according to strict
'
classroom requirements included in the basic education
plan.
*The western part of the county refers to all areas of Carteret
County to the west of a line connecting Adams Creek and the North
River.
'
I-42

In response to the obvious need for expansion of the
county school system, the Carteret County Board of
Education adopted a 15-Year Long Range Facilities Plan in
1988. The plan established ranges of desirable enroll-
ments and outlined construction costs and schedules
through the year 2003. Completed and/or ongoing compo-
nents of the plan include completion of Broad Creek
Middle School, major improvement projects at Beaufort and
Morehead Middle Schools, and Newport Elementary School,
and purchase of land for replacement of the Morehead
Elementary School." The school locations are provided on
Map 5.
5. Transportation
In April, 1990, the North Carolina Department of Transpor-
tation prepared a preliminary thoroughfare plan for Carteret
County. The preliminary plan included significant proposals which
would have a major impact on Beaufort and its extraterritorial
jurisdiction. These proposals include the following:
-- A connector between N.C. 101 and U.S. 70 (the corridor for
this road has not yet been determined).
-- Reroute U.S. 70 from Cedar Street to Turner/West Beaufort
Road.
-- Utilize Orange and Turner Streets as a one-way pair -provid-
ing access to the waterfront.
-- Elimination of the "Y" intersection with N.C. 101 and
U.S. 70.
-- Replacement of the drawbridge between Morehead City and
Beaufort with a medium height bridge. A detailed study '
will be required to determine what clearance is required to
pass a percentage of the boats currently using the Beaufort
Channel.
-- A possible minor thoroughfare is proposed to.connect Strep
Point Road just east of U.S. 70 and Mulberry Street at its
intersection with Ocean Street.
The most significant improvements will be the replacement of
the Beaufort Channel Bridge and the construction of a U.S. 70- '
N.C. 101 connector north of Beaufort. Both would serve to reduce
rapidly increasing traffic congestion along Cedar Street and
U.S. 70. The Cedar Street/U.S. 70 corridor is expected to
continue its trend of commercial development. Improved traffic '
flow is a very important planning issue.
I-43

6. Police
'
Beaufort maintains a fully -staffed police department which
serves all areas within the town. The staff consists of 16 offi-
cers, including the police chief. Three are on duty at all times.
The full-time staff is supported by eight auxiliary officers.
'
Five patrol cars are maintained.
'
7. Fire
The town operates a full-time fire department. The department
has a staff of seven full-time engineers, including the fire
chief. This staff is supported by 42 volunteers. Equipment
includes three 1,000 GPM pumpers. Carteret County contracts with
Beaufort to provide service to an area north of Beaufort. The
area extends to the North River Bridge on U.S. 70, to Back Creek
'
on Merrimon Road, to Core Creek Bridge on N.C. 101, and also
includes Radio Island. The farthest distance is approximately
nine miles from the station.
8: Emergency Services
<�
The' -Beaufort rescue squad provides ambulance services. Two of
the members are paid, and the rest of the staff is volunteer. The
town provides all gas, fuel, and vehicle maintenance assistance.
9. Recreation
Recreational facilities operated by Beaufort include: Water-
front Park; Grayden Paul Park; the Taylor's Creek Town Dock; a
park at the end of Front Street, which includes tennis courts and
a boat launch; and several neighborhood parks. Other recreational
facilities located within the town's planning jurisdiction include
Freedom Park and Beaufort Elementary School recreational area.
Open space areas include several historic cemeteries and the
scenic drive along Front Street which provides a waterfront view
of Taylor's Creek and Carrot Island. The town employs a part-time
recreation director. Map 5 provides the park locations..
The North Carolina Division of Parks maintains recreation
facilities standards. The following table provides a comparison
of town supported facilities and the state standards:
1
1 I-44

Table 16
Town of Beaufort - Minimum Recreational Facility
Needs
(Based on Year -Round
Population)
'
N.C. Division
of Parks and
Beaufort
Existing
'
Facility
Recreation Standard
Facilities Need
Facilities
(Facilities
(Based on 1987
Population)
year-round
population of
'
4,548)
Football/Soccer Field
1/10,000
<1
1 at Freedom Park
Softball Field
1/ 3,000
<1
2 at Freedom Park
Baseball Field
1/ 6,000
<1
1 at Freedcan Park
Swim -ring Pool - 25 yard
1/10,000
<1
None
Swimning Pool - 50 meter
1/20,000
<1
None
Tennis Courts
2/ 4,000
2
Front Street
Tot Lots/Playgrounds
1/ 1,000
6
See Text
'
Ccmminity Center Gym
1/25, 000
1
Beaufort Central Gym
Neighborhood Center
1/10,000
<1
None
* < = less
than
Based on the comparison provided in Table 16, the Town_ of
Beaufort meets or exceeds the state recreation standards except
for swimming pools and neighborhood centers. Because of the
outdoor water activities which exist in Carteret County, it should
not be necessary for Beaufort to provide swimming pools. Also,
Beaufort has less than one-half the population considered neces-
sary to support a neighborhood center.
10. Administration
The Town of Beaufort maintains a complete staff for management
of a wide range of urban services. The administrative and service
staff includes the following positions:
Administration 4
Inspections 2
Water and Sewer Department 15
Street Sanitation 13
The town maintains a Mayor -Council form of government with a
Town Administrator employed to supervise all departments.
I-45

1
SECTION II
PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
L

1
SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A. PROJECTED DEMAND FOR DEVELOPMENT
1. Demographic Trends
Table 17 provides the estimated population for the Town of
'
Beaufort and other Carteret County municipalities and townships
through 2000. Beaufort's population will comprise a slightly
smaller percentage of the county's total population by 2000. In
1985, Beaufort contained approximately 9.01% of the county popula-
tion. This percentage is expected to decrease slightly to 8.69%
by 2000. However, Beaufort will continue to be the second largest
'
town within Carteret County.
Most of the land area within the town has been developed. The
town's population cannot grow appreciably without annexation. The
extension of town utilities into the extraterritorial jurisdiction
area will both encourage and support annexation actions. Based on
an average household size of 2.4, approximately 790 people resided
within the town's extraterritorial area in 1990. This should
increase to over 1,000 by 2000. Approximately one-third to one-
half of this population is located in areas which could easily be
annexed. Thus, annexation could result in an additional 10 to 15%
growth of the 1985 population by 2000.
2. Commercial and Industrial Land Use
Commercial and industrial development is expected to continue
during the next five- to ten-year period within the extraterri-
torial jurisdiction. Growth within the incorporated area will be
limited because of a lack of vacant land and availability of areas
zoned for commercial and industrial development. Any major com-
mercial development within the town will have to occur through the
redevelopment of areas presently developed.
Within the extraterritorial area, development will focus on
'
the U.S. 70 corridor and around the Michael J. Smith Airport. The
U.S. 70 corridor has experienced a number of rezoning actions to
reclassify parcels from residential to commercial categories.
Pressure may be expected to continue for commercial rezonings.
Caution should be taken to control strip commercialization and the
traffic and service problems associated with such development.
The majority of the industrially zoned property within the
town's extraterritorial jurisdiction is the Warehouse -Industrial
zoned property located at and adjacent to the airport. Other
warehouse industrial areas are located off Mulberry Street east of
the town limits.

Table 17: Total Year-round Population Projections
by Township and Municipality
Carteret County,
1987-2000
Township
Municipality or Area
Year-round Population
Percentage Change
Overall
1987
1995
2000
1987-1995
1995-2000
1987-2000
1)
Atlantic
Total
808
806
805
-0.3%
-0.2%
-0.4%
2)
Beaufort
Beaufort
4,548
5,317
5,791
16.9%
8.9%
27.3%
Unincorporated Areas
3,350
3,546
3,667
5.9%
3.4%
9.5%
Total Township
7,898
8,863
9,458
12.2%
6.7%
19.8%
3)
Cedar Island
Total Township
353
374
387
6.0%
3.5%
9.8%
4)
Davis
Total Township
509
527
538
3.6%
2.1%
5.8%
5)
Harkers Island
Total Township
2,038
2,174
2,258
6.7%
3.9%
10.8%
6)
Harlowe
Total Township
11047
1,144
1,204
9.3%
5.2%
15.0%
7)
Marshallberg
Total Township
606
634
651
4.6%
2.7%
7.4%
8)
Merrimon
Total Township
471
519
548
10.2%
5.7%
16.5%
9)
Morehead City
Atlantic Beach
1,586
2,273
2,697
43.3%
18.6%
70.0%
Morehead City
6,740
9,277
10,840
37.6%
16.9%
60.8%
Indian Beach
67
81
89
20.7%
10.6%
33.4%
Pine Knoll Shores
932
1,237
1,424
32.7%
15.2%
52.8%
H
Unincorporated Areas
11,415
13,132
14,191
15.0%
8.1%
24.3%
H
Total Township
20,740
26,000
29,242
25.4%
12.5%
41.0%
N 10)
Newport
Newport
21573
3,308
3,761
28.6%
13.7%
46.2%
Unincorporated Areas
41246
4,949
5,383
16.6%
8.8%
26.8%
Total Township
6,819
8,257
9,144
21.1%
10.7%
34.1%
11)
Sea Level
Total Township
631
728
788
15.4%
8.2%
24.8%
12)
Smyrna
Total Township
693
753
789
8.6%
4.9%
13.9%
13)
Stacy
Total Township
353
386
406
9.4%
5.3%
15.1%
14)
Straits
Total Township
11687
11865
11975
10.5%
5.9%
17.0%
15)
indite Oak
Cape Carteret
1,239
1,553
1,747
25.4 %
12.5 %
41.0 %
[1]
Emerald Isle
1,752
2,697
3,279
53.9%
21.6%
87.2%
Unincorporated Areas
21841
31212
13.0%
7.1%
21.1%
Total Township
5,832
7,462
.31440
81467
27.9%
13.5%
45.2%
Total Municipalities
19,437
25,743
29,630
32.4%
15.1%
52.4%
Total Unincorporated
Areas
31,048
34,749
37,030
11.9%
6.6%
19.3%
Total County
50,485
60,492
66,660
19.8%
10.2%
32.0%
Sources: North Carolina State Data Center, Office of State Budget and Management
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
[11 "Unincorporated Areas" includes Town of Cedar Point, incorporated in 1988

Off -shore drilling could have a major impact on development
'
within Beaufort. At the time of preparation of this plan, it was
not certain what, if any, off -shore drilling activities would
occur. In addition, if drilling were to occur, it was not decided
in what location oil or gas would be brought ashore. There was
some speculation that oil would be taken ashore in the port of
Norfolk. If so, the on -shore development of facilities to support
drilling operations could be minimal.
The town should carefully monitor drilling plans and be pre-
'
pared with regard to on -shore impacts when specific development
plans are known.
3. Housing Trends
Since 1985, significant residential subdivision development
has occurred north of Beaufort and east of U.S. 70. Over 70 low
to moderate density lots were approved for subdivision. In addi-
1
tion, approximately 80 new dwelling units were constructed. Most
Of those were located in the same area, east of U.S. 70 and north
of Beaufort. The most significant residential change within the
'
town limits was the construction of 225 multi -family residential
units, which increased the town's multi -family housing stock by
51%. Single-family housing within the town also increased from
1,263 units in 1985 to 1,358 units in 1990.
Approximately 2,258 acres of vacant land exists within the
'
Beaufort extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. Most of that
land is zoned for R-20 residential development. At an average
density of two dwelling units per acre, a total of over 4,500
dwelling units could be constructed. At the current growth rate,
full development of residentially zoned property within the extra-
territorial area would require 40 to 50 years.
Within the town's corporate limits, preservation of histori-
cally significant residential areas will continue to be empha-
sized. Only moderate residential development will occur within
the town because of limited vacant land. The vacant residentially
zoned land within the town is primarily zoned R-15 with some R-10
and R-8 zoning. (R-15/15,000 sq. ft. lots, R-10/10,000 sq. ft.
lots, R-8/8,000 sq. ft. lots). Based on those densities, approxi-
mately 480 additional single-family dwellings may be constructed
within the town limits. At current growth rates, total buildout
of all vacant single-family zoned property would require approxi-
mately 25 years.
4. Public Land Use
No major changes to public land use are expected during the
planning period. Efforts to preserve, protect, and promote the
town's waterfront areas will continue. This will require commit-
ment to the annual care and maintenance of public areas including
parking, parks, sidewalks, and other facilities.
II-3

5. Areas Likely to Experience Major Land Use Changes
No major changes in the existing patterns of land use are
expected to occur throughout the planning period. The town's
planning and zoning program should continue to protect existing
land uses and to minimize the development of conflicting land
uses. Close attention should be paid to commercial development
along the Cedar Street-U.S. 70 corridor. This commercial
development should be coordinated with traffic planning to reduce
congestion. Also, care must be taken to avoid conflicts with
adjacent residential development. As stated earlier, residential
development should continue as the primary development within the
extraterritorial area.
A long-range concern should be the issue of sea level rise.
During the next 30-year period, approximately 20 to 30 percent of
the land area within the town's jurisdiction could be inundated by
rising sea water. The main area of Beaufort located south of Town
Creek and Turner Creek would become an island, being isolated from
the mainland. Also, the existing waterfront areas along Taylor's
Creek would be lost. The town should begin planning for possible
sea level rise. Local ordinances should be reviewed for determi-
nation of changes which may need to be made to protect develop-
ments from rising sea level and to accommodate the movement of
structures to higher ground.
Summary
Beaufort should retain its current mixture of land uses
through the planning period. Table 18 provides a general forecast
of land use and dwelling unit growth for the total Beaufort
planning area through 2000.
Table 18: Forecast Land Use Within Total Planning Jurisdiction
Land Use
Single Family
Multi -Family
Mobile Home
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL:
Commercial
Industrial
Public and Institutional
Airport
Utilities
Agricultural, Forested
and vacant
TOTAL ACREAGE:
*The Michael J.
of Runway 8-26.
amount of land
determined.
1995
2000
Units
Acres
Units
Acres
1844
655.3
2066
799.5
1010
104.9
1525
150.0
170
32.0
193
34.5
3024
792.2
1
3784
984.0
143.9
195.7
134.3
157.2
198.8
217.8
403.6*
403.6*
12.0
16.0
1955.2
1665.7
2848.8
2656.0
Smith Airport may expand to accommodate an extension
However, at the time of plan preparation, the exact
needed for the airport expansion had not been
II-4

Residential land use should continue to be the predominant
land use. By 2000, substantial amounts of vacant land will remain
within the town's planning jurisdiction.
B. PROJECTED PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS/AVAILABILITY
There are no major public facilities or service needs expected
' to occur within the planning period. Because of the upgrades
which occurred to the water and sewer systems between 1985 and
1990, no major improvements are anticipated.
The most significant problem may be traffic congestion occur-
ring along the U.S. 70 corridor. However, improvements scheduled
in the Carteret County Thoroughfare Plan should alleviate some of
the problems.
The area to the north of the town's extraterritorial jurisdic-
tion will benefit from the operation of the water systems serving
the North River community and the S.R. 1163 area. As development
increases within this area, additional services may be required.
Annexation of additional areas by the town will also stimulate
demand for increased urban services, to include police, fire,
inspection, and recreation. As annexations occur, the town's
extraterritorial area should be adjusted.
C. REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The Town of Beaufort has been extremely successful with its
redevelopment efforts. Beaufort's waterfront area along Taylor's
Creek serves as an example to other coastal North Carolina commu-
nities. The town has also successfully preserved its historic
district. In 1970, Beaufort implemented a HUD -funded community
development rehabilitation project. Over 20 dwelling units
received assistance. Future redevelopment efforts should focus on
the following:
-- Continued protection of both the historic district and the
' waterfront area.
-- Redevelopment/visual improvement of the U.S. 70 - Cedar
�. Street area.
-- Removal of substandard dwelling units through enforcement
of the town's minimum housing code.
Major comprehensive community development revitalization -type
projects by the town are not anticipated.

SECTION III
LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

I
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The CAMA regulations require the establishment of a specific
land classification system to support the local government's
policy statements. This system should reflect developing land use
patterns within a community. The CAMA 15A NCAC 7B regulations
state:
"The land classification system provides a frame-
work to be used by local governments to identify
the future use of all lands. The designation of
land classes allows the local government to illus-
trate their policy statements as to where and to
what density they want growth to occur, and where
they want to conserve natural and cultural
resources by guiding growth."
The 15A NCAC 7H requirements provide for the following land
classifications: developed, urban transition, limited transition,
community, rural, rural with services, and conservation. In
applying these classifications, Beaufort should carefully consider
where and when various types of development should be encouraged.
Additionally, the areas of environmental concern requiring
protection should be identified and mapped. Each applicable land
classification must be represented on a land classification map.
The following land classifications will apply in Beaufort's
jurisdiction:
Developed: Areas included in the developed land classifi-
cation are currently urban in character, with no or minimal
undeveloped land remaining. Municipal types of services are in
•
place or are expected to be provided within the next five to ten
years. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and
other urban land uses at high or moderate densities. Residential
densities are allowed in excess of an average of three dwelling
units per acre, with a minimum single-family residential lot size
of 8,000 square feet.
Urban Transition: Areas included in the urban transition
classification are presently being developed for urban purposes,
or will be developed in the next five to ten years. These areas
should eventually require complete urban services within the
planning period. The urban transition areas include mixed land
uses such as residential, commercial, institutional, industrial,
and other uses approaching high to moderate densities. Residen-
tial densities are allowed in excess of an average of three dwell-
ing units per acre, with a minimum single-family residential lot
size of 10,000 square feet.

Limited Transition: Areas included in the limited transi-
tion classification are areas which will experience increasing
development during the next five to ten years. Some municipal
type services will be required. The limited transition classifi-
cation is intended for predominantly residential use. However,
some commercial, office and institutional uses may be allowed.
Residential densities at an average of three units per acre or
less are acceptable. Densities within some areas of the limited
transition classification may be higher. The minimum lot size
shall be 10,000 square feet. Clustering or development associated
with planned unit developments are acceptable in this classifi-
cation.
Rural with Services: Areas included within the rural with
services classification are developed at low density. Land uses
include residential use where limited water services are provided
in order to avert existing or projected health problems. Lot
sizes will be large and the provision of services will not disrupt
the primary rural character of the landscape. The provision of
services should not be designed to serve as a catalyst for devel-
opment.
Conservation: The following areas of environmental
concern are included in the conservation classification:
Coastal Wetlands: This classification includes all areas of
coastal wetlands which include any salt marsh or other marsh
subject regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind
tides. However, tidal flooding is understood not to include hur-
ricane or tropical storm tides. Uses will be allowed within the
coastal wetlands areas that are consistent with the 15A NCAC 7H
use standards. In addition, the town supports possible expansion
of the Michael J. Smith Airport into coastal wetlands areas.
Estuarine Shoreline: All areas lying 0-75 feet landward of
the mean high water level of estuarine waters not designated as
Outstanding Resource Waters are classified as estuarine shore-
lines. Because of map size and scale, these areas cannot be
accurately mapped. Precise locations must be determined in the
field. Uses will be allowed within the estuarine shoreline areas
that are consistent with the 15A NCAC 7H use standards.
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters: All public trust areas and
estuarine waters are included in this classification. All waters
of Carteret County are classified as estuarine waters as described
by 15A NCAC 7H.0206 or public trust areas as described by
15A NCAC 7H.0207. With the exception of floating structures, uses
consistent with 15A NCAC 7H.0207 will be allowed. The town
opposes the permanent location of floating structures in estuarine
and public trust waters and in marinas. Except for floating
structures policies, the Conservation policies are not more
restrictive than the use standards included in 15A NCAC 7H.
III-2

The land classifications are delineated on Map 6. The land
classification map indicates a continuation of existing develop-
ment patterns. Some expansion of the developed classification has
occurred since 1985 to the east of town along Taylor's Creek and
north of the airport. In addition, the areas classified as rural
occupy much less area than indicated in the 1985 Land Use Plan.
III-3

on" map rms " r mmm m" m we am mon . in .90
SCALE
0' 200' .00' No' 1200'
BEAUFORT. N.C.
LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
MAP 6
NOTES:
L ALL AREAS LYING 0-75' LANDWARD OF THE
MEAN MGM WATER LEVEL OF ESTUARINE
WATERS ARE ESTUARINE SHORELINE AREAS
AND CLASSIFIED AS CONSERVATION LANDS
BECAUSE OF MAP SCALE. THCSE AREAS
CANNOT BE ACCURATELY MAPPED. PRECISE
FIELD.
MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE
LEGEND
DEV
DEVELOPED
URBAN TRAN
URBAN TRANSITION
LSATED TRAN
LIMITED TRANSITION
RURAL WITH SERVICES
RURAL WITH SERVICES
CON
CONSERVATION
CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY --
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY
2. ALL WATERS N BEAUFORT'S PLANNING
JURISDICTION ARE CLASSIFIED AS ESTUARINE
WATERS AS DESCRIBED BY IS NCAC TKO6.
OR PUBLIC TRUST AREAS AS DCSCRIBED B20Y IS
NCAC 7K0207. ALL DEVELOPMENT SMALL BE
CONSISTANT WITH THE USE STANDARDS
CONTAINED N 15 NCAC 7K0206 AND .0207.

SECTION IV
POLICY STATEMENTS

SECTION IV: INTRODUCTION TO POLICY STATEMENTS
This plan identifies a number of issues dealing with growth,
development, and the environment. This section of the plan is
.� intended to provide policies which will address growth management and
protection of the environment. The policies should be based on the
objectives of the citizens of Beaufort and satisfy the objectives of
the Coastal Resources Commission. The policies should not restrict
healthy, environmentally sound development essential to Beaufort's
future well being.
It should be emphasized that the policy statements are extremely
important and have a day-to-day impact on businesses and individual
citizens within the town's planning jurisdiction. The statements
have an impact in three areas:
-- CAMA minor and major permitting as required by N.C.G.S.
113A-118 prior to undertaking any development in any area of
environmental concern.
-- Establishment of local planning policy.
-- Review of proposed projects requiring state or federal
assistance or approval to determine consistency with local
policies.
In order to comply with 15A NCAC 7B planning requirements, all
local governments must specify stated development policies under each
one of five broad topics. These topics include:
° Resource Protection
° Resource Production and Management
° Economic and Community Development
° Continuing Public Participation
° Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and
Evacuation Plans
Based on the analysis of existing conditions and trends, sug-
gestions from the town's citizens, and discussion with the town's
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, the policies outlined in
the following section have been formulated to provide a guide for
advising and regulating development of available land resources in
Beaufort throughout the current planning period, or through 1996.
For purposes of comparison, Appendix I provides a general summary
description of the policy statements which were included in the 1985
Beaufort Land Use Plan. In addition, references are made in the
policy statements to the 15A NCAC 7H use standards. Applicable
sections of those standards are included as Appendix II.
IV-1

POLICY STATEMENTS
A. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Physical Limitations
Soils: To mitigate septic tank problems and other restrictions on
development posed by soil limitations, Beaufort will:
(a) Enforce, through the development and zoning permit process, all
current regulations of the N.C. State Building Code and the N.C.
Division of Health Services relating to building construction
and septic tank installation/replacement in areas with soils
restrictions.
(b) Coordinate all development activity with appropriate Carteret
County and state regulatory personnel, and in particular, with
the Carteret County Sanitarian.
(c) Cooperate with the U.S. Army -Corps -of Engineers in the
regulation/enforcement of the 404 wetlands permit process.
Flood Hazard Areas:
(a) Beaufort will continue to coordinate all development within the
special flood hazard area with the town's Inspections Depart-
ment, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, FEMA, and
the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
(b) Beaufort will continue to enforce its existing zoning and flood
damage prevention ordinances and follow the storm hazard
mitigation plan contained herein.
Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Supplies: Beaufort's policy
is to conserve its surficial groundwater resources by supporting CAMA
and N.C. Division of Environmental Management stormwater run-off
regulations, and by coordinating local development activities invol-
ving chemical storage or underground storage tank installation/
abandonment with Carteret County Emergency Management personnel and
the Groundwater Section of the North Carolina Division of Environ-
mental Management. The Town of Beaufort Building Inspections Depart-
ment will coordinate building inspections with state and federal
regulations governing underground storage tanks and will endeavor to
advise building permit applicants of those regulations.
Manmade Hazards:
(a) Beaufort will support the technical requirements and state
program approval for underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts
280 and 281), and any subsequent state regulations concerning
underground storage tanks adopted during the planning period.
IV-2 I

(b) Beaufort encourages the establishment of appropriate environ-
mental and operational safeguards for the expansion of fuel
storage tank facilities on Radio Island. All expansions must be
in compliance with applicable state, federal, and local regula-
tions. Beaufort opposes the storage of any non -fuel hazardous
materials on Radio Island.
(c) Beaufort does not object to the establishment of a closed loop
system agricultural "wash down" facility on Radio Island, if an
environmental impact statement of no significant effect on the
environment has been prepared and proper environmental safe-
guards are implemented. The Town of Beaufort opposes the wash
down of any equipment which has been exposed to any non-agri-
cultural hazardous materials.
(d) Beaufort will support development of sound attenuation zoning
requirements for the areas affected by the aircraft operating
patterns at the Michael J. Smith Field. The zoning for Michael
J. Smith Field should be coordinated with Carteret County and
Morehead City.
(e) The Town of Beaufort requests notification, including full and
complete disclosure of all plans, for either public or private
development of Radio Island. In addition, Beaufort requests
that Carteret County notify the town in writing of all requests
for special use permits on Radio Island.
(f) With the exception of fuel storage tanks used for retail and
wholesale sales, Beaufort opposes the bulk storage of fuel or
other man-made hazardous materials within any areas not zoned
for industrial usage.
(g) The Town of Beaufort adopts the following policies concerning
operation, development, and expansion of the Michael J. Smith
Airport:
-- Any expansion plans for the airport must be consistent with
the town's Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan.
-- Beaufort does not object to increased air traffic which will
not result in increased noise impact(s) on properties
located within airport flight patterns.
-- The Town of Beaufort supports any runway extensions or other
airport expansions which will not result in the closing of a
section of N.C. 101, any permanent rerouting of traffic
presently utilizing N.C. 101,-or any changes to N.C. 101
which will result in increased traffic in the vicinity of
the Beaufort Middle School. The town's preference for the
extension of Runway 8-26 is to have the runway extended to
the southwest.
-- Beaufort requests notification of, and the right to review
and comment on, all plans being prepared or amended for the
airport.
iv-3

Stormwater Runoff:
(a)
Beaufort recognizes the value of water quality maintenance to
the protection of fragile areas and to the provision of clean
water for recreational purposes. The town will support existing
state regulations relating to stormwater runoff resulting from
development (Stormwater Disposal Policy 15NCAC2H.001-.1003).
(b)
Beaufort supports control of agricultural runoff through imple-
mentation of U.S. Soil Conservation Service "Best Management
Practices" program.
(c)
Beaufort will support the development of a comprehensive town -
wide stormwater drainage plan.
Cultural/Historic Resources:
(a)
Beaufort shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/redevel-
opment projects with the N.C. Division of Archives and History,
to ensure that any significant architectural details or build-
ings are identified and preserved.
(b) Beaufort will coordinate all county public works projects with
the N.C. Division.of Archives and History, to ensure the identi-
fication and preservation of significant archaeological sites.
(c) Beaufort will continue to support and protect the town's
Historic District.
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas: No industrial development of
any type shall be located in conservation classified lands.
Miscellaneous Resource Protection r
Package Treatment Plant Use: Beaufort will support the construction
of package treatment plants which.are approved and permitted by the
State Division of Environmental Management.
If any package plants are approved, Beaufort supports requirement of
a specific contingency plan specifying how ongoing private operation
and maintenance of the plant will be provided, and detailing pro-
visions for assumption of the plant into a public system should the
private operation fail or management of the system not meet the
conditions of the state permit.
Marina and Floating Home Development: Beaufort will enforce the
following policies to govern floating homes and marina development.
Marinas are considered to be any publicly or privately owned dock
constructed to accommodate more than ten boats, as defined by
15NCAC7H.208 (b) (5) .
(a) Beaufort will allow the construction of marinas within its
planning jurisdiction which satisfy the use standards for
marinas as specified in 15A NCAC 7H. This shall include marinas
proposed for location within Conservation areas.
IV-4 I

(b) Beaufort will allow construction of dry stack storage facilities
for boats associated either with or independent of marinas. All
applicable zoning and subdivision regulations must be satisfied.
Construction of associated boat ramps, piers, and bulkheads
within conservation areas will be allowed if 15A NCAC 7H use
standards are met.
(c) Beaufort opposes the location of floating structures in all
marinas, public trust areas, and estuarine waters. Floating
structures are defined as any structure or vessel used,
designed, and occupied as a permanent dwelling unit, business,
office, or source of any occupation or any private or social
club, which floating structure or vessel is primarily immobile
and out of navigation or which functions substantially as a land
structure while moored or docked on waters within county juris-
diction. Floating structures shall not be used commercially or
inhabited in one place for more than 15 days. The Town of
Beaufort will review and revise its local floating home ordi-
nance to be consistent with this policy (refer to paragraph d),
page I-24).
(d) Beaufort will annually survey all local anchorages and register
all boats on the town's tax rolls.
,. (e) The Town of Beaufort reserves the right to comment on the number
of slips which are being permitted within a marina.
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands:
(a) Beaufort opposes any development on sound and estuarine islands
located within its planning jurisdiction.
(b) Beaufort will support the following policies for the Rachel
Carson Sanctuary:
- Following research projects, responsible groups and organi-
zations shall remove all material utilized in the project
which is not naturally found in the Rachel Carson
Sanctuary.
/� -- The Rachel Carson Sanctuary will be utilized for the deposit
of dredge spoil only as a last resort site, and only if all
other options have been exhausted. If spoil is deposited in
the Sanctuary, proper safety measures should be implemented
to protect the public and wildlife from hazards associated
with spoil sites such as "quicksand." However, if the
Rachel Carson Sanctuary must be used for spoil sites, spoil
sites should be located and constructed so as to not
obstruct the view of the sound areas from the Beaufort
waterfront.
-- Commercial boat access to the Rachel Carson Sanctuary should
be discouraged. The town will consider adoption of an
ordinance to regulate commercial water taxi or ferry service
between the mainland and the Sanctuary areas.
IV-5

-- Beaufort requests the right to review and comment on all
plans for spoil sites to be located within the town's
planning jurisdiction.
Bulkhead Construction: Beaufort supports the construction of bulk-
heads as long as they fulfill the use standards set forth in
15A NCAC 7H.
Sea Level Rise: Beaufort recognizes the uncertainties associated
with sea level rise. The rate of rise is difficult to predict.
Those factors combine to make it difficult, if not impossible, to
establish specific policies to deal with the effects of sea level
rise.
Beaufort will implement the following policies to respond to sea
level rise:
(a) In response to anticipated sea level rise, Beaufort will review
all local building and land use related ordinances to establish
setback standards, long-term land use plans, density controls,
bulkhead restrictions, buffer vegetation protection require-
ments, and building designs which will facilitate the movement
of structures.
(b) Beaufort will support bulkheading to protect its shoreline areas
from intruding water resulting from rising sea level.
B. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Recreation Resources:
(a) Beaufort will work cooperatively with Carteret County to provide
a year-round recreation program.
(b) Beaufort considers coastal wetland areas to be valuable passive
recreation areas. These areas should be protected in their
natural state. Only uses which are permitted by 15A NCAC 7H
will be allowed.
(c) Beaufort supports public access to Radio Island shoreline
areas.
Productive Agricultural Lands:
Beaufort supports and encourages use of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service "Best Management Practices" program.
Productive Forest Lands:
There are no productive forest lands located within Beaufort's
planning jurisdiction. A forest lands policy is not required.
IV-6

Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Impacts on
Resources:
Residential, commercial, and industrial development which is
consistent with local zoning and meets 15A NCAC 7H use standards will
be allowed in estuarine shorelines, estuarine waters, and public
trust areas. Residential, commercial, and industrial development in
coastal wetland areas will not be allowed. This policy shall not
apply to the possible expansion of the Michael J. Smith Airport into
.� coastal wetland areas.
Off -Road Vehicles:
Beaufort opposes the utilization of off -road vehicles in any areas
classified as coastal wetlands and in the entire Rachel Carson
Sanctuary.
Peat or Phosphate Mining:
There are no peat or phosphate deposits located within Beaufort's
planning jurisdiction. A policy statement is not required.
Marine Resource Areas:
(a) Beaufort supports the use standards for estuarine and public
trust areas as specified in 15A NCAC .0207.
(b) Beaufort reserves the right to review and comment on the
policies and requirements of the North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries which govern commercial and recreational
fisheries and activities.
(c) Beaufort supports mitigative actions to replace lost coastal
wetland areas. Existing channels and canals may be maintained.
(d) Beaufort will consider requesting funding assistance through the
Coastal Area Management Act for the development of a long-term
harbor management plan.
C. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
General:
Beaufort desires to expand its economic base. A reasonable policy of
annexation will be maintained. Beaufort will support growth and
development at the densities specified in the land classification
definitions.
Water Supply:
There are not any significant constraints to development or land
development issues relating to the town's potable water supply. The
town's water system will provide adequate water supply throughout the
planning period. The town's policies concerning water supply shall
be:
IV-7

(a) The town requires that all existing and new residential and
commercial development be connected to both the town water and
sewer systems.
(b) The town will allow the installation of private wells for
irrigation only through the NCDEM permit process.
(c) The town will extend water services beyond its extraterritorial
area if an adequate demand for service exists.
(d) The Town of Beaufort will support a study of the limestone aqui-
fer underlying Carteret County by the United States Geological
Survey. This study would aid in determining the optimum loca-
tions for wells and the long-term viability of the town's water
supply. The issue of salt water intrusion should be addressed
by the study.
Seger System:
There are no problems or constraints to development caused by the
town's sewage treatment system. The town will implement the follow-
ing policy:
(a) Beaufort will support the development of central sewer service
;
throughout its unincorporated area.
Stormwater:
(a) Beaufort will cooperate with the NCDOT, the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management, and other state agencies
in mitigating the impact of stormwater runoff on all conser-
vation classified areas. The town will support the Division of
Environmental Management stormwater runoff retention permitting
process through its zoning permit system.
(b) The town will attempt to apply for grant funds, and utilize
Powell Bill funds, to improve stormwater drainage systems asso-
ciated with existing rights -of -way.
(c) The town will develop a comprehensive master drainage plan.
Energy Facility Siting and Development:,
(a) There are no electric generating plants located in Beaufort's
planning jurisdiction. The town will consider the need for
establishing energy facilities on a case -by -case basis, judging
the need for development against all identified possible adverse
impacts.
(b) Beaufort has some concerns over offshore drilling. In the event
that oil or gas is discovered, Beaufort will not oppose drilling
operations and onshore support facilities for which an Environ-
mental Impact Statement has been prepared with a finding of no
significant impact on the environment. Beaufort supports and
requests full disclosure of development plans, with mitigative
measures that will be undertaken to prevent adverse impacts on
IV-8

the environment, the infrastructure, and the social systems of
Beaufort and Carteret County. The town also requests full
disclosure of any adopted plans. Offshore drilling and the
development of onshore support facilities may have severe costs
for the town and county as well as advantages. The costs should
be borne by the company(ies) which profits from offshore drill-
ing and onshore support facilities.
Redevelopment of Developed Areas:
The most important redevelopment issue confronting the Town of
Beaufort would be reconstruction following a hurricane or other
natural disaster. The town will implement its storm hazard mitiga-
tion post -disaster recovery plan to control redevelopment. However,
the town will allow the reconstruction of any structures demolished
by natural disaster which will comply with existing state and local
codes.
A second redevelopment problem would be the preservation of housing.
The town will enforce its minimum housing code to ensure that minimum
housing standards are met. Major residential revitalization projects
are not needed in Beaufort.
' Estuarine Access:
Beaufort supports the state's shoreline access policies as set forth
in NCAC Chapter 15A, Subchapter 7M. The town will conform to CAMA
and other state and federal environmental regulations affecting the
development of estuarine access areas. The town will support devel-
opment of a detailed shoreline access plan during the five-year
planning period.
Types and Locations of Desired Industry:
Beaufort desires to achieve responsible industrial development which
will not adversely affect the natural environment or the quality of
established residential areas. Large vacant areas exist within the
town's planning jurisdiction which have the potential for industrial
development.
The following industrial development policies will be applied:
(a) Industrial sites should be accessible to municipal/central water
and sewer services.
(b) Industries which are noxious by reason of the emission of smoke,
odor, dust, glare, noise, and vibrations, and those which deal
primarily in hazardous products such as explosives, should not
be located in Beaufort.
(c) Industrial development and/or industrial zoning should not
infringe on established residential development.
I - IV-9

Commitment to State and Federal Programs:
Beaufort is generally receptive to state and federal programs,
particularly those which provide improvements to the town. The town
will continue to fully support such programs, especially the North
Carolina Department of Transportation road and bridge improvement
programs.
Assistance in Channel Maintenance:
Proper maintenance of channels is very important to Beaufort because
of the substantial economic impact of commercial and sport fisheries.
If silt or other deposits fill in the channels, safe and efficient
movement of commercial and sport fishing and transport vessels could
be impeded. Beaufort will support and cooperate with efforts by the
Corps of Engineers and state officials to maintain channels.
Tourism:
Beaufort will implement the following policies to further the.devel-
opment of tourism:
(a) Beaufort will support North Carolina Department of Transpor-
tation projects to improve access to the town.
(b) Beaufort will support projects that will increase public access
to shoreline areas.
(c) Beaufort will continue to support the activities of the North
Carolina Division of Travel and Tourism; specifically, the
monitoring of tourism -related industry, efforts to promote
tourism -related commercial activity, and efforts to enhance and
provide shoreline resources.
(d) Beaufort will preserve its historic district and Taylor's Creek
waterfront areas.
Transportation:
(a) Beaufort will support implementation of the following
recommendations, which are included in the 1990 Carteret County
Thoroughfare Plan:
-- A connector between N.C. 101 and U.S. 70.
-- Elimination of the "Y" intersection with N.C. 101 and
U.S. 70.
-- Replacement of the drawbridge crossing the Beaufort Channel.
IV-10

D. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES
As the initial step in the preparation of this document, Beaufort
prepared and adopted a "Public Participation Plan." The plan out-
lined the methodology for citizen involvement (See Appendix III).
Public involvement was to be generated through public information
meetings, advertising in local newspapers, establishment of a land
use planning advisory committee to work with the Board of Commission-
ers and Planning Board on the development of the plan.
A public information meeting was conducted at the outset of the
project on January 2, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Beaufort Municipal
Building. Also, a description of the land use plan preparation
process and schedule was published in the Carteret County News and
Times. Subsequently, meetings of the Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board, Advisory Committee were held on: January 22, 1990;
February 26, 1990; March 26, 1990; and April 30, 1990. All meetings
were open to the public. The Board of Commissioners conducted a
public information meeting for review of and comment on the plan on
May 31, 1990. The meeting was advertised in the Carteret County News
and Times on May 15, 1990.
The preliminary plan was submitted to the Coastal Resources
Commission for comment on June S, 1990. Following receipt of CRC
comments, the plan was amended, and a formal public hearing on the
final document was conducted on November 26, 1990. The public
hearing was advertised in The Eastern Weekly on October 17, 1990.
The plan was approved by the Beaufort Board of Commissioners on
November 26, 1990, and submitted to the Coastal Resources Commission
for certification. The plan was certified on February 1, 1991.
Citizen input will continue to be solicited, primarily through
the Planning Board, with advertised and adequately publicized public
meetings held to discuss special land use issues and to keep citizens
informed.

E. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST=DISASTER RECOVERY, AND EVACUATION
PLANS
The purpose of this section of the 1990 CAMA Land Use Plan is to
assist the Town of Beaufort in managing development in potentially
hazardous areas through establishing storm hazard mitigation policies
and to reduce the risks associated with severe storms and hurricanes
by developing post -disaster reconstruction/recovery policies. In
1984, the town has a detailed plan prepared by Satilla Planning,
Inc., and George Eichler and Associates. That document has been well
received by Beaufort and its emergency related personnel and
agencies. The town desires to have that plan continue to serve as
the town's storm hazard mitigation, post -disaster recovery, and
evacuation plan.
The following section, which is taken from the 1985 Land Use
Plan, provides a summary of the 1984 Storm Hazard Mitigation Plan and
Post- Disaster Reconstruction Plan:
Storm Hazard Mitigation: Discussion
A significant amount of the land in Beaufort lies within the
hazard areas defined in Before the Storm (McElyea, Brower, and
Godschalk, UNC Center for Urban & Regional Studies, 1982), the
Division of Coastal Management's guide to pre -hurricane and
post -disaster planning. Applicable hazard areas within Beaufort
included the estuarine shoreline AEC (Hazard Area 1, the most severe
category), and FEMA A -zone lines (Hazard Area 3).
In most cases, these lands are subject to local, state and
federal standards which will limit the placement or replacement of
structures within the hazard area.
In general terms, Beaufort's existing policies meet the
requirements for storm hazard mitigation planning in Before the
Storm. These policies consist of a combination of accompanying land
use plan policies and regulations established by the town's land
development ordinances. Specifically:
Lands in the estuarine shoreline AEC are subject to
development limitations which are in the process of being
strengthened by the Coastal Resources Commission. The
expected effect will be to further limit the amount and
placement of development in these fragile areas. This will
indirectly provide a further limitation on new construction
which would be at risk from hurricanes and tropical storms.
Lands in FEMA A -zones are subject to elevation standards and
insurance requirements which help ensure that damage to any
new development which occurs will be minimized in the event
of a hurricane or tropical storm.
IV-12

° The town's PP
policies and ordinances support and are consistent
P
with state policies and regulations for development in Areas
of Environmental Concern.
° All new development must conform with the provisions of the
North Carolina Building Code.
° The town's flood plain development policies conform with all
federal and state requirements.
Post -Disaster Reconstruction
The Beaufort Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan has been provided
as a separate document. A summary of Post -Disaster Reconstruction
policies and procedures is outlined below. These policies pressure
intergovernmental coordination with the Carteret County Evacuation
Plan and recovery procedures operations.
The town's Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan is organized in the
following sections:
° Introduction
° Organization of Local Damage Assessment Team
° DamagekAssessment Procedures and Requirements
° Organization of Recovery Operations
° Recommended Reconstruction Policies
The following Provides a summary of the Plan's most important
provisions and policies from each of these five sections.
(1) Introduction. Defines plan purpose and use; identifies three
distinct reconstruction periods: Emergency, Restoration and
Replacement/Reconstruction. Outlines sequence of procedures to
be followed to meet State and Federal Disaster relief regula-
tions: 1) Assess storm damage and report to County, 2) County
compiles and summarizes individual community reports, 3) State
compiles County data and makes recommendation to the Governor,
4) Governor requests presidential declaration, 5) Federal relief
programs available.
(2) Organization of Local Damage Assessment Team. Outlines person-
nel available and sets up means for mayoral appointment of
team.
(3) Damage Assessment Procedures and Requirements. The purpose of
this phase is to rapidly determine immediately following a storm
disaster: 1) number of structures damaged, 2) magnitude of
damage by structure type, 3) estimated total dollar loss, and
4) estimated total dollar loss covered by insurance. To accom-
plish this, the plan established four categories of damage:
1) destroyed (repairs > 80% of value), 2) major (repairs > 30%
of value), 3) minor (repairs < 30% of value), and 4) habitable
(repairs < 15% of value). A color coding system is recommended'
for this phase of damage assessment. Total damage in dollars is
estimated by taking the tax valuation times a factor to make
I v-13

prices current, then factoring these figures according to number
of structures in each of the above damage classifications.
Estimated insurance coverage is made by utilizing information as
to average coverage obtained by insurance agencies on an annual
basis.
(4) Organization of Recovery Operations. The Mayor and Board of
Commissioners assume the duties of a Recovery Task Force. The
Task Force must accomplish the following:
° Establish re-entry procedures.
° Establish over-all restoration scheme.
° Set restoration priorities.
° Determine requirements for outside assistance and requesting
such assistance when•beyond local capabilities.
° Keep appropriate County and State officials informed using
Situation and Damage Reports.
° Keep the public informed.
° Assemble and maintain records of actions taken and expendi-
tures and obligations incurred.
° Proclaim a local "state of emergency" if warranted.
° Commence clean-up, debris removal, and utility restoration
activities undertaken by private utility companies.
° Undertake repair and restoration of essential public facili-
ties and services in accordance with priorities developed
through situation evaluations.
° Assist individual property owners in obtaining information on
the various types of assistance that might be available from
Federal and State agencies.
(5) Recommended Reconstruction Policies. The policies outlined are
for the Mayor and Commissioners to consider after a storm
occurs. It is impractical to determine at this time what speci-
fic responses are appropriate, since the circumstances surround-
ing a given storm can vary greatly. The following policy areas
are discussed:
Permitting: Permits to restore previously conforming structures
outside AEC's issued automatically. Structures suffering major
damage allowed to rebuild to original state but must be in com-
pliance with N.C. Building Code, Zoning, and Flood Hazard Regu-
lations. Structures with minor damage allowed to rebuild to
original state before the storm. Structures in AEC's allowed to
rebuild only after determination has been made as to adequacy of
existing development regulations in these special hazard areas.
IV-14

Utility and Facility Reconstruction Water system components
repaired or replaced must be floodproofed or elevated above the
100-year flood level. Procedures established to effect emer-
gency repairs to major thoroughfares if necessary.
Temporary Development Moratorium. To be considered after major
storm damage for AEC's if existing regulations appear inadequate
to protect structures from storm damage.
I V-15

r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SECTION V
RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES
AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS

SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
As required by 15A NCAC 7B planning guidelines, the Beaufort land
use plan must relate the policies section to the land classification
map and provide some indication as to which land uses are appropriate
in each land classification. The Town of Beaufort's zoning ordinance
is consistent with the land classification map and supports the
distribution of land uses shown on that map.
A. DEVELOPED CLASS
Beaufort's primary growth should continue to occur within the
corporate limits, along U.S. 70, and north of the airport and adjacent
to the airport. Those areas are classified as developed. These areas
will require basic urban services. The developed class is specific-
ally designated to accommodate intense development and land uses,
including single and multi -family residential, commercial, industrial
parks and open space, community facilities, and transportation.
Population densities will be high. The greatest demand for urban
services will exist within this classification.
B. URBAN TRANSITION CLASS
Urban transition areas will provide lands to accommodate future
urban growth within the planning period. The average development
densities will be less than the developed class densities and greater
than the limited transition class densities. Development may include
mixed land uses such as single and multi family residential,
commercial, institutional, industrial, and other uses at high to
moderate densities. Urban services may include water, sewer, streets,
police, and fire protection. Population densities will be high.
C. LIMITED TRANSITION
This classification will provide for controlled development with
some urban services. This classification is necessary to provide for
growth occurring northeast of Beaufort bewteen the corporate limits
and Davis Bay, along the east side of N.C. 101 just inside the town's
extraterritorial boundary, and along a portion of U.S. 70 north of
Beaufort. The orderly development of the areas, including proper
development of some municipal services, will support the economic
development and natural resource policies of this land use plan. The
predominant land use will be moderate density residential. Clustering
or development associated with planned unit developments may be
appropriate within this classification.
I V-1

D. RURAL WITH SERVICES CLASS
The rural with services classification is to provide for low
density land uses.including residential use where limited water
services are provided in order to avert an existing or projected
health problem. Areas meeting the intent�of this class are appro-
priate for low intensity residential uses where lot sizes are large
and where the provision of services will not disrupt the primary rural
character of the landscape. Most development may be supported by a
closed water system. The only rural with services classified area
lies between N.C. 101 and U.S. 70. This area will be developed, but
probably not within the planning period.
E. CONSERVATION CLASS
The conservation class is designated to provide for effective
long-term management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas
which include Areas of Environmental Concern. Development in the
estuarine system should be restricted to uses which satisfy
15A NCAC 7H use standards. Except for policies opposing the location
of floating structures within Beaufort's planning jurisdiction, the
Conservation class policies and standards included in this plan are
not more restrictive than the 15A NCAC 7H use standards.
F . SUMMARY
The Town of Beaufort enforces both zoning and subdivision
ordinances. The zoning ordinance is consistent with this land use
plan and includes 13 separate zoning categories. The developed, urban
transition and limited transition land classes are appropriate loca-
tions for the following zoning categories: R-20 single family, R-15
single family, R-10 single family, R-8 multi family, central downtown
business, waterfront commercial, general business, highway business,
marine usiness, light industrial, and industrial warehouse. The
historic district zoning classification is located in the developed
classification in central or "downtown" Beaufort. The open space
zoning district is appropriate for the conservation classified areas.
V-2

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX I
TOWN OF BEAUFORT
ASSESSMENT OF 1985 POLICY STATEMENTS

1
Appendix I provides a summary of the policy statements that
were included in the Beaufort 1985 Land Use Plan. The following
provides a brief assessment by policy area of the effectiveness of
those policies.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
The Town of Beaufort has endeavored to work within State
guidelines and with state officials to support the 15A NCAC 7H use
standards for Areas of Environmental Concern. This has been
effectively accomplished. However, the town has some concerns
with the utilization of portions of the Rachel Carson national
estuarine system for spoil areas for dredge materials. More
effective management plans for spoil areas are desired. The town
has reviewed subdivisions and commercial developments to ensure
that proper stormwater run-off management plans are provided,
although a comprehensive town -wide stormwater management plan has
not been prepared. The greatest problem.with resource protection
policies occurred with the enforcement of the town's ordinance to
regulate live -aboard vessels. The ordinance was declared legally
"invalid." A new ordinance should be adopted.
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT
The 1985 policies focused on reducing the number of septic
tanks within the town's planning jurisdiction and expanding the
central sewer system. These policies have been implemented.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
The 1985 policies expressed support for commercial and
1
recreational fisheries. The town believed some weaknesses existed
in -those policies. Improved policies dealing with commercial and
recreational fisheries are included in the 1990 plan. The town
has attempted to support the 1985 policies addressing productive
agricultural and forest lands. However, specific management
standards have been included in the 1990 plan to improve the
effectiveness of the policies.
PROVISION OF SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT
During the past five-year planning period, the water and
sewer systems have been expanded and improved. Solid waste
disposal has been effectively accomplished by the town through
utilization of the Carteret County disposal facilities. The
town's transportation policies have not been effectively accom-
plished. A major disappointment has been the inability of the
town to accomplish any meaningful planning for construction of a
high-rise bridge to replace the obsolete drawbridge over Gallants
Channel. The parking, fire/rescue squad, police, recreation, and
waterfront access policies were supported and accomplished.

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A major concern in this category was the protection of
residential areas from operation of the Michael J. Smith Airport.
During the planning period, the town included airport -related
height restrictions in the zoning ordinance for areas in the
vicinity of the airport. A second major area of concern has been
the preservation of the town's historic district. The town has
effectively enforced the historic district provisions of the
zoning ordinance. Policies dealing with the following concerns
have been effectively supported: energy siting facilities,
general land use policy, residential development, commercial
development, redevelopment, tourism, industrial development,
commitment to state and federal programs, and channel
maintenance.
1
1

r__J,
APPENDIX I
TOWN OF BEAUFORT
ASSESSMENT OF 1985 POLICY STATEMENTS
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Areas of Environmental Concern
Estuarine System
Coastal Wetlands
-- Support state policies defined in NCAC 15A Subchapter 7H.
-- Preserve marsh (coastal wetlands) in its natural state.
-- Leave Rachel Carson national estuarine system in natural state,
except for last resort spoil from maintenance excavation of
Taylor's Creek. Allow only boat access and no offroad vehicles.
-- Develop and maintain the harbor refuge area south of the airport
as a safe refuge for boating.
Estuarine Waters
-- Support state policies defined in NCAC 15A Subchapter 7H.
-- Develop and maintain Taylor's Creek as a navigable channel.
Public Trust Areas
-- Support state policies defined in NCAC 15A Subchapter 7H.
Estuarine Shoreline
-- Support the use standards contained in NCAC 15A Subchapter 7H.
Natural and Cultural Resource Areas
-- Support the policies and guidelines contained in NCAC 15A
Subchapter 7H.
Stormwater Runoff
-- Keep impervious surfaces to a minimum and do not allow stormwater
from large impervious areas to be discharged directly to
estuarine waters.
-- Encourage the use of best available stormwater management
practices.
-- Review all subdivisions and group housing development plans for
stormwater drainage improvements.

Marina Development
-- Consider the appropriateness and desirability of any specific
proposal to construct a marina on the basis of impacts.
Floating Home Development
-- The town enforces an ordinance regulating the use of Taylor's
Creek for the mooring of live -aboard vessels.
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands
-- Place all sound and estuarine islands in the conservation
classification. Support state policies for the conservation
classification.
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT
Septic Tank Suitability
-- Discourage growth and development where septic tanks will not
function and where sewer services are not available.
Package Treatment Plants
-- Encourage use of the town's central sewer system and discourage
the use of package treatment plants.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
-- Encourage preservation and expansion of fisheries industry, both
sports and commercial.
-- Preserve habitats for shellfish and finfish.
-- Discourage any development which will adversely affect coastal
-- and estuarine waters.
Only water -dependent uses will be allowed near coastal and
estuarine water habitats.
Productive Agricultural
and Forest Lands
-- Lands in productive agricultural or forestry uses will be
encouraged to continue.
-- Discourage growth and development in productive agricultural
lands.
Offroad Vehicles
-- Offroad vehicles prohibited in cemeteries and Bird Shoal, Carrot
Island, and Town Marsh.

PROVISION OF SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT
Public Water Supply
-- New developments within the town limits are required to tie-in to
the central water system.
-- In the extraterritorial area, the cost of water service delivery
will be borne by the user.
Public Sewage System
-- New developments within the town limits are required to tie-in to
the central sewage treatment system.
-- Delivery of sewage treatment services in the extraterritorial
area and its cost will be the responsibility of the developer.
Solid Waste Disposal
-- Provide solid waste disposal using the Carteret County disposal
facilities.
Transportation
-- Beaufort supports the following policy concerning roadway
improvements and recommends these actions to the N.C. Department
of Transportation:
- Construction of a highrise bridge to replace the obsolete draw-
bridge over Gallants Channel. This work should be placed on
the D.O.T. 10-year work program.
- Repair or rehabilitation of U.S. 70 from Gallants Channel to
Live Oak Street, including improving subsurface drainage
conditions which cause the road to deteriorate.
- Widening of U.S. 70 north of its intersection with N.C. 101 to
north of Beaufort'Square Plaza.
- Installation of traffic signals at the following locations:
° The intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 101.
° The entrance to Beaufort Square Plaza on U.S. 70.
° Replace the present drainage culverts on S.R. 1174 (Turner
Road) with drainage structures adequate to handle spring
tide loads.
-- Seek the cooperation of NCDOT in placing sidewalks and making
other necessary improvements along Front Street Extension
(S.R. 1312) from Fulford Street to its terminus near the state
maintained boat ramp area and town park.
-- Promote the establishment of public transportation.

Parking
-- New developments must provide off-street parking in conformance
with the town's zoning ordinance.
-- Increase parking in the waterfront area.
Fire Protection and Rescue Squad
-- Support continued used of volunteer fire departments.
Police
-- Support police protection consistent with the town's population
growth.
Recreation
-- Work jointly with Carteret County to provide a year-round
recreation program.
Waterfront Access i
-- Improve access to waterfront areas for a variety of recreational
purposes while minimizing potential adverse environmental and
aesthetic impacts.
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
-- The town views itself as primarily a residential community.
-- Establish height restrictions in the vicinity of the airport.
Energy Siting Facilities
-- The town will require prior approval of any proposed energy
facilities.
General Land Use Policy
-- Allow residential, recreational, commercial, and light industrial
development within the community.
Residential Development
-- Ensure that new residential development is compatible with
existing residential scale and density.
Commercial Development
Downtown Waterfront Commercial Area
-- Continue to seek enhancement of the waterfront commercial
district by encouraging continued revitalization of existing
businesses and structures.

Outlying Commercial Areas
-- Development should be in keeping with the existing character of
the community, minimize impacts on transportation systems, and
not encroach on existing or planned residential areas.
Redevelopment of Developed Areas
-- Redevelopment of the waterfront area shall be a continuing
project.
-- Redevelopment should occur in the U.S. 70-Cedar Street area.
Tourism
-- Promote tourism with methods consistent with Beaufort's character
and planning policies.
Historic District
-- Promote, enhance and preserve the historic district.
Industrial Development
-- Encourage only the development/establishment of "clean"
industries.
Commitment to State and Federal Programs and
Assistance to Channel Maintenance Projects
-- Support state and federal programs which are consistent with
locally adopted plans.
-- Support continued maintenance of existing channels within its
jurisdiction.

The 1989-1990 Beaufort Land Use Plan must provide policy statements
to address the following issues which have been added to the 7B CAMA
land use planning guidelines:
-- Restriction of development within areas up to five feet above
mean high water that might be susceptible to sea level rise and
wetland loss.
Provision for the ongoing maintenance of package waste treatment
plants should private operation fail.
-- Dry stack storage facilities for boats.
-- Preservation of 404 wetlands areas.
-- Upland excavation for marina facilities.
-- Damaging of existing marshes by bulkhead installation.
-- Redevelopment of developed areas including structures endangered
by erosion.
F

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX IA AND IB
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING 1987 POPULATION

IA: METHODOLOGY USED FOR ESTIMATING 1987 CARTERET COUNTY
PERMANENT POPULATION BY TOWNSHIP
Carteret County Municipal population estimates for 1987 are available
from the State Data Center. However, estimates by township for 1987
are unavailable. 1987 estimates for unincorporated areas by township
were based on the following methodology: 1) The ratio of each indi-
vidual unincorporated area population increase by township to the
total unincorporated population for Carteret County from 1970-80
(7,345) was calculated. That ratio was then applied to the total
increase in unincorporated population for the county from 1980 to 1987
(3,474, based on N.C. Data Center information for 1987). The result-
ing number was then added to the respective 1980 population, resulting
in an unincorporated population estimate for each township for 1987.
The basic assumption of this methodology is that the relative growth
rates of the unincorporated areas were the same for the period 1970-80
and 1980-87. This assumption is considerably strengthened by the
availability of municipal population figures for 1987. Factors such
as annexation and overall rural/urban migration factors from 1980-87
were already accounted for prior to the calculation of unincorporated
population by township.
An example of this methodology is shown below.
Township - Harlowe
1) 1970-80 population increase, Harlowe Township 194
2) Harlowe Townships Percentage of total 1970-80
unincorporated population increase: 194/7,345 .02641
3) Times total increase in county unincorporated
population, 1980-87 x 3,474
4) Equals increase in population,
Harlowe Township, 1980-87: 91
5) Plus 1980 population - Harlowe Township 956
6) Assumed 1987 population: 1,047

IB: METHODOLOGY USED FOR ESTIMATING 1987 CARTERET COUNTY
SEASONAL POPULATION BY TOWNSHIP
1987 seasonal population estimates by Carteret County township were
derived as follows. First, the increase in seasonal population by
township from 1970-80 was divided into the total seasonal population
increase for Carteret County from 1970-80 (26,620). The resultant
ratio for that township was then applied to the increase in seasonal
population for the entire county from 1980-87 (24,142). The result
was then added to the 1980 seasonal population for that township to
obtain estimated 1987 seasonal population. This methodology assumes
that the relative growth rates of seasonal population by township were
the same from 1980-87 and 1970-80. (The overall county seasonal
population annual growth rate from 1970-80 was actually twice as high
as the annual rate from 1980-87.)
Seasonal increases by municipality/unincorporated area from 1980-87
for Beaufort, White Oak, and Newport townships were calculated by
assuming that seasonal growth in those three townships from 1980-87
paralleled permanent geographic population trends depicted in Table 2
(this has the added benefit of accounting for changes in seasonal
population growth patterns due to annexation). Therefore, the
percentage of total increase in each of these township's permanent
population from 1980-87 attributable to individual municipalities and
unincorporated areas was applied to the corresponding total seasonal
population increase by township in Table 10. The result was a
seasonal population increase from 1980-87 for each municipality and
unincorporated area in those three townships.
In Morehead City township, however, it is probable that the percentage
of the new seasonal population impacting the beach communities from
1980-87 was much higher than the percentage of permanent township
population moving to the beach communities over the same period, since
Morehead City and its outlying areas do not have as high a seasonal/
permanent population ratio as the beach communities. It was therefore
assumed that the seasonal population grew at the same rate as perma-
nent population in Morehead City and unincorporated areas of Morehead
township from 1980-87. Once increases for those two areas were
entered in Table 10, the seasonal increases for each of the three
Morehead City beach communities were calculated. This was based on
the ratio of individual beach community permanent population increase
to total beach community permanent population increase from 1980-87,
multiplied by the total seasonal increase for all three beach communi-
ties from 1980-87; i.e., the same methodology used for Newport,
Beaufort, and White Oak townships was applied to only a portion of
Morehead township.

1
APPENDIX II
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE 15A NCAC 7H USE STANDARDS
These use standards were in effect at the time of plan preparation
' and specifically are the use standards referred to throughout the
1990 Land Use Plan. Where referred to, these standards provide the
definition of allowable uses.
F

1
EHNR - COA S T.4 L 1 1ANA GE.1 1EA'T T15: 07H .0100
SL:BC11APTER 711- STATE GUIDELINES FOR AREAS OF ENN'IRONME\TAL CONCERN
SECTION .0100 - LNTRODUCTION AND GENERAL COINLNI�'TS
.0101 INTRODUCTION
(a) One of the basic purposes of North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA or the act)
is to establish- a state management plan that is capable of rational and coordinated management of
coastal resources. The act recognizes that the key to more effective protection and use of the land and
water resources of the coast is the development of a coordinated approach to resource management.
The Coastal Area Management Act provides two principal mechanisms to accomplish this purpose.
First, the formulation of local land use plans articulating the objectives of local citizens and translating
these objectives into future desired land use patterns; and second, the designation of areas of environ-
mental concern for the protection of areas of statewide concern within the coastal area.
(b) Both the development of local land use plans and the designation and regulation of critical re-
source areas contribute to rational management by encouraging local and state governments to exercise
their full authorities over coastal resources and to express their management goals in a comprehensible
and uniform manner. Local objectives benefit through their incorporation into a state management
scheme, and the statewide objectives of resource protection and development benefit through an inte-
grated and comprehensive management approach. It is the purpose of the state guidelines to ensure
this uniformity and consistency in the local land use plans and the regulation of critical resource areas,
or areas of environmental concern (AECs), -through the establishment of unified policies, criteria,
standards, methods, and processes.
(c) These state guidelines are designed to provide individuals and governmental agencies with a
complete statement of the uniform policies and standards adopted by the Coastal Resources Commis-
sion (CRC or the commission) for areas of environmental concern, as mandated by the act.
1listoty .Vote: Statutoiy .-luthority G.S. 113A-101: 113A-102; 113A-124(c)(S);
Lyf. September 9. 197 7.
.0103 CA\IA PROVISIONS FOR AECs
(a) The Coastal Area Management Act requires that these state guidelines "shall give particular at-
tention to the nature of development which shall be appropriate within the various types of areas of
environmental concern that may be designated by the commission."
(b) The act further provides that local land use plans "shall give special attention to the protection
and appropriate development of areas of environmental concern."
(c) The 1974 Legislature found that "the coastal area, and in particular the estuaries, are among the
most biologically productive regions of this state and of the nation," but in recent years the area "has
been subjected to increasing pressures which are the result of the often conflicting needs of society ex-
panding, in industrial development, in population, and in the recreational aspirations of its citizens."
(d) "Unless these pressures are controlled by coordinated management," the act states, "the very
features of the coast which make it economically, aesthetically, and ecologically, rich will be
destroved."
(e) To prevent this destruction, the act charges the Coastal Resources Commission with the respon-
sibility for identifying_ types of areas -- water as well as land -- in which uncontrolled or incompatible
development might result in irreversible damage. It further instructs the commission to determine what
types of development activities are appropriate.within.such areas, and it calls on local government to
give special attention to these environmentally fragile and important areas in developing their land use
plans. Also, the act provides that upon establishing the types of development activities appropriate
within areas of environmental concern, the CRC should implement a permit program capable of con-
trolling any inappropriate or damaging development activities within the AECs. The intent of this
authority is not to stop development, but rather to ensure the compatibility of development with the
continued productivity and value of certain critical land and water areas.
(f) The act divides the implementation responsibilities of the permit program between local govern-
ments and the CRC. Individuals proposing "minor development" activities (defined in G.S.
I I3A-I1S(d)(?)l within an AEC will be required to receive permits from a local permit officer, while
individuals undertaking `'major development" activities [defined in G.S. II3A-I IS(d)(I)l will seek per -
NORTH C.-IROLLVA AD. ILVISTR.4THE CODE 10102189
Page I

EKVR - COASTAL .11ANAGE.IIENT TIS: 07H .0100
mits directly from the CRC. In either case, the criteria and standards determining permit approval as
described in this Subchapter of the guidelines will be identical.
History :Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-102(a); 113A-106, 113A-107, 113A-113(a);
113A-118; 113A-124;
Eff. September 9, 1977,
Amended Eff. December 1, 1985.
.0103 SELECTION OF PROPOSED AREAS FOR AEC DESIGNATION
(a) The selection of proposed AEC categories was made after several months of consideration by local
government, the Coastal Resources Commission, and.. the Coastal Resources Advisory Council
(CRAC). The act'specified the potential AEC categories from which the commission was to choose
a mix of AECs that would most effectively achieve the goals of the Coastal Area Management Act.
Local governments played a major role in the selection process by identifying AEC categories they
considered to be appropriate for their jurisdictions. These recommendations formed the basis for se-
lecting interim areas of environmental concern (IAECs) after which the categories were once again re-
viewed by the commission and further narrowed in scope. Thirteen categories were proposed for final
designation.
(b) As presented in these guidelines, the 13 categories of AECs are separated into four broad group-
ings. The broad breakdowns include categories of AECs that are either interrelated components of an
ecological system or a collection of AECs with similar management objectives. The purposes in pre-
senting the material in this manner is not only to create a logical organization, but also to emphasize
the relationship of one AEC category to another and the interactive nature of AECs with the total
coastal environment.
Historyy .Vote: Statutory .Authority G.S. 113A-124;
Eff. September 9, 1977.
.0104 DEVELOPMENT INITIATED PRIOR TO EFFECTWE DATE OF REVISIONS
(a) The following Rules shall be used to determine whether the revisions to guidelines for develop-
ment in areas of environmental concern (hereinafter referred to as revisions), with an effective date of
June 1, 1979, shall apply to a proposed development.
(1) In the case of a development for which a CANIA penrriit was required prior to June 1, 1979, the
revisions shall not be applicable if a complete and sufficient application for a CANIA permit
was filed and accepted before June 1, 1979. However if the application should lapse or be de-
nied, thereby requiring a new application after June 1, 1979, or if the application is modified or
renewed after June 1, 1979. the revisions shall be made applicable.
(2) In the case of a development for which no CANIA pemut'was required prior to July 15, 1979,
the revisions shall not be applicable if all legally required permits have been applied for and ac-
cepted in accordance with the applicable rules of the agency responsible for the permit. How-
ever, if the application should lapse or be denied, thereby requiring a new application after July
15, 1979. or if the application is modified or renewed after July 15, 1979, the revisions shall be
applicable.
(3) In those cases where a CANIA major permit was issued before June 1, 1979, for a major devel-
opment which included platted lots, the new standards shall apply to such platted lots only to
the maximum extent possible without effectively prohibiting the intended use of those lots. In
order for this Rule to apply, the following conditions must be met:
(A) the lot on which the proposed development is to be located shall have been accurately shown
on the major development permit application and the boundaries must not have been signif-
icantly altered.
(B) the lot on which the proposed development is to be located shall have been suitable for the
intended use according to the AEC guidelines in effect at the time the major permit was issued.
(C) a minor development permit must be applied for and received according to the normal minor
permit process before development can begin.
(D) this Rule shall apply only to development for which a permit application is submitted prior
to expiration of the major development permit issued before June 1, 1979.
(4) In those cases when: any necessary local approval was issued for a proposed subdivision devel-
opment prior to July 15, 1979, the Office of Coastal Management advised the developer in
.VORT11 CAROI.1.YA ADJUNISTRATIi E CODE 10/02/S9 Paget

i
11
u
EH.''R - COASTAL ,1 tA:,'AGE.11E:`'T T15: 07H .0100
writing where to locate the ocean setback line for the proposed subdivision, and the proposed
subdivision development was recorded in the county registry prior to July 15, 1979, with the
ocean setback determined by the Office of Coastal Management, any new standards regarding
oceanfront setbacks shall apply to the platted lots within the proposed subdivision only to the
maximum extent possible without effectively prohibiting the intended use of those lots. In order
for this Rule to apply, the following conditions must be met:
(A) the lot(s) on which the proposed development is to be located shall have been accurately
shown on an approved local plat and the boundaries must not have been significantly altered;
(B) the lot(s) on which the proposed development is to be located shall have been suitable for the
intended use according to the AEC guidelines in effect at the time the plat was approved; and
(C) a minor development permit(s) must be applied for and received according to the normal
minor permit process before development can begin.
(b) The oceanfront setback provisions specifically applicable to large structures, as set forth by Rule
.0306(a)(4) of this Subchapter, shall apply only to development applications received on or after No-
vember 1, 1983. Further, Rule .0306(a)(4) of this Subchapter shall only apply to the maximum extent
possible without effectively prohibiting the intended use of the property in the following situations:
(1) the completion of projects that had received valid CAMA permits prior to November 1, 1983,
(2
(c)
provided that permit renewals, modification and transfer requests for these projects made pur-
suant to 15 \CAC 7J .0404, .0405 and .0406 and 15 NCAC 7E .0105 shall be considered under
the setback rules applicable at the time of original permit issuance, and no renewals or extensions
of pre-existing permits shall be made beyond the expiration period unless either there has been
substantial progress on construction or no material change in the physical conditions at the
project site (as is provided by 15 NCAC 7J .0403); and
the completion of projects that were outside of CAMA permit jurisdiction prior to November
1, 19S3, provided that all other required state and local permits had been applied for in accord-
ance with the rules of the agencies responsible for such permits and that the developer has ma-
terially changed his or her position in good faith reliance on such development approvals. In
all instances, such development must be consistent with all other provisions of this Subchapter.
In the case of subdivisions or projects which have received either all required final or preliminary
local approvals or a CAMA
all applicable CAMA setback
approved by the commission
the maximum extent feasible.
major development permit prior to May 27, 198S, and have therein met
requirements as of May 27, 1988, the updated oceanfront erosion rates
on July 29, 19S8, and effective on November 1, 1988, shall only apply to
For these previously approved lots and projects, the erosion rate existing
as of May 27, 1988, shall be applied in determining minimum oceanfront setbacks for purposes of
subsequent approved construction or development prior to the next erosion rate update.
Histoty .Vote: Statutory .4uthority G.S.
L•ff. September 15, 1979,
.4mended F.ff. November
November 1, 1983.
113A-107, 113.4-113; 113.4-124,
1988; September 1, 1988, December 1, 1935;
.0105 EFFECTIVE Da'I'E OF RULE AMENDMENTS
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the state guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concem and local
land use plans in effect at the time of permit decision shall be applied to all development proposals
covered by this Subchapter.
Histoty :Vote: Statutog Authority G.S. 113A-107, 113A-124;
Eff. December 1, 1982.
.FORTH C.-1ROLLY.4 AD.111NISTRATIT CODE 10102189 Page 3

11
E11.VR - COASTALMANAGEMENT TIS: 07H.0200
SECTION .0200 - THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM
.0201 ESTUARINE SYSTEM CATEGORIES
The first AECs discussed collectively are those water and land areas of the coast that contribute
enormous economic, social, and biological values to North Carolina as components of the estuarine
system. Included within the estuarine system are the following AEC categories: estuarine waters,
coastal wetlands, public trust areas, and estuarine shorelines. Each of the AECs is either geographically
within the estuary or, because of its location and nature, may significantly affect the estuary.
History;'Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-113(b)(1); 113A-113(b)(2); 113A-113(b)(5);
113A-113(b)(6)b; 113A-124,
Eff. September 9, 1977.
.0202 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SYSTEMS APPROACH IN ESTUARIES
The management program must embrace all characteristics, processes, and features of the whole sys-
tem and not characterize individually any one component of an estuary. The AECs are interdependent
and ultimately require management as a unit. Any alteration, however slight, in a given component
of the estuarine system may result in unforeseen consequences in what may appear as totally unrelated
areas of the estuary. For example, destruction of wetlands may have harmful effects on estuarine waters
which are also areas within the public trust. As a unified system, changes in one AEC category may
affect the function and use within another category.
History :Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a); 1114-107(b); 113A-124;
Eff. September 9, 1977.
.0203 '%IANAGENIFN r OBJECTWE OF THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM
It is the objective of the Coastal Resources Commission to give high priority to the protection and
coordinated management of estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, public trust areas, and estuarine shore-
lines. as an interrelated group of AECs, so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social, eco-
nomic. and aesthetic values and to ensure that development occurring within these AECs is compatible
with natural characteristics so as to minimize the likelihood of significant loss of private property and
public resources. Furthermore, it is the objective of the Coastal Resources Commission to protect
present common-law and statutory public rights of access to the lands and waters of the coastal area.
Statutory G.S. 102(b)(1); 102(b)(4); 113A-107(a);
History :Vote: :Authority
113A-107(b); 113A424;
Eff. September 9, 1977;
Amended Eff. September 1, 1985.
.0204 A Cs 117'I'IM THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM
The following regulations in this Section define each AEC within the estuarine system, describe'its
'
significance, articulate the policies regarding development, and state the standards for development
within each AEC.
11istory .Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a); 113.4-1011(b); 113A-124;
'
Eff. September 9, 1977.
.0205 COASTAL WETLANDS
(a) Description. Coastal wetlands are defined as any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular
or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland
areas through natural or artificial watercourses), provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical
storm tides:
Coastal wetlands contain some. but not necessarily all, of the following marsh plant species:
(1) Cord Grass (Spartina alterniflora),
(2) Black Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus),
(3) Glasswort (Salicornia spp.),
(4) Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata),
- -- - --
N� a OR 111 CAROL1.NA .-1 n.l I ISTRA TII E CODE 1010_189 Page I

E11AW - COASTAL .11AAAGE.IIENT T15: 07H .0200
(5) Sea Lavender (Limonium spp.),
(6) Bulrush (Scirpus spp.),
(7) Saw Grass (Cladium jamaicense),
(8) Cat -tail (Typha spp.),
(9) Salt Meadow Grass (Spartina patens),
(10) Salt Reed Grass (Spartina cynosuroides).
Included in this definition of coastal wetlands is "such contiguous land as the Secretary of NRCD
reasonabh deems necessary to affect by any such order in carrying out the purposes of this Section."
[G.S. 113-230(a)].
(b) Significance. The unique productivity of the estuarine system is supported by detritus (decayed
plant material) and nutrients that are exported from the coastal marshlands. The amount of exporta-
tion and degree of importance appears to be variable from marsh to marsh, depending primarily upon
its frequency of inundation and inherent characteristics of the various plant species. Without the
marsh, the high productivity levels and complex food chains typically found in the estuaries could not
be maintained.
Man harvests various aspects of this productivity when he fishes, hunts, and gathers shellfish from the
estuary. Estuarine dependent species of fish and shellfish such as menhaden, shrimp, flounder, oysters,
and crabs currently make up over 90 percent of the total value of North Carolina's commercial catch.
The marshlands, therefore, support an enormous amount of commercial and recreational businesses
along the seacoast.
The roots, rhizomes, stems, and seeds of coastal wetlands act as good quality waterfowl and wildlife
feeding_ and nesting materials. In addition, coastal wetlands serve as the first line of defense in retarding
estuarine shoreline erosion. The plant stems and leaves tend to dissipate wave action, while the vast
network of roots and rhizomes resists soil erosion. In this way, the coastal wetlands serve as barriers
against flood damage and control erosion between the estuary and the uplands.
Marshlands also act as nutrient and sediment traps by slowing the water which flows over them and
causing suspended organic and inorganic particles to settle out. In this manner, the nutrient storehouse
is maintained. and sediment harmful to marine organisms is removed. Also, pollutants and excessive
nutrients are absorbed by the marsh plants, thus providing an inexpensive water treatment service.
(c) Management Objective. To give highest priority to the protection and management of coastal
wetlands so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social, economic and aesthetic values: to
coordinate and establish a management system capable of conserving and utilizing coastal wetlands as
a natural resource essential to the functioning of the entire estuarine system.
(d) Use Standards. Suitable land uses shalf be those consistent with the management objective in this
Rule. I Iighest priority of use shall be allocated to the conservation of existing coastal wetlands. Second
priority of coastal wetland use shall be given to those types of development activities that require water
access and cannot function elsewhere.
Unacceptable land uses may include, but would not be limited to, the following examples: restaurants
and businesses; residences, apartments, motels, hotels, and trailer parks; parking lots and private roads
and highways; and factories. Examples of acceptable land uses may include utility easements, fishing
piers, docks, and agricultural uses, such as fanning and forestry drainage, as permitted under North
Carolina's Dredge and Fill Act and_or other applicable laws.
In every instance, the particular location, use, and design characteristics shall be in accord with the
general use standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas described in Rule
.0208 of this Section.
History :Vote: Statutory .4uthoritr G.S. 113A-107(a); 113A-107(b); 113A-113(b)(1); 113.4-124;
Ejf. September 9, %97 7;
.4mended Ejf. January 24, 1978.
.0206 ESTUARINE RATERS
(a) Description. Estuarine waters are defined in G.S. 113A-I 13(b)(2). The boundaries between in-
land and coastal frshina waters are set forth in an agreement adopted by the wildlife Resources Com-
mission and the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and in the most
current revision of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters, codified at 15
NCAC 3F .0200.
(b) Significance. Estuarine waters are the dominant component and bonding element of the entire
estuarine system. integating aquatic influences from both the land and the sea. Estuaries are among
.N'ORTII C.4R0LLY.-1 :1D.111.N'ISTRATIT E CODE 10102199 Page 2

Ell.- R COASTAL .11A.VAGE.VEVT T15: 07H .0200
r
the most productive natural environments of North Carolina. They support the valuable commercial
and sports fisheries of the coastal area which are comprised of estuarine dependent species such as
menhaden, flounder, shrimp, crabs, and oysters. These species must spend all or some part of their life
cycle within the estuarine waters to mature and reproduce. Of the ten leading species in the commercial
catch, all but one are dependent on the estuary.
This high productivity associated with the estuary results from its unique circulation patterns caused
by tidal energy, fresh water flow, and shallow depth; nutrient trapping mechanisms; and protection to
the many organisms. The circulation of estuarine waters transports nutrients, propels plankton, spreads
'
seed stages of fish and shellfish, flushes wastes from animal and plant life, cleanses the system of pol-
lutants, controls salinity, shifts sediments, and mixes the water to create a multitude of habitats. Some
important features of the estuary include mud and sand flats, eel grass beds, salt marshes, submerged
vegetation flats, clam and oyster beds, and important nursery areas.
Secondary benefits include the stimulation of the coastal economy from the spin off operations re-
quired to service commercial and sports fisheries, waterfowl hunting, marinas, boatyards, repairs and
supplies, processing operations, and tourist related industries. In addition, there is considerable non -
monetary value associated with aesthetics, recreation, and education.
(c) Management Objective. To give the highest priority to the conservation and•management of the
important features of estuarine waters so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social, aes-
thetic, and economic values; to coordinate and establish a management system capable of conserving
and utilizing estuarine waters so as to maximize their benefits to man and the estuarine system.
(d) Use Standards. Suitable landiwater uses shall be those consistent with the management objectives
in this Rule. Highest priority of use shall be allocated to the conservation of estuarine waters and its
vital components. Second priority of estuarine waters use shall be given to those types of development
activities that require water access and use which cannot function elsewhere such as simple access
channels; structures to prevent erosion; navigation channels; boat docks, marinas, piers, wharfs, and
mooring pilings.
In every instance, the particular location, use. and desitm characteristics shall be in accord with the
ueneral use standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas described in Regu-
lation .0203 of this Section.
History :Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113.4-107(a); 113A-107(b); 113A-113(b)(2); 113.4-124,
Eff. September 9, 19/717,-
Amended Eff. October 1, 1988, December 1, 1985; January• 24, 1978.
PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
.0207
(a) Description. Public trust areas are all waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from
the mean high water mark to the seaward limit of state jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject
'
to measurable lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean high water mark; all navigable natural
bodies of water and lands thereunder to the mean high water level or mean water level as the case may
be, except privately -owned lakes to which the public has no right of access; all water in artificially cre-
ated bodies of water containing significant public fishing resources or other public resources which are
accessible to the public by navigation from bodies of water in which the public has rights of navigation;
and all waters in artificially created bodies of water in which the public has acquired rights by pre-
scription. custom, usage, dedication, or any other means. In determining whether the public has ac-
quired rights in artificially created bodies of water, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) the use of the body of water by the public,
(2) the length of time the public has used the area,
(3) the value of public resources in the body of water,
(4) whether the public resources in the body of water are mobile to the extent that they can move
into natural bodies of water,
(5) whether the creation of the artificial body of water required permission from the state, and
(6) the value of the body of water to the public for navigation from one public area to another public
area.
(b) Significance. The public has rights in these areas, including navigation and recreation. In addi-
tion, these areas support valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have aesthetic value, and are im-
portant resources for economic development.
.N*ORTII CAROLLYA AD.►1LVISTRATH E CODE 10102189 Page 3

EH,VR - COASTAL .1 MA.`AGE31ENT T15: 07H .0200
(c) Management Objective. To protect public rights for navigation and recreation and to preserve
and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic and
aesthetic value.
(d) Use Standards. Acceptable uses shall be those consistent with the management objectives in (c)
of this Rule. In the absence of overriding public benefit, any use which significantly interferes with the
public right of navigation or other public trust rights which the public may be found to have in these
areas shall not be allowed. The development of navigational channels or drainage ditches, the use of
bulkheads to prevent erosion, and the building of piers, wharfs, or marinas are examples of uses that
may be acceptable within public trust areas, provided that such uses will not be detrimental to the
public trust rights and the biological and physical functions of the estuary. Projects which would di-
rectly or indirectly block or impair existing navigation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit
spoils below mean high tide, cause adverse water circulation patterns, violate water quality standards,
or cause degradation of shellfish waters are generally considered incompatible with the management
policies of public trust areas. In every instance, the particular location, use, and design characteristics
shall be in accord with the general use standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust
areas.
History :Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a); 113A-107(b); 113A-113(b)(5); 113A-124,
Eff. September 9, 1977.
.0208 USE STANDARDS
(a) General Use Standards
(1) Uses which are not water dependent will not be permitted in coastal wetlands, estuarine waters,
and public trust waters. Restaurants, residences, apartments, motels, hotels, trailer parks. private
roads, factories, and parking lots are examples of uses that are not water dependent. Uses that
arc water dependent may include: utility easements; docks; wharfs; boat ramps; dredging;
briducs and bridge approaches; revetments, bulkheads; culverts; groins; navigational aids;
mooring pilings: navigational channels: simple access channels and drainage ditches.
(2) Before being granted a permit by the CRC or local permitting authority, there shall be a finding
that the applicant has complied with the following standards:
(A) The location, desimi, and need for development, as well as the construction activities involved
must be consistent with the stated management objective.
(B) Before receiving approval for location of a use or development within these AECs, the per-
mit -letting authority shall find that no suitable alternative site or location outside of the AEC
exists for the use or development and, further, that the applicant has selected a combination of
sites and design that will have a minimum adverse impact upon the productivity and biologic
integrity of coastal marshland, shellfish beds, submerged grass beds, spawning and nursery areas,
important nesting and wintering sites for waterfowl and wildlife, and important natural erosion
barriers (cypress fringes, marshes, clay soils).
(C) Development shall not violate water and air quality standards.
(D) Development shall not cause major or irreversible damage to valuable documented archaeo-
logical or historic resources.
(E) Development shall not measurably increase siltation.
(F) Development shall not create stagnant water bodies.
(G) Development shall be timed to have minimum adverse significant affect on life cycles of es-
tuarine resources.
(H) Development shall not impede navigation or create undue interference with access to, or use
of, public trust or estuarine .raters.
(I) Development proposed in estuarine waters must also be consistent with applicable standards
for the ocean hazard system AECs set forth in Section .0300 of this Subchapter.
(3) When the proposed development is in conflict with the general or specific use standards set forth
in this Rule, the CRC may approve the development if the applicant can demonstrate that the
activity associated with the proposed project will have public benefits as identified in the findings
and coals of the Coastal Area Management Act, that the public benefits clearly outweigh the
lone range adverse effects of the project, that there is no reasonable and prudent alternate site
available for the project, and that all reasonable means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts
of the project have been incorporated into the project design and will be implemented at the
.VORTII C.aROLLVA AD. INISTRAME CODE 10102189 Page 4

EH.VR - COASTAL ,11ANAGE.11ENT T15. 07H .0200
applicant's expense. These measures taken to mitigate or minimize adverse impacts may include
actions that will:
(A) minimize or avoid adverse impacts by limiting the magnitude or degree of the action;
(B) restore the affected environment; or
(C) compensate for the adverse impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources.
(4) Primary nursery areas are those areas in the estuarine system where initial post larval develop-
ment of finfish and crustaceans takes place. They are usually located in the uppermost sections
of a system where populations are uniformly early juvenile stages. They are officially designated
and described by the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission in 15 NCAC 3B .1405.
(5) Outstanding Resource Waters are those estuarine and public trust waters classified by the N.C.
Environmental Management Commission pursuant to Title 15, Subchapter 2B .0216 of the
N.C. Administrative Code as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) upon finding that such
waters are of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance. In those es-
tuarine and public trust waters classified as ORW by the Environmental Management Com-
mission (EMC), no permit required by the Coastal Area Management Act will be approved for
any project which would be inconsistent with applicable use standards adopted by the CRC,
E`IC, or Marine Fisheries Commission (�IFC) for estuarine waters, public trust waters, or
coastal wetlands. For development activities not covered by specific use standards, no permit
will be issued if the activity would, based on site specific information, materially degrade the
water quality or outstanding resource values unless such degradation is temporary.
(b) Specific Use Standards
(1) Navigation channels, canals, and boat basins must be aligned or located so as to avoid primary
nursery areas highly productive shellfish beds, beds of submerged vegetation, or significant areas
of reaularly or irregularly flooded coastal wetlands.
(A) • Navigation channels and canals can be allowed through narrow fringes of regularly and ir-
regularly flooded coastal wetlands if the loss of wetlands will have no significant adverse impacts
on fishery resources, water quality or adjacent wetlands, and, if there is no reasonable alternative
that would avoid the wetland losses.
(B) All spoil material from new construction shall be confined landward of regularly and irreg-
ularly flooded coastal wetlands and stabilized to prevent entry of sediments into the adjacent
water bodies or marsh.
(C) Spoil from maintenance of channels and canals through irregularly flooded wetlands shall be
placed on non -wetland areas, remnant spoil piles, or disposed of by an acceptable method hav-
ing no significant, long term wetland impacts. Under no circumstances shall spoil be placed on
reaularly flooded wetlands.
(D) v Widths of the canals and channels shall be the minimum required to meet the applicant's
needs and provide adequate water circulation.
(E) Boat basin design shall maximize water exchange by having the widest possible opening and
the shortest practical entrance canal. Depths of boat basins shall decrease from the watervard
end inland.
(F) Any canal or boat basin shall be excavated no deeper than the depth of the connecting
channels.
(G) Canals for the purpose of multiple residential development shall have:
(i) no septic tanks unless they meet the standards set by the Division of Environmental Man-
agement and the Division of Health Services;
(ii) no untreated or treated point source discharge;
(iii) storm water routing andretention ..areas such as settling basins and grassed swales.
(II) Construction of finger canal systems will not be allowed. Canals shall be either straight or
meandering with no right angle corners.
(1) Canals shall be desisted so as not to create an erosion hazard to adjoining property. Design
may include bulkheading. vegetative stabilization, or adequate setbacks based on soil character-
istics.
(2) Hydraulic Dredging
(A) The terminal end of the dredge pipeline should be positioned at a distance sufficient to pre-
clude erosion of the containment dike and a maximum distance from spillways to allow adequate
settlement of suspended solids.
FORTH CAROLLV.4 .4D.111.N7STR:1 THE CODE 10102189 Page 5

F_HNR - COASTALMANAGEMENT ENT TIS: 07H .0200
(B) Dredge spoil must be either confined on high ground by adequate retaining structures or if
the material is suitable, deposited on beaches for purposes of renourishment, with the exception
of (G) of this Subsection (b)(2).
(C) Confinement of excavated materials shall be on high ground landward of regularly and iireg-
ularly flooded marshland and with adequate soil stabilization measures to prevent entry of sed-
iments into the adjacent water bodies or marsh.
(D) Effluent from diked areas receiving disposal from hydraulic dredging operations must be
contained by pipe, trough, or similar dunce to a point waterward of emergent vegetation or,
where local conditions require, below mean low water.
(E) When possible, effluent from diked disposal areas shall be returned to the area being dredged.
(F) A water control structure mu t be installed at the intake end of the effluent pipe.
(G) Publicly funded projects wig be considered by review agencies on a case by case basis with
respect to dredging methods and spoil disposal.
(H) Dredge spoil from closed shellfish waters and effluent from diked disposal areas used when
dredging in closed shellfish waters shall be returned to the closed shellfish waters.
(3) Drainage Ditches
(A) Drainage ditches located through any marshland shall not exceed six feet wide by four feet
deep (from ground surface) unless the applicant can show that larger ditches are necessary for
adequate drainage.
(B) Spoil derived from the construction or maintenance of drainage ditches through regularly
flooded marsh must be placed landward of these marsh areas in a manner that will insure that
entry of sediment into the water or marsh will not occur. Spoil derived from the construction
or maintenance of drainage ditches through irregularly flooded marshes shall be placed on non -
wetlands wherever feasible. Non -wetland areas include relic disposal sites.
(C) Excavation of new ditches through high ground shall take place landward of a temporary
earthen plug or other methods to minimize siltation to adjacent water bodies.
(D) Drainage ditches shall not have a significant adverse effect on primary nursery areas, pro-
ductivc shellfish beds, submerged grass beds, or other documented important estuarine habitat.
Particular attention should be placed on the effects of freshwater inflows, sediment, and nutrient
introduction. Settling basins. water gates, retention structures arc examples of design alternatives
that may be used to minimize sediment introduction.
(4) Nonagricultural Drainage
(A) Drainage ditches must be designed so that restrictions in the volume or diversions of flow are
minimized to both surface and ground water.
(B) Drainage ditches shall provide for the passage of migratory organisms by allowing free passage
of water of sufficient depth.
(C) Drainage ditches shall not create stagnant water pools or significant changes in the velocity
of flow.
(D) Drainage ditches shall not divert or restrict water flow to important wetlands or marine ha-
bitats.
(5) Marinas. Marinas are defined as any publicly or privately owned dock, basin or wet boat storage
facility constructed to accommodate more than 10 boats and providing any of the following
services: permanent or transient docking spaces, dry storage, fueling facilities, haulout facilities
and repair service. Excluded from this definition are boat ramp facilities allowing access only,
temporary docking and none of the preceding services. Expansion of existing facilities shall also
comply with these standards for all development other than maintenance and repair necessary
to maintain previous service levels.
(A) Marinas shall be sited in non -wetland areas or in deep waters (areas not requiring dredging)
and shall not disturb valuable shallow water, submerged aquatic vegetation, and wetland habi-
tats, except for dredging necessary for access to high -ground sites. The following four altema-
tives for siting marinas are listed in order of preference for the least damaging alternative; marina
projects shall be designed to have the highest of these four priorities that is deemed feasible by
the permit letting agency:
(i) an upland basin site requiring no alteration of wetland or estuarine habitat and providing
adequate flushing by tidal or wind generated water circulation;
(ii) an upland basin site requiring dredgng for access when the necessary dredging and operation
of the marina vyill not result in the significant degradation of existing fishery, shellfish, or
NORTH C.4ROLLVA AD.11LN7STRA771 E CODE 101021S9 Page 6

EHAR - COASTAL .11AAAGE.11E•.VT
T15. 07H .0200
I
n
11
u
wetland resources and the basin design shall provide adequate flushing by tidal or wind gen-
erated water circulation;
(iii) an open water site located outside a primary nursery area which utilizes piers or docks
rather than channels or canals to reach deeper water; and
(iv) an open water marina requiring excavation of no intertidal habitat, and no dredging greater
than the depth of the connecting channel.
(B) Marinas which require dredging shall not be located in primary nursery areas nor in areas
which require dredging through primary nursery areas for access. Maintenance dredging in pri-
mary nursery areas for existing marinas will be considered on a case -by -case basis.
(C) To minimize coverage of public waters by docks and moored vessels, dry storage marinas shall
be used where feasible.
(D) Marinas to be developed in waters subject to public trust rights (other than those created by
dredging upland basins or canals) for the purpose of providing docking for residential develop-
ments shall be allowed no more than 27 sq. ft. of public trust waters for every one lin. ft. of
shoreline adjacent to these public trust waters for construction of docks and mooring facilities.
The 27 sq. ft. allocation shall not apply to fairway areas between parallel piers :-.r any portion
of the pier used only for access from land to the docking spaces.
(E) To protect water quality of shellfishing areas, marinas shall not be located within areas where
shellfish harvesting for human consumption is a significant existing use or adjacent to such areas
if shellfish harvest closure is anticipated to result from the location of the marina. In compliance
with Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act and North Carolina Water Quality Standards
adopted pursuant to that section. shellfish harvesting is a significant existing use if it can be es-
tablished that shellfish have been regularly harvested for human consumption since November
28, 1975 or that shellfish apparently are propagating and surviving in a biologically suitable ha-
bitat and are available and suitable for harvesting for the purpose of human consumption. The
Division of Marine Fisheries shall be consulted regarding the significance of shellfish harvest as
an existinause and the magnitude of the quantities of shellfish which have been harvested or are
available for harvest in the area where harvest will be affected by the development.
(F) Marinas shall not be located without written consent from the controlling parties in areas of
submerged lands which have been leased from the state or deeded by the state.
(G) \farina basins shall be designed to promote flushing through the following design criteria:
(i) the basin and channel depths shall gradually increase toward open water and shall never be
deeper than the waters to which they connect; and
(ii) when possible, an opening shall be provided at opposite ends of the basin to establish
flow-throuah circulation.
(II) Marinas shall be designed to minimize adverse effects on navigation and public use of waters
while allowing the applicant adequate access to deep waters.
(I) Marinas shall be located and constructed so as to avoid adverse impacts on navigation
throughout all federally maintained channels and their immediate boundaries. This includes
mooring sites (permanent or temporary), speed or traffic reductions, or any other device, either
physical or regulatory, that may cause a federally maintained channel to be restricted.
(J) Open water marinas shall not be enclosed within breakwaters that preclude circulation suffi-
cient to maintain water quality.
(K) Marinas which require dredging shall provide acceptable areas to accommodate disposal needs
for future maintenance dredging. Proof of the ability to truck the spoil material from the marina
site to an acceptable disposal area will be acceptable.
(L) Marina design shall comply with all applicable requirements for management of stormwater
runoff.
(M) Marinas•shall post a notice prohibiting the discharge of any waste from boat toilets and ex-
plaining the availability of information on local pump -out services.
(N) Boat maintenance areas must be designed so that all scraping, sandblasting, and painting will
be done over dry land with adequate containment devices to prevent entry of waste materials
into adjacent waters.
(0) All marinas shall comply with all applicable standards for docks and piers, bulkheading,
dredging and spoil disposal.
(P) All applications for marinas shall be reviewed to determine their potential impact and com-
pliance with applicable standards. Such review shall consider the cumulative impacts of marina
development.
.VORTI1 C.4ROL1.N.4 .4D.11LYISTR.4Tll'E CODE 10102189 Page 7

EIINR - COASTAL MANAGE.IIENT TIS. 07H .0200
(Q) Replacement of existing marinas to maintain previous service levels shall be allowed provided
that the preceding rules are complied with to the maximum extent possible, with due consider-
ation being giver! to replacement costs, service needs, etc.
(6) Docks and Piers
(A) Docks and piers shall not significantly interfere with water flows.
(B) To preclude the adverse effects of shading coastal wetlands vegetation, docks and piers built
over coastal wetlands shall not exceed six feet in width. "T"s and platforms associated with re-
sidential piers must be at the waterward end, and must not exceed a total area of 500 sq. ft. with
no more than six feet of the dimension perpendicular to the marsh edge extending over coastal
wetlands. Water dependent projects requiring piers or wharfs of dimensions greater than those
stated in this Rule shall be considered on a case -by -case basis.
(C) Piers shall be designed to minimize adverse effects on navigation and public use of waters
while allowing the applicant adequate access to deep waters by:
(i) not extending beyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use;
(ii) not extending into the channel portion of the water body; and
(iii) not extending more than one-third the width of a natural water body or man-made canal
or basin. Measurements to determine widths of the channels, canals or basins shall be made
from the waterward edge of any coastal wetland vegetation which borders the water body.
The one-third length limitation will not apply in areas where the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, or a local government in consultation with the Corps of Engineers, has established an
official pier -head line.
(D) Pier alignments along federally maintained channels must meet Corps of Engineers District
guidelines.
(E) Piers shall not interfere with the access to any riparian property and shall have a minimum
setback of 15 feet between any part of the pier and the adjacent property owner's areas of ripa-
rian access. The line of division of areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line
along_ the channel or deep water in front of the properties, then drawing a line perpendicular to
the line of the channel so that it intersects with the shore at the point the upland property line
meets the water's edge. The minimum setback provided in the rule may be waived by the
written agreement of the adjacent riparian owner(s) or when two adjoining riparian owners are
co -applicants. Should the adjacent property be sold before construction of the pier commences,
the applicant shall obtain a written agreement with the new owner waiving the minimum setback
and submit it to the permitting agency prior to initiating any development of the pier. Appli-
cation of this rule may be aided by reference to an approved diagram illustrating the rule as ap-
plied to various shoreline configurations. Copies of the diagram may be obtained from the
Division of Coastal Management.
(F) Docks and piers shall not significantly interfere with shellfish franchises or leases. Applicants
for authorization to construct a dock or pier shall provide notice of the permit application or
exemption request to the owner of any part of a shellfish franchise or lease over which the pro-
posed dock or pier would extend.
(7) Bulkheads and Shore Stabilization Measures
(A) Bulkhead alignment, for the purpose of shoreline stabilization, must approximate mean high
water or normal water level.
(B) Bulkheads shall be constructed landward of significant marshland or marshgrass fringes.
(C) Bulkhead fill material shall be obtained from an approved upland source, or if the bulkhead
is a part of a permitted project involving excavation from a non -upland source, the material so
obtained may be contained behind the bulkhead.
(D) Bulkheads or other structures employed for shoreline stabilization shall be permitted below
approximate mean high water or normal water level only when the following standards are met:
(i) the property to be bulkheaded has an identifiable erosion problem, whether it results from
natural causes or adjacent bulkheads, or it has unusual geographic or geologic features, e.g.
steep grade bank, which will cause the applicant unreasonable hardship under the other pro-
visions of this Regulation;
(ii) the bulkhead alignment extends no further below approximate mean high water or normal
water level than necessary to allow recovery of the area eroded in the year prior to the date
of application, to align with adjacent bulkheads, or to mitigate the unreasonable hardship re-
sulting from the unusual geographic or geologic features:
NORTH C.4ROLLY:4 .4D:11LN'ISTRATIT E CODE 10102189 Page 8

1
1
. I
0
r
1
1
EIIYR - COASTAI..11A AGE.11EA7 TIS: 07H.0200
(iii) the bulkhead alignment will not result in significant adverse impacts to public trust rights
or to the property of adjacent riparian owners;
(iv) the need for a bulkhead below approximate mean high water or normal water level is do-
cumented in the Field Investigation Report or other reports prepared by the Division of
Coastal Management; and
(v) the property to be bulkheaded is in a nonoceanfront area.
(E) Where possible, sloping rip -rap, gabions, or vegetation may be used rather than vertical sea-
walls.
(8) Beach Nourishment
(A) Beach creation and; or maintenance may be allowed to enhance water related recreational fa-
cilities for public, commercial, and private use.
(B) Beaches can be created andlor maintained in areas where they have historically been found
due to natural processes. They will not be allowed in areas of high erosion rates where frequent
maintenance will be necessary.
(C) Placing unconfined sand material in the water and along the shoreline will not be allowed as
a method of shoreline erosion control.
(D) Material placed in the water and along the shoreline shall be clean sand free from pollutants
and highly erodible finger material. Grain size shall be equal to or larger than that found na-
turally at the site.
(E) Material from dredging projects can be used for beach nourishment if-
(i) it is first handled in a manner consistent with regulations governing spoil disposal;
(ii) it is allowed to dry for a suitable period; and
(iii) only that material of acceptable grain size is removed from the disposal site for placement
on the beach. Material shall not be placed directly on the beach by dredge or dragline during
maintenance excavation.
(F) Beach creation shall not be allowed in any primary nursery areas, nor in any areas where sil-
tation from the site would pose a threat to shellfish beds.
(G) Material shall not be placed on any coastal wetlands or submerged aquatic vegetation.
(11) Material shall not be placed on any submerged bottom with significant shellfish resources.
(1) Beach construction shall not create the potential for filling adjacent or nearby navigation
channels, canals, or boat basins.
(J) Beach construction shall not violate water quality standards.
(K) Permit renewal of these projects shall require an evaluation of any adverse impacts of the
original work.
(L) Permits issued for this development shall be limited to authorizing beach nourishment only
one time during the life of the permit. Permits may be renewed for maintenance work or re-
peated need for nourishment.
(9) Wooden and Riprap Groins
(A) Groins shall not extend more than 25 ft. waterward of the mean high water or normal water
level unless a longer structure can be justified by site specific conditions, sound engineering and
design principals.
(B) Groins shall be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the adjoining property lines. This setback
Tay be waived by written agreement of the adjacent riparian owner(s) or when two adjoining
riparian owners arc co -applicants. Should the adjacent property be sold before construction of
the groin commences, the applicant shall obtain a written agreement with the new owner waiv-
ing the minimum setback and submit it to the permitting agency prior to initiating any devel-
opment of the groin.
(C) Groins shall pose no threat to navi.gation.
(D) The height of groins shall not exceed 1 ft. above mean high water or the normal water level.
(E) No more than two structures shall be allowed per 100 ft. of shoreline unless the applicant can
provide evidence that more structures are needed for shoreline stabilization.
(F) "L" and "T" sections shall not be allowed at the end of groins.
(G) Riprap material used for groin construction shall be free from loose dirt or any other pollutant
in other than non -harmful quantities and of.a size sufficient to prevent its movement from the
site by wave and current action.
History' .Vote: Statutoty Authority G.S. 113.4-10'7(b); 113.4-108; 113A-113(b); 113A-124;
Eff. September 9, 1977;
,VORT11 CAROI.LVA AD.111.V7STRATII-E CODE 10102189
Page 9

EH,VR - COASTAL .11AAAGE.IIENT T15. 07H .0200
i
Amended EJf. November 1, 1989, October 1, 1989; October 1, 1988, September 1,1988.
.0209 ESTUARINE SHORELINES
(a) Rationale. As an AEC, estuarine shorelines, although characterized as dry land, are considered
a component of the estuarine system because of the close association with the adjacent estuarine waters.
This Section defines estuarine shorelines, describes the significance, and articulates standards for devel-
'
opment.
(b) Description. Estuarine shorelines are those non -ocean shorelines which are especially vulnerable
to erosion, flooding, or other adverse effects of wind and water and are intimately connected to the es-
tuary. This area extends from the mean high water level or normal water level along the estuaries,
'
sounds, bays, and brackish waters as set forth in an agreement adopted by the Wildlife Resources
Commission and the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development [described in
Regulation .0206(a) of this Section] for a distance of 75 feet landward. For those estuarine shorelines
immediately contiguous to waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters by the Environmental
Management Commission, the estuarine shoreline AEC shall extend to 575 feet landward from the
mean high water level or normal water level, unless the Coastal Resources Commission establishes the
boundary at a greater or lesser extent following required public hearing(s) within the affected county
or counties.
(c) Significance. Development within estuarine shorelines influences the quality of estuarine life and
is subject to the damaging processes of shore front erosion and flooding.
(d) Management Objective. To ensure shoreline development is compatible with both the dynamic
'
nature of estuarine shorelines and the values of the estuarine system.
(e) Use Standards
(1) All development projects. proposals, and designs shall substantially preserve and not weaken or
eliminate natural barriers to erosion. including, but not limited to, peat marshland, resistant clay
shorelines. and cypress -gum protective fringe areas adjacent to vulnerable shorelines.
(2) All development projects. proposals, and designs shall limit the construction of impmious sur-
faces and areas not allowing natural drainage to only so much as is necessary to adequately
service the major purpose or use for which the lot is to be developed. Impervious surfaces shall
not exceed 30 percent of the .SEC area of the lot, unless the applicant can effectively demon-
strate. throu�_h innovative dcsi;;n. that the protection provided by the design would be equal to
or exceed the protection by the 30 percent limitation. Redevelopment of areas exceeding the
30 percent impervious surface limitation can be permitted if impervious areas are not increased
and the applicant designs the project to comply with the intent of the rule to the maximum ex-
tent practical.
,
(3) All development projects. proposals, and designs shall comply with the following mandatory
standards of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973:
(A) All development projects, proposals, and designs shall provide for a buffer zone along the
margin of the estuarine water which is sufficient to confine visible siltation within 25 percent of
'
the buffer zone nearest the land disturbing development.
(B) No development project proposal or design shall permit an angle for graded slopes or fill
which is greater than an angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate ero-
sion -control devices or structures.
(C) All development projects, proposals, and designs which involve uncovering more than one
acre of land shall plant a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion within 30 working days of
completion of the grading: provided that this shall not apply to clearing land for the purpose of
forming a reservoir later to be inundated.
(4) Development shall not have a significant adverse impact on estuarine resources.
(5) Development shall not significantly interfere with existing public rights of access to, or use of,
navisable waters or public resources.
(6) No major public facility shall be permitted if such facility is likely to require extraordinary public
expenditures for maintenance and continued use, unless it can be shown that the public purpose
served by the facility outweighs the required public expenditures for construction, maintenance,
and continued use. For the purpose of this standard, "public facility" shall mean a project
'
which is paid for in any part by public funds.
(7) Development shall not cause major or irreversible damage to valuable, documented historic ar-
cltitectural or archaeolocical resources.
.FORTH C.4ROLLY.4 AD.11LVISTRAT1i E CODE 101021S9 Page 10 1

EHNR - COASTAL ,1fANAGE.MN T15. 07H .0200
1
I
1
(8) Established common-law and statutory public rights of access to the public trust lands and wa-
ters in estuarine areas shall not be eliminated or restricted. Development shall not encroach
upon public accessways nor shall it limit the intended use of the accessways.
(9) Within the AEC for shorelines contiguous to waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters
by the EN1C, no CAMA permit will be approved for any project which would be inconsistent
with applicable use standards adopted by the CRC, EMC or MFC for estuarine waters, public
trust waters, or coastal wetlands. For development activities not covered by specific use stand-
ards, no permit will be issued if the activity would, based on site specific information, materially
degrade the water quality or outstanding resource values unless such degradation is temporary.
(f) Specific Use Standards for ORW Estuarine Shorelines.
(1) Within the AEC for estuarine shorelines contiguous to waters classified as ORW by the EMC,
all development projects,. proposals, and designs shall limit the built upon area to no more than
25 percent of the AEC area of the land to be developed or any lower site spec percentage as
adopted by the EMC as necessary to protect the exceptional water quality and outstanding re-
source values of the ORW, and shall:
(A) have no stormwater collection system;
(B) provide a buffer zone of at least 30 feet from the mean high water line;
(C) ,otherwise be consistent with the use standards set out in Paragraph (e) of this Rule.
(2) Development (other than single-family residential lots) more than 75 feet from the mean high
water line but within the AEC which as of June 1, 1989:
(A) has a CA`1 A permit application in process, or
(B) has received preliminary subdivision plat approval or preliminary site plan approval under
applicable local ordinances, and in which substantial financial resources have been invested in
design or improvement;
will be permitted in accordance with rules and standards in effect as of June 1, 1989.
(3) Single-family residential lots which would not be buildable under the low -density standards de-
fined in Paragaph (0(1) of this Rule may be developed for single-family residential purposes so
long as the &vc1opment complies with those standards to the maximum extent possible.
(4) For ORW's nominated subsequent to June 1, 1989, the effective date in Paragraph (f)(2) of this
Rule shall be the dates of nomination by the E`1C.
Histoty Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff. December 18, 1981, for a Period of
120 Days to E.rpire on April 15, 1982;
Statutory Authority. G.S. 113.4-107(b); 113A-108, 113.4-113(b); 113A-124,
Eff. September 9, 1977;
Amended Eff. October 1, 1989; July 1, 1989, .March 1, 1988, December 1, 1985.
.FORTH C.4ROLLV.4 .4D11LN'1STRAT1VE• CODE 10102189 Page 11

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX III
TOWN OF BEAUFORT
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN

' APPENDIX III
TOWN OF BEAUFORT
' CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
PREPARATION OF LAND USE PLAN
' FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
' The Town of Beaufort has received a FY89-90 Coastal Area Management
Act grant for the update of its existing Land Use Plan. Adequate
citizen participation in the development of the Plan is essential to
' the preparation of a document responsive to the needs of the
citizens of Beaufort. To ensure such input, the following Citizen
Participation Program will be utilized by the town.
is
The Town of Beaufort Planning Board will be the principal Town Board
responsible for supervision of the project. The Planning Board will
report to and coordinate plan development with the Beaufort Board of
Commissioners.
The Planning Board will work with the town's planning consultant to
ensure that the final .product will survey existing land use, iden-
tify policies, recommend strategies/actions, and identify Areas of
Environmental Concern. Emphasis will be placed on identifying
service and utility needs. Specifically, the planning consultant
and Planning Board/committee will be responsible for ensuring
accomplishment of the following:
-- Develop an effective citizen participation process;
-- Survey and map existing land uses;
-- Identify and map AECs;
-- Develop land use policies and strategies;
-- Identify land use regulatory needs;
-- Establish a specific work plan and schedule for dealing with
land use needs/problems;
-- Identify and forecast growth and development issues;
-- Implement the requirements of 15 NCAC 7B.
At the outset of the project, an article will be prepared for dis-
tribution to all local newspapers. Those newspapers will be
requested to print the article which will include a proposed
schedule for completion. The following schedule will be utilized:
1. December, 1989 - meet with the Town of Beaufort staff to review
the scope of work. Have the Citizen Participation Plan adopted.

2. December, 1989 - complete identification of existing land use
problems and map of existing land uses and AECs.
3. January, 1990 - continue preparation of draft Land Use Plan and
meet with the Town of Beaufort Planning Board and Board of
Commissioners.
On January 2, 1990, conduct a public information meeting. The
meeting will be advertised in the local newspaper. The town will
specifically discuss the policy statements contained in the
existing Town of Beaufort Land Use Plan. The significance of the
policy statements to the CAMA land use planning process shall be
described. The process by which the Town of Beaufort will
solicit the views of a wide cross-section of citizens in the
development of the updated policy statements will be explained at
the public hearing.
4. March, 1990 - present draft sections of plan dealing with
existing issues and land use and preliminary policy statements to
the Planning Board.
5. April, 1990 - review draft plan with the Planning Board and
conduct a public information meeting for review of the proposed
Plan.
6. May, 1990 - review draft Land Use Plan with Board of Commission-
ers and submit draft of completed Land Use Plan to CRC for review
and comment.
7. June, 1990 - present proposed Land Use Plan to the Board of
Commissioners for review, and conduct a formal public hearing.
All meetings of the Planning Board will be open to the public. The
town will encourage and consider all economic, social, ethnic, and
cultural viewpoints. No.major non-English speaking groups are known
to exist in Beaufort.