Comprehensive Ocean and Esturine Access and Recreational Plan-1989

i
DCM COPY DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management
TOWN OF NAGS HEAD
COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN AND ESTUARINE ACCESS
AND RECREATIONAL PLAN
Prepared by:
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners
September, 1989
The preparation of this report was financed in part throuqh a grant
provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, throuqh
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
STOWN OF NAGS HEAD
COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN AND ESTUARINE ACCESS
AND RECREATIONAL PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
I.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1
II.
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SHORELINE
3
SITES AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
III.
SHORELINE ACCESS AND RECREATION NEEDS
10
'
A. Population Analysis
10
B. User Analysis/Survey Results
11
C. Definition of Shoreline Access Needs
16
D. Shoreline Access Deficiencies
21
E. Non -Shoreline Recreation Needs
22
r
F. Shoreline Access and Recreation Priorities
25
IV.
SHORELINE ACCESS AND RECREATION POLICIES
27
APPENDIX I: EXISTING ACCESS SITE SKETCHES
APPENDIX IIA: QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX IIB: SURVEY RESULTS
'
APPENDIX III: SHORELINE ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX IV: ACCESS FUNDING SOURCES
'
APPENDIX V: PEDESTRIAN SHORELINE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDED IN THE TOWN OF NAGS HEAD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

I �!
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TOWN OF NAGS HEAD
COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN AND ESTUARINE ACCESS
AND RECREATIONAL PLAN
The Town of Nags Head received a Fiscal Year 1988-1989 Coastal Area
Management Act grant of $8,840 for the development of a Comprehensive
Ocean and Estuarine Access and Recreational Plan. The plan is a
functional extension of the town's 1985 Land Use Plan, which gave a
high priority to the development of shoreline access and the preser-
vation of open space. This planning document defines the shoreline
access and recreation needs of the Town of Nags Head -and identifies
shoreline access and recreation improvements that should be given
priority by the town. A four-part analysis was performed to
accomplish these objectives:
1) Inventory of Existing Sites and Facilities
An inventory of existing shoreline access sites and recreational
facilities was performed, and tables and maps were prepared
summarizing the number, location, and types of existing shoreline
1 access sites, natural areas, and non -shoreline recreational
facilities such as picnic areas, playgrounds, and walking/jogging
trails.
2) Citizen Participation
In 1984 and 1989, citizen opinion surveys were conducted'to aid
in preparation of the Land Use Plan and Access/Recreation Plan,
respectively. The 1989 survey was distributed to 3,400 property
owners, with 535 completed questionnaires received.
In order to help define shoreline access and recreation prior-
ities and policy statements, the town tabulated and analyzed
citizen responses to the 1989 survey, considered the results of
1 the 1984 survey, and compared resident and non-resident survey
responses to the 1989 survey.
Based on the 1989 survey, the most important public shore access
and recreation needs of the property owners of Nags Head were, in
decreasing order of importance, 1) improvement of existing ocean
access areas, 2) development of new ocean access areas,
3) improvement of existing sound access areas, 4) development of
new sound access areas, 5) creation of a town park, and 6) devel-
opment of other types of recreational facilities. This order of
' preference is consistent with the 1984 survey, which also indi-
cated more public support for public shore access than for parks

or recreational facilities such as ballfields, tennis courts,
golf courses, etc. However, it is significant that 67% of the
respondents in the 1989 survey supported the idea of acquiring
land for a town park, and 47% of those responding supported
increasing taxes for a town park. Also, permanent residents
indicated that a town park was second in importance only to
improving existing ocean access areas. Therefore, while both the
1984 and 1989 surveys indicate that public shore access develop-
ment is preferred over non -shoreline recreational improvements by
property owners as a whole, strong citizen support, particularly
resident support, for a town park and associated active recre-
ational facilities also appears to exist.
3) Identification,of Needs
The existing inventory data discussed above were compared with
objective state-wide standards for shoreline access and recre-
ational facilities. Apparent existing or projected deficiencies
in relation to state-wide standards were then further evaluated
based on input from town management, citizen survey results, and
planning analysis to determine specific shoreline access and
other recreational facilities needs for Nags Head through the
year 2000.
4 ) Prioritization of,_Improvements
Finally, defined shoreline access and recreation deficiencies
were evaluated with respect to existing capital improvement
plans, physical and economic constraints to recreational develop-
ment, and citizen survey results. Based on this analysis, a
ten-year shoreline access/recreational facilities plan was devel-
oped. This plan identified what applicable deficiencies could be
reasonably addressed -by the town within budgetary and physical
constraints, and prioritized the improvements to be made by the
town.
Based on the methodology above, it was determined that the Town of
Nags Head could set a goal of addressing its shoreline (both sound -
and ocean -side) parking deficiencies over the ten-year planning
period. Additionally, the town can begin to improve the non -shore-
line recreation facilities most desired by property owners within
budgetary and physical constraints. It was determined that the town
cannot reasonably meet state -defined standards for numbers and types
of either ocean or, in particular, estuarine access sites, for a
number of reasons discussed at length in this narrative. However,
the plan does place a high priority on the creation of new ocean and
estuarine access sites. Additionally, the proposed addition of
parking spaces and improvements to existing access sites called for
in the plan should compensate for the inability of the town to secure
enough new access sites to meet state standards during the planning
period.
ii

1 The access and recreation plan is divided into three phases:
(1) FY1989-1990; (2) Five Year Plan FY190/191 to FY194/195; and (3) a
Long -Range 5-10 Year Plan. The FY89-90 plan proposes the following
improvements:
' Jockey's Ridge estuarine access
East Hollowell Street parking
-- Dowitcher Street parking
Cold water showers at 9 ocean sites
Pedestrian access improvements
The Nags Head five-year access and recreation plan will focus on the
following:
-- Securing additional sound side access sites, including a regional
1 - sound side site.
- Securing an additional ocean side regional access site.
-- Increasing ocean side parking.
t-- Protecting Nags Head Woods and developing in -town access to the
Woods.
' Improving facilities at the ocean side access sites.
Securing additional neighborhood/local ocean side access sites.
-- Planning and development of non -shoreline recreational
facilities such as jogging/bike trails, natural areas, picnic
shelters, and playgrounds.
' The 5 to 10-year plan will continue to emphasize estuarine and ocean
shoreline access development, including shoreline access parking.
Emphasis will be placed on providing a major boat access ramp in
1 cooperation with Dare County. Secondary concerns will be the devel-
opment of non -shoreline recreation facilities, including a town park,
and support of DOT efforts to establish bike routes. Shoreline
access and non -shoreline recreation needs/deficiencies will be
' assessed annually, with revisions to priorities and funding
allocations being made as required.
As an overall policy statement, the town will: (1) place a very high
priority on the provision of public access to, and public use of, the
ocean and sound shorelines; (2) perpetuate open space and natural
1 areas; and (3) develop non -shoreline recreational facilities when the
demand is well -documented.
iii

n
J
I
TOWN OF NAGS HEAD
COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN AND ESTUARINE ACCESS
AND RECREATIONAL PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The Town of Nags Head has a rich and unique history closely linked to
its ocean and sound shorelines. The town has approximately eleven
miles of ocean shoreline and approximately twelve miles of sound or
estuarine shoreline. This extensive amount of shoreline has helped
to make Nags Head an attractive place to live and vacation. The town
has remained primarily a water -oriented community.
The history of recent development in the town is summarized by the
following quote from the 1985 Town of Nags Head Land Use Plan Update:
"Nags Head has been slow to develop when compared to resort and
vacation areas along the eastern coast that offer similar ameni-
ties (e.g., Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Ocean City, Maryland).
This has partly been a result of the remoteness of the town.
However, like all of the Dare County beach communities, Nags Head
is beginning to experience tremendous growth and development
pressures. As an indication, the permanent population has been
growing at an annual rate of well over 10 percent. The most
significant growth pressures in the town are, and will continue to
be, generated by seasonal resort development, however. Over
two-thirds of Nags Head property owners, for example, are not
permanent residents of the town."
This growth and development is causing a strain on existing recre-
ation facilities. Among those problems is the need to improve exist-
ing shoreline access sites and to provide new ocean and sound access
sites. In addition, the demands for both active and passive
non -shoreline recreational facilities are increasing.
The Town of Nags Head has long recognized the benefits that the resi-
dential and business communities will accrue through the provision of
recreational facilities and shoreline access sites. In 1984, the
town undertook a citizen attitude survey that dealt with a number of
land use -related issues. Both multi -use and beach access facilities
were addressed.
The 1984 survey respondents were concerned about beach and sound
access areas. Six out of ten stated that beach access areas (60%)
and parking for beach access (57%) were important enough to be built
at public expense. One-third (34%) stated that sound access areas
were equally important.

In support of the 1984 survey results, the Town of Nags Head 1985
Land Use Plan Update emphasized recreation, open space, and shoreline
access. In an effort to more effectively pursue the stated goals of
the 1985 Land Use Plan, and to aid in the development of the town 's
1990 Land Use Plan, the town has prepared this comprehensive access/
recreation plan, which identifies recreation and shoreline access -
related goals, policies, and implementation methods for Nags Head.
The Town of Nags Head has a commitment to the preservation of its
beaches and shoreline, and other natural areas, as evidenced by its
continued participation in the CAMA land use planning process,
enforcement of its zoning ordinance, and the encouragement of citizen
participation in its planning efforts. The pressure placed on the
use and development of the shorelines and natural areas is constantly
increasing, and continued commitment by the town will be required to
ensure the preservation of shoreline and natural areas. Nags Head
will continue to take an active role in responsibly managing and
protecting its shoreline resources and natural areas such as Nags
Head Woods.
This plan supports the town's existing recreation and shoreline
access goals, policies, and strategies. Additionally, the plan
supports the views and priorities of the respondents to the 1984
questionnaire and the 1989 shoreline access/recreation needs ques-
tionnaire that was distributed in conjunction with this study. The
provision of public access to, and public use of the ocean and sound
shorelines will continue to be a high priority. The provision of
non -shoreline community recreational facilities is also a priority of
the town. Nags Head's success in providing shoreline access and
other recreation facilities is due, in part, to substantial support
from the Division of Coastal Management and Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund grant programs. Further assistance of these programs
will be solicited.
OA

II. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SHORELINE ACCESS SITES
AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
The Town of Nags Head has extensive ocean access sites, compared to
other North Carolina beach communities, but limited sound access
sites and non -shoreline recreational facilities. A total of 40
town -maintained shoreline access sites exist (excludes proposed
Jockeys Ridge site and includes the Nags Head Village access site
adjacent to Roanoke Court). Only three of these sites provide
estuarine access. Some of these sites were purchased and are
maintained with assistance from the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) and Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF), as indicated on
Table 1, page 5.
' The Nags Head Woods is the only "town -park" type of natural area
owned by the town. This maritime forest has been zoned as a special
environmental district. The only improvements in the town -owned
portion of the Woods are walking trails which the Nature Conservancy
maintains under the terms of a management agreement with the town.
Local Shoreline Access Areas
Shoreline access sites are categorized by the Division of Coastal
Management as either local, neighborhood, or regional facilities. A
local access area is defined as follows by the North Carolina Beach
Access Handbook:
I
"A local access area provides minimal facilities and is
designed for the use of pedestrians within a few hundred yards
of the project site. This type of access project requires a
strip of land from three to 10 feet in width located
perpendicular to the beach or shore and extending to a public
street or road."
OCEAN /ESTUARINE WATER
MEAN HIGH WATER
--�' — /O f WIDE AX iF56WA)e
mimm m A=0AM5VDED s2F
!), VOR PEDEST uw Ule ONLY
Y k.
,=uBLic 577ZEE7-
Typical local access areas.
3

There are 16 local access sites in Nags Head, including two estuarine
access sites and 14 ocean access sites. The following provides an
identification of the 14 unimproved town -owned local shoreline access
sites in Nags Head. Two of the sites provide estuarine access and
the remaining 12 provide ocean access. Map 1 provides the location
of all access sites.
Admiral Street
Baltic Street
Curlew Street
Hollowell Street
Grouse Street
Ida Street
Isabella Street (has a gravel parking lot)
Islington Street (has a pedestrian walkway)
Indigo Street
Jay Street (has a pedestrian walkway)
June Street
Jacob Street (has a pedestrian walkway)
Forrest Street
Gray Eagle (open, but improved only with clay base)
The two remaining local access sites are both improved ocean sites,
and are listed in Table 1 on Page 5.
4

TNBIL 1
1989 FACILITIES SOMMRW
IMPROVED PEELIC ACCESS SITES
Dune Crossover
Facilities
Vehicular
Site Parking
Type
Trash
Beach
Bilge Handicap
Funding
No. Name Spaces
CategoY}r*
Pavement Light
Can
Boardwalk
Sandpath
Access Restroans
Showers Rack flamp Benches
Source**
(1) Albatross
8
N
Non -permeable
x
LWCF
(2) Abalone
21
N
Permeable asphalt
x
x
x
x
IMF
(5) Barnes
17
N
Permeable asphalt
x
x
x
DCM
(6) Blackman
17
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
IWCF
(7) Bonnett
71
R
Combination permeable
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
LWCF
parking and non -permeable
driveway
(8) Bittern
16
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
IidCF
(9) Blades►
11
N
Non -permeable
x
x
x
x
EkCF
(10) "ridge
16
N
Permeable
x
x
x
DOCF
(13) Cfondh
20
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
x
�F
(14) Small
0
L
Concrete pedestrian
x
x
walkway (poor condition)
(15) Enterprize
14
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
x
x
IWCF
(16) Epstein
23
N
Permeable
x
x
x
DCM
un North
(17) Municipal
15
N
Permeable and gravel
x
x
x
DCH
Building
(18) Epstein
46
R
Combination permeable
x
x
x
x
x
x
13CM
Midway
and asphalt
(19) Forrest
18
N
Non -permeable asphalt
x
x
x
x
x
and concrete
(21) Glidden
14
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
DfCF
(22) Gull
12
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
UrF
(23) Gray Eagle
24
N
Non -permeable -
DXg
(24) Gulfstream
22
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
x
x
LWCF
(25) Governor
18
N
Permeable
x
x
DCM
(26) Huron
25
N
Non -permeable
x
x
x
DCM
(27) Holden
21
N
Permeable
x
x
x
DCM
(28) Hargrove
28
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
INCF
(35) Janes
0
L
Non -permeable
x
x
x
x
(37) Juncos
20
N
Non -permeable
x
x
x
x
x
EWCF
(E-2)Danube
15
N
Permeable
x
x
x
x
x x
7btal 31
* L-Local; N-Neighborhood; R-Regional **LWCF-Lard and Water Conservation Funds; DCM-Division of Coastal Management.

Neighborhood Shoreline Access Areas
A neighborhood access area provides public parking and pedestrian
access to the beach or shoreline. In addition to providing a
pedestrian path from a public road to the mean high water mark, a
larger area for parking must also be provided. Several design
alternatives for this tvpe of access area are presented below.
MEAN HIGH WATER
its 0
`. .i
SrwYAX
I 1
t,'�
MAC �G
-Vwr =
MEAN HIGH WATER
I TRAVEL
P►�cAQvv
P
0
MEAN HIGH WATER
�. l , ,u• I i ��fJelRMs
22• WIDE
TRAVEL
AISLE-
.
•�`� -" -•r_ .� ."'"""� ram. ' i='�
MEAN HIGH WATER
u,l ... \Y ,w vi Sri ,•I. (l�� 14.
V.r 11► �.• i I \r t•
l0•X2a
T2E :.
AISLE
Typical Neighborhood Access Areas
There are 22 neighborhood access sites located in Nags Head,
including one sound access site and 21 ocean access sites. All of
these are identified in Table 1 on Page 5.
6

fl
1
k
Regional Shoreline Access Areas
A regional access area provides facilities to serve residents of a
community as well as day visitors. These sites are required to be
accessible to the handicapped and provide.restrooms, dune crossovers,
piers or boat ramps, litter receptacles, public access signs and
parking for as many as 60 cars or more. These facilities may also
provide foot showers and showers, bike racks and picnic tables,
gazebos and seating areas, fencing, lighting and landscaping.
Regional accessways are similar to neighborhood accessways. The
following provides sample site designs.
MEAN HIGH WATER
lnnpT—
I WIAlIR1110 M' itrr/nrttl t1r14011 ;
nllrlt/rttl«tctdlltuI 'tiutrrlttlttn/urnplt � OU
I 1 q' 1
tI t t
I 1 .. i�itCAMdt�l�i
I � •lOiOStrC.t�C
f�ANaiU1!•tD� 4 � :� -_
MEAN HIGH WATER
IU111001Itu"Inttrrt ' r mttnit�
.Ii1tIj1� � { t lNrtr��.wrs
�►y�tUI I �rIlIN1111WA KNwilt, lrllll'
(ltKc i � ir'i1N�r+G�p� t
ACZZVSW.4Y?
I+G1ND/Um�
Typical regional access areas.
There are two regional access sites located in Nags Head, Bonnett and
Epstein Midway. Both sites are ocean access sites. Table 1 on
Page 5 provides a summary of these sites.
7

Discussion of Existing Shoreline Access
Ocean Access Sites
The town does not maintain specific user data or traffic counts at
either ocean or estuarine access sites. Collection of accurate user
data would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. All of the
shoreline access sites are heavily utilized during the summer months.
Based on observations of town staff, the improved neighborhood and
regional access sites are the most heavily used. The sites' parking
lots are frequently full on the weekends. Pedestrian access is also
heavy.
Some unimproved local ocean access sites, and neighborhood ocean
access sites, are adjacent to vacant property. However, since most
oceanfront property is too expensive for public acquisition, expan-
sion of ocean access parking and other major site improvement activ-
ities at ocean access areas will have to occur to the west of
Virginia Dare Trail.
Estuarine Access Sites
In addition to the Danube neiqhborhood site and the unimproved
Forrest Street local site, the town has a third sound access site,
indicated above as (E-1), Gray Eagle. This unimproved local access
site is the right-of-way for Gray Eagle Street which extends from
U.S. 158 to Roanoke Sound. Currently the riqht-of-way is improved
with only a clay base. In 1987, the town applied for funding under
the North Carolina Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program
for implementation of this site, but was unsuccessful.
A fourth sound access site (unimproved) is located off Sound Side
Road on a portion of Jockey's Ridge State Park. While this is not a
town site, it is used regularly by the public. The town is in the
process of negotiating a lease with the state that would allow estab-
lishment of the site as an improved sound access site for the purpose
of meeting an existing demand created by wind surfers, sailors, and
sightseers. In 1989, the town applied for North Carolina Coastal and
Estuarine Water Beach Access Funds to provide a limited facility
designed to meet existing demand. The application was not funded in
FY88/89 because a lease agreement had not been finalized. The appli-
cation has been resubmitted for FY89/90 funding.
With only three existing estuarine access sites, the town has a need
to add new access areas on the sound, and to develop existing estu-
arine access areas. However, private development, an abundance of
marsh areas, shallow water, and lack of existing right-of-way are all
obstacles to public improvement of, or acquisition of, sound access
areas.
There are not any town-owned/operated boat ramp sites available at
estuarine access sites. The primary reason for the lack of boat
ramps is the shallow water depth found along the estuarine shoreline
areas. Some usage is made of the Danube sound access site and an

area adjacent to Jockey's Ridge for the launching of lightweight sail
boats, sail boards, and jet skis. However, these sites are not
designed for any type of boat launching, and boat usage conflicts
with swimming and other non -boating shoreline activities. Future
motorized boat ramps may be developed on the Rigger property located
' on the south side of the Causeway, and possibly in concert with Dare
County across from Pirate's Cove Marina.
Jockey's Ridge State Park is a major recreational amenity. The park
provides a huge open space area and rigorous terrain for hikers.
Additionally, the park is used for kite flying and hang gliding. The
sound side of the park presents excellent opportunities for estuarine
shoreline access. When the park was first developed, there was not
an identified demand for sound access. However, the increasing
popularity of sailing, wind surfing, jet skis, and general enjoyment
of the sound have all increased access demands.
Other Recreational Facilities
The only town -owned recreation area in Nags Head which provides a
"park" type of environment is Nags Head Woods. The Nags Head Woods
site is one of the few remaining maritime forests on the east coast.
The tract includes relic dunes, fresh water ponds, and extensive
marshes along Roanoke Sound. The entire area contains approximately
1,800 acres and 2.7 miles of estuarine shoreline. The Town of Nags
Head owns 400 acres of the area. All of the trails on the Nags Head
property are maintained by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy.
The remaining 1,400 acres, including the shoreline areas, are
controlled by the Nature Conservancy, the Town of Kill Devil Hills,
and several individuals.
Nags Head Woods is designated as a Special Environmental District
(SED) in the town zoning ordinance and is protected by the stringent
preservation/protection guidelines and use restrictions outlined in
the zoning ordinance amendment creating the SED. Currently, Nags
Head residents and visitors do not have any direct vehicular access
' to the site. Access is provided through the Conservancy Center in
Kill Devil Hills.
' State and federal properties either in or adjacent to Nags Head
provide both estuarine access and visual enhancement areas. Those
include the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to the south, and
' Jockey's Ridge State Park.
The Town of Nags Head does not currently own or maintain any town
parks, ballfields, tennis courts, golf courses, playgrounds, or
related athletic facilities. However, Dare County maintains a tennis
facility with six courts in Nags Head, and there is one privately -
owned golf course in Nags Head. There are approximately two miles of
jogging/walking trails in the town -owned portion of the Nags Head
Woods.

A.
III. SHORELINE ACCESS AND RECREATION NEEDS
POPULATION ANALYSIS
Nags Head population growth has been phenomenal. In 1970, there
were only 414 permanent residents. By 1980, the permanent
population had more than doubled to 1,020. The 1984 North
Carolina Office of State Budget and Management figures showed a
further increase of 36% to 1,387. The following table provides a
historical analysis of permanent population:
Table 2
.Permanent Population
Dare County and Nags_ Head
Year
Dare_ County
Nags Head
1960
5,935
1970
6,995 (17.9%)
414
1980
13,377 (91.2%)
1,020
(146%)
1982
1,166
(14.3%)
1983
15,327 (14.6%)
1,330
(14.1%)
1984
1,395
(4.9%)
Note: Percentage increase from prior year shown in parentheses.
Source: Town of Nags Head 1985 Land Use Plan Update.
The population forecasts for both resident and visitor population
were updated in 1989 by the Town of Nags Head and are provided in
Table 3.
Table 3
Town of Nags Head
Estimated Population .to Year 2000
Permanent Population
Visitor Population
Total
Year.
Increase)
Total
Increase
Total
Visitor + Permanent
1985
1,977
23,600
25,557
1986
583
2,560
1,000
24,600
27,160
1987
208
21768
1,088
25,688
28,456
1988
230
2,998
11202
26,890
29,888
1989
423
3,421
2,647
29,537
32,958
1990
508
3,929
3,211
32,748
36,677
1991
337
4,266
2,593
35,341
39,607
1992
334
4,600
2,530
37,871
42,471
1993
464
5,064
2,404
40,275
45,339
1994
340
5,404
1,794
42,069
47,473
1995
304
5,708
1,687
43,756
49,464
1996
337
6,045
1,659
45,415
51,460
1997
337
6,382
1,659
47,074
53,456
1998
341
6,723
1,679
48,753
55,476
1999
366
7,089
1,814
50,567
57,656
2000
366
7,455
1,814
52,381
59,836
10

Where applicable, the recreation and shoreline access needs of
the town will be assessed on the basis of the population growth
forecast in Table 3 through the year 2000.
' B. USER ANALYSIS/SURVEY RESULTS
To ensure adequate citizen input and to obtain a comprehensive
data base, Nags Head undertook a survey of the town's residential
and commercial property owners before preparing this plan.
Appendix IIA provides a copy of the survey instrument. A total
of 3,400 questionnaires were distributed in March, 1989, as a
part of the town's newsletter. Five hundred thirty-five respon-
ses were received, providing for a 16% response rate. However,
many property owners received,more than one questionnaire, since
' they own both residential and commercial properties. Therefore,
it is believed that the response rate of property owners was
higher than 16%.
The 1989 survey results support the recreation and shoreline
access goals stated in the 1985 Town of Nags Head Land use Plan,
and are consistent with shoreline access survey results obtained
from the 1984 Nags Head land use questionnaire.
The survey results were tabulated in total and separately by
' resident and non-resident property owners for questions.1 through
6. The majority of the responses, 69.4%, came from non-resident
property owners, and 29.6% of the respondents were resident
owners or renters. (1% of respondents indicated "other" residen-
tial status.) The majority, 78.9%, of those responding owned
developed property. 14.4% owned both developed and undeveloped
property, with only 4.4% owning undeveloped property. The 1984
' survey results included 75% non-resident and 25% resident
responses.
Detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix IIB in
graphic and tabular form. Results for opinion -type questions
(1-7 and 11) are summarized below:

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO
TOWN OF NAGS HEAD 1989 PUBLIC OCEAN AND SOUND ACCESS
AND RECREATION NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE
NOTE - Al1: All Respondents
Res.: Resident Respondents
N-Res.: Non -Resident Respondents
1. Most important facilities and improvements the Town could provide at public ocean access
areas (ranked in descending order):
All
Resident
Non -Resident
1.
Restrooms
Restroa[s
Restroans
2.
Auto parking
Lifeguards
Auto parking
3.
Lifeguards
Auto parking
Lifeguards
4.
Natural areas
Drinking water
Natural areas
5.
Drinking water
Natural areas
Drinking water
6.
Picnic tables & shelters
Picnic tables & shelters
Picnic tables & shelters
7.
Bike racks
Cold showers
Bike racks
8.
Cold showers
Fishing pier
Fishing pier
9.
Fishing pier
Bike racks
Cold showers
10.
Foot showers
Foot showers
Foot showers
11.
Other
Other
Other
2. Most important facilities and improvements the Town could provide at public sound access I
areas (ranked in descending order):
All
1. Restrooms
2. Auto parking
3. Boat ramps and parking
4. Fishing & crabbing pier
5. Picnic tables & shelters
6. Drinking water
7. Moorings and docks
8. Bike racks
9. Other
10. Cold showers
11. Foot showers
Resident
Restroans
Auto parking
Boat ramps and parking
Fishing & crabbing pier
Picnic tables & shelters
Drinking water
Moorings and docks
Bike racks
Cold showers
Other
Foot showers
Non -Resident
Restrooms
Auto parking
Boat ramps and parking
Fishing & crabbirx� pier
Picnic tables &shelters
Drinking water
Moorings and docks
Bike racks
Other
Cold showers
Foot showers
3. Most important facilities the Town should provide if it were to build a Town perk
(ranked in descending order):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
All
Joggi2 & walking trails
Natural area
Picnic tables & shelters
Bike trails
Tot lot/playground
Public golf course
Tennis courts
Community building
Municipal pool
Outdoor basketball court
Baseball field
Indoor basketball court
Other
Resident
Jogging & walking trails
Picnic tables & shelters
Bike trails
Natural area
Community building
Zbt lot/playground
Tennis courts
Municipal pool
Public it course
Baseball field
Outdoor basketball court
Indoor basketball court
Other
Non -Resident
Jogging & walking trails
Natural area
Picnic tables & shelters
Bike trails
Zbt lot/playground
Public golf course
Tennis courts
Community building
Municipal pool
Outdoor basketball court
Baseball field
Other
Indoor basketball court
12

I
4. Most important shoreline access and recreation needs (ranked in descending order):
All
1. Improve existing ocean
access areas
2. Build more ocean
access areas
3. Improve existing sound
access areas
4. Build more sound
access areas
5. Create a gown park
- 6. Other
5. How important is each need?
a. Safer and improved
pedestrian sidewalks
and walkways fran
dwellings to ocean
and sound
b. Preservation of
natural areas
c. Protection/preservation
of Nags Head Woods
Resident
Improve existing ocean
access areas
Create a town park
Build more ocean
access areas
Improve existing sound
access areas
Build more sound
access areas
Other
Non -Resident
Improve existing ocean
access areas
Improve existing sound
access areas
Build more ocean
access areas
Build more sound
access areas
Create a town park
Other
Very
Not
Very
Important
Important
Sure
Unimportant
Unimportant
All
34.1%
29.9%
14.4%
13.8%
7.8%
Res.
=
24.3%
=%
T677%
-T.-N
N-Res.
=%
32.1%
TUN
T47.%-
--T.T%
Very
Not
Very
Important
Important
Sure
Unimportant
Unimportant
All
74.7%
21.6%
1.5%
0.7%
1.5%
Res.
70.9%
0. 7%
-T: r
3.6%
N-Res.
1. �
$
-�$
Very
Not
Very
Important
Important
Sure
Unimportant
Unimportant
All
63.7%
23.0%
9.6%
1.4%
2.3%
Res.
69.2%
29.8%
1.4%
1.3%
-T. 2$
N-Res.
�
7r.T%-
TT."r%
-T.-r%
-r.-r%
1 13

6. a) I support the use of Zbwn local tax dollars to pay for acquiring land
i)
for public ocean access areas
Strongly
Not
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
All
23.6%
40.3%
12.8%
11.1%
12.3%
Res.
'
31.7
T5-.r%
N-Res.
%
M-.-$
T . T
Tom% -
T1. r
ii)
for public sound access areas
Strongly
Not
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
All
21.1%
42.1%
16.1%
10.4%
10.4%
Res.
�
5 1%
�
-
N-Res.
TUN
TUW
TUN
T
TT.7%
i i i)
for Town park or other Town
Strongly
Not
Strongly
recreation areas
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
All
24.3%
42.8%
16.0%
8.1%
8.9%
Res.
M-Iff
=
=.
T.7%
N-Res.
TT.T$
7 =.%
T6-.g$
-T.7$
b) I would be willing to accept a local tax increase to
help pay for improvements at
i)
public ocean access areas
Strongly
Not
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
All
11.5%
34.8%
15.7%
18.7%
19.3%
Res.
UN
M-.-r%
77-.r
T7.T%-
0�
N-Res.
�7.-T%
TT.W
-f M.
Tg-.T%
ii)
public sound access areas
Strongly
Not
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
All
10.6%
33.7%
17.8%
18.2%
19.8%
Res.
Tr. N
W.-T%
TT.T%
i'I.
N-Res.
-T.7%-
=%
iii)
a Zbwn park or other Town
Strongly
Not
Strongly
recreation areas
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
All
14.9%
32.2%
20.3%
16.1%
16.5%
Res.
.
M-.T%'
Ti $
1"1. 8%
1�.9 %
N-Res.
Tf
=. %
=
=
77
255 camnents were received concerning Question 7 - negative concerns about shoreline access
and recreation. Litter, security/policing, traffic congestion and pedestrian congestion,
and parking were named most often as problems or concerns. '
138 owners made suggestions (Question 11). 1he need to reduce litter, the need to reduce
parking deficiencies, and the need.for restroans, jogging/bilae trails, and more shoreline ,
access were the most expressed concerns.
14 1

Ccmparison of 1984 LUP Survey with 1989 Recreation/Shoreline Access Survey
' Topic J984 Survey Results 1989 Survey Results
Need for open a) 40% favored the creation a) 67.2% supported the use
space/town park of a town park of local tax revenues to
acquire land for a town
park
' b) 47.1% supported a local
tax increase to help pay
for improvements at a
' town park
Public sound
a)
34% supported sound access
a)
63.2% supported the use
access areas
areas built at public
of local tax revenues to
expense
acquire land for public
'
b)
27% supported boat ramps
sound access areas
and moorings built at
b)
44.3% supported a local
public expense
tax increase to help pay
for improvements at public
sound access areas
Public ocean
a)
60% supported beach access
a)
63.9% supported the use
access areas
areas built at public
of local tax revenues to
expense
acquire land for public
1
ocean access areas
b)
57% supported parking for
b)
45.3% supported a local
beach access built at public
tax increase to help pay
expense
for improvements at
public ocean access areas
I
Resident/Non--Resident-Analysis
Residents and non-residents agreed on the five most important
facilities and improvements needed at ocean shoreline access
areas, with some minor differences in the order of importance.
The rankings for sound access areas were identical for both
groups. There were some differences of opinion between the two
'
groups about needed improvements at a town park, with residents
indicating a stronger desire for a community building than
non-residents. In general, however, both groups indicated that
natural areas, picnic areas, and jogging/ biking trails are more
important than playgrounds, team sports facilities, or golf and
tennis facilities. Additionally, both groups had similar
responses to Question 5. The majority of both groups indicated
that the preservation of natural areas/Nags Head Woods and
improved shoreline access were very important or important.
15

The most significant differences in the survey responses for
residents and non-residents concerned the relative importance of
a town park to improvinq/building shoreline access areas. ,
Residents ranked creating a town park second of six priorities,
while non-residents ranked creatinq a town park only fourth of
six priorities. Additionally, residents indicated stronqer
support for acquiring property for a town park at public expense,
and for tax increases for town park improvement, than
non-residents.
Summary of Citizen Priorities ,
Several broad conclusions can be drawn from the shoreline access '
and recreation surveys performed in 1984 and 1989:
1) Preservation of natural areas, including Nags Head Woods, is ,
an important general shoreline access/recreational need
expressed by property owners in the 1989 survey:
2) There is majority taxpayer support for shoreline access and
town park improvements to be made at town expense, and
support has increased since 1984.
3) Property owners as a whole consider improvement of, and
construction of new, cean access areas more important than
sound access improvements/construction, and consider shore-
line access improvements in general more important than
creation of a town park.
4) Resident support for creation of a town park is strong enough
for town to consider placing a town park higher on the
shoreline access/recreation priority list than the overall
response priorities listed above would indicate.
5) Property owners as a whole feel that more restrooms and
better auto parking are the two most important shoreline
access improvements needed by the town.
6) Property owners as a whole, as well as residents, prefer
natural areas, jogging/walking trails, bike trails, and
picnic shelters to tennis courts, golf courses, municipal
pools, and playgrounds in town parks.
C. DEFINITION'OF-SHORELINE ACCESS NEEDS
Shoreline Access Requirements
The North Carolina state publication, "A Beach Access Handbook
for Local Governments," March 1985, provides minimum recommended
access needs for some facilities. These standards are general
guidelines by which access needs may be judged. The standards
16

1 will not completely apply in every community. Local conditions
P Y PP Y
will dictate deviations or exceptions. The following table sum-
marizes some of Nags Head's access needs for its peak population
in terms of acreage:
Table 4
Projected Minimum Acreage Needs
for Shorel-ine-Recreational
Facilities.
'
Suggested
Projected
Acreage/
Peak
Acreage
Access Type 1000-Pop.
Population
Recommended
(Table
Boat Access Areas 1/2 Ac.
1990/36,677
18.3
1995/49,464
24.7
2000/59,836
29.9
Estuarine Waterfront Parks 1 Ac.
1990/36,677
36.7
'
1995/49,464
49.5
2000/59,836
59.8
' Visual Enhancement Areas 1/2 Ac. 1990/36,677 18.3
1995/49,464 24.7
2000/59,836 29.9
Source: N.C. Beach Access Handbook or Local Governments,
March, 1985.
Due to the high cost of shoreline property, and limited amount of
land available for development, the standards above cannot be
reasonably applied to Nags Head.
Standards for defining shoreline access needs/deficiencies in
Nags Head are the following state recommendations for the number
' of ocean and sound access sites, provided in 15 NCAC 7M:
Table
5
'
Projected -Shoreline Access
-Site
Need— Based on 15
NCAC 7M
Suggested
Existing
Type of -Site
.Site
Frequencies
Need
Ocean Access
Local Access or
'
Neighborhood Sites
1
per two blocks
50 sites
Regional Access Sites
1
per 4 miles of
3 sites
shoreline
Total
53
17

Suggested Existing
Type.of Site Site Frequencies Need
Sound Access
Local Access or 1 per 1,000 ft. of
Neighborhood Access Sites developed property 23 sites
Regional Access Sites 1 per 4 miles of
shoreline 3 sites
Total 26
*Shoreline footage at Jocke 's Ridge State Park, Nags Head Woods,
and Causeway not used to de ermine demand.
Since the suggested site frequencies for all ocean access sites
and regional sound access are based on physical, rather than
demographic or developed property ratios, it will be assumed that
the existing need for all ocean access sites and regional access
sites, based on state standards, will be the same through the
year 2000. The existing need for local and neighborhood
estuarine access sites can be expected to increase, based on
state standards, as more estuarine property is developed through
the planning period.
Demand for Shoreline Access
It is estimated that 50% of the Nags Head peak population would
desire ocean access and 5% to 10% would desire sound access at
periods of peak demand. This estimate is based on a review of
shoreline access plans for other North Carolina coastal
communities, empirical observations within Nags Head, and the
existing and forecast geographic distribution of residential
development.
Table 6
Projected Population Demand for Ocean Access
(includes DOEH pe es rian a5a ve icu ar rans r demand)
Projected
Year
Peak Population
a e
1989
32,958
1990
36,677
1995
49,464
2000
59,836
Peak Access Demand
(50% of Peak Population)
16,479
18,339
24,732
29,918
Table 7
Projected Population Demand for Sound Access
( include'5 DOM pea el—s rian ana ve l ar trafisporEea demand)
Peak Access Demand
Year
Peak Po ulation
(10% of Peak Population)
a e
,
1989
32,958
3,296
1990
36,677
3,668
'
1995
49,464
4,946
2000
59,836
5,984
18

Projected Parkin Demand at Shoreline Access Sites
'
Total parking demand is significantly less than the total peak
access demand shown above in Tables 6 and 7, since a large
percentage of the total access demand is pedestrian traffic.
Subchapter 7M.0303(h) in the general policy guidelines for the
coastal area recommends that the total number of beach access
parking spaces correspond to approximately three percent of the
'
community's peak season population. Table 8 provides total
parking demand based on 3% of peak population. It should be
recognized that the state standards should be utilized as a
guideline, and local discretion may dictate adjustments during
the planning period.
Table 8
Total Ocean and Estuarine Shoreline Access Parking Demand
( $ of Peak Population; recommended state standard
Year Peak Population Parking Demand
1989 32,958 989
1990 36,677 1,100
1995 49,464 1,483
2000 59,836 1,795
Apportioning Estuarine and Ocean Access Parking Demand
In order to apportion ocean -and estuarine side parking demand for
Nags Head, it was assumed that U.S. 158 is the dividing line for
estuarine and ocean parking demand. In other words, the peak
'
population west of U.S. 158 is expected to have minimal impact on
sound -side pudic parking demand, and provide almost all of the
demand for ocean -side public parking. Conversely, the peak
'
population east of U.S. 158 is expected to have a minimal impact
on ocean -side public parking, and provide almost all of the
demand for sound -side public parking.
'
According to current population distribution figures, approxi-
mately 20% of the town's peak population resides on the sound
side, or west of U.S. 158.
Based on the discussion above concerning peak access demand, 50%
'
of the total town population could require ocean access at any
one time. As stated above, the population living east of
U.S. 158 desiring ocean access is assumed to have pedestrian
access to the ocean. However, all of the population living west
of U.S. 158 desiring ocean access is expected to require
'
ocean -side parking. Demand from day visitors is considered to be
minimal. Day visitor demand may increase during the planning
period and cause an upward adjustment in ocean access parking
'
demand. The possible change in day visitor demand should be
19

assessed annually. In order to estimate
parking demand at ocean
'
access sites, an
average figure of 3.5 people
per vehicle was
utilized. Table
9 provides an analysis of ocean access parking
demand based on
the above considerations.
,
Table 9
Vehicles -Needing -Ocean Access Site Parkinq Accommodations
Year
Peak Parkinq-Demand
Vehicle (Parking
n vi u s
-Space) Demand
(50% of peak population
ersons
west of U.S. 158)
/Vehicle)
'
1989
3,296
942
1990
3,668
1,048
1995
40,946
1,413
2000
5,984
1,707
The distribution of spaces between sound side sites and ocean
sites will be influenced by the Town of Nags Head policy to
increase access opportunities to sound side areas. This policy
is supported by the 1989 access and recreation questionnaire.
The questionnaire results placed improving existing and building
new ocean access sites ahead of sound side sites. However,
strong support was shown for both improving existing, and build-
ing new, sound side sites. The recreational demands of Nags Head
residents and visitors have changed in recent years, and
increased emphasis is being placed on sound access for sailing,
wind surfing, swimming and other activities. Empirical obser-
vations by town staff indicate a deficiency in estuarine access
parking.
The town may accept the state standard of basing the total
shoreline access parking demand on 3% of peak population. In
addition, the town will strive to provide ocean access parking
based on the demand indicated in Table 9, above. If the ocean
access parking demand indicated in Table 9 is deducted from the
total shoreline parking demands, indicated in Table 8, only a
small residual number of spaces would remain for allocation to
estuarine shoreline areas. Based on this approach, the following
estuarine shoreline parking would be provided:
Table 10
Estimated -Estuarine Access Parking Allocation Based on DCM Standards
Total
Residual Spaces
Parking Demand
Town
Remaining for Alloca-
Based on 3%
Ocean Parking Demand
tion to Estuarine
Peak Population
(3.5 persons/vehicle)
Access Sites
(Table
(Table
1989
989 -
942
= 47
1990
1,100 -
1,048
= 52
1995
1,483 -
1,413
= 70
2000
11795 -
1,707
= 88
20

Based on questionnaire
q
results existing 1989 demand and town
. 9
policy, the estuarine
parking allocation shown in Table 10 will
'
not be adequate. Instead,
the forecast estuarine access parking
demand will be based on
doubling the estuarine parking required
to meet the state recommended total estuarine shoreline parking
standard (based on 3%
of peak population).
Table 11
Ocean and -Sound Access Parking Need
Total Ocean and
Peak
Ocean Access Sound Access Sound Access
'
Year Population
Parkinq Spaces Parki Spaces Parking Spaces
(Table (—Me 1 U, Recom-
mendations Doubled)
'
1989 32,958
942 94 1,036
1990 36,677
1,048 104 1,152
1995 49,464
1,413 140 1,553
2000 59,836
1,707 176 1,883
'
D. SHORELINE-ACCESS-DEFICIENCIE-p
Table 12
'
Current Nags -Head
Based on Table
-Shoreline -Access Site Deficiencies
Parking Demand) and 15 N 7M
(Number of Suggested Access
Sites by Shoreline/Developed Property)
'
Total Existing Need Existing Existing
Type of Need
(Defi-ned- -in -Section C) Quantity Deficiency
'
Ocean Access
Logal Access or
Neighborhood Sites
50 35 15
Regional Access Sites
3 2 1
Parking Spaces
942 497 445
'
Sound Access
Logal Access or
Neighborhood Sites
23 3 20
'
Regional Access Sites
3 0 3
Parking Spaces
94 15 79
' Sound Access Deficiencies
Existing estuarine access sites are deficient in terms of number,
type, and parking spaces.
21
r

It is expected that developed property, marsh areas, shallow
water, and lack of vehicular/street access will make it impos-
sible for Nags Head to meet the recommended sound shoreline
access standards during the planning period. However, meeting
the recommended standards for estuarine shoreline access is not
believed necessary in Nags Head for the following reasons: (1)
preference/demand cause priority to be given to ocean access
sites; (2) existing public property such as Jockey's Ridge, Naqs
Head Woods, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore provide substan-
tial estuarine access; and (3) some commercial areas aid in
providing estuarine shoreline access. However, based on the
demonstrated importance of estuarine access to its citizens, the
town should make the improvement of, and provision for addition-
al, estuarine access a focus of its shoreline/recreation plan.
Also, the town should attempt to meet the estuarine shoreline
parking demand by the year 2000, since it is a reasonable goal
that will serve to compensate for the limited number of sound -
side access sites. Future planning efforts and citizen partici-
pation will be required to judge the adequacy of estuarine access
sites and facilities.
Ocean Access Deficiencies
The ocean access sites are also currently deficient when judged
against the recommended standards. Due to the high cost of
oceanfront land, it is not expected that the town can meet the
state standard for number of local and neiqhborhood ocean access
sites during the planning period. However, the town should make
a strong attempt to secure additional local and neiqhborhood
ocean access sites during the next ten years. The town should
also plan to add another regional ocean access site in the next
five years, which would meet regional ocean access requirements.
The apparent deficiency in the number of local and neighborhood
ocean access sites over the next ten years can be significantly
compensated by improvements to existing ocean access sites, most
notably by meetinq defined ocean access parking demand by the
year 2000.
E. NON -SHORELINE -RECREATION NEEDS
Both state and national standards exist for the determination of
minimum comprehensive recreation needs. To analyze Nags Head
needs, standards produced by the North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development have been used.
Resident Needs
The non-resident population in Nags Head derives most recre-
ational benefit from shoreline activities such as boating, fish-
ing, sunbathing, etc. Additionally, many non-resident recreation
needs for facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and
playgrounds are provided by private resort properties. Strong
support for a town park was not indicated by the non-resident
22

I *
population in the 1989 recreation survey. Based on all of the
considerations above, the recreation facility needs outlined
below are based on year-round resident population only for the
year 2000:
Table 13
Town of Nags Head - Minimum Recreational Fa ilit Needs
(Based on Mr -round Population)
N.C. Division of Parks Nags Head
Facility and Recreation Standard Facilities Need
(Facilities Population) (Based on year
2000 year-round
population of
7,455)
'
Football/Soccer Field 1/10,000 <1
Softball Field 1/ 3,000 2
Baseball Field 1/ 6,000 1
Swimming Pool - 25 yard 1/10,000 <1
Swimming Pool - 50 meter 1/20,000 <1
Tennis Courts 2/ 4,000 4
Tot Lots/Playgrounds 1/ 1,000 7
'
Community Center Gym 1/25,000 <1
Neighborhood Center 1/10,000 <1
tBased
on the state recreational facility standards outlined
above, Nags Head would require two softball fields, four tennis
'
courts, a baseball field, and seven playground areas by the year
2000 for its year-round population. However, facility guidelines
for the state as a whole cannot be necessarily expected to apply
to Nags Head. First, there is not abundant land available for
'
development of recreation facilities. Second, shore -based
recreational opportunities abound in Nags Head, and compensate
for the lack of non -shoreline recreational facilities. Finally,
year-round residents who responded to the 1989 recreation survey
indicated that ballfields, tennis courts, and swimming pools were
not important recreational development concerns. There was some
support for playgrounds and a community center by resident survey
respondents, although not as much as for jogging/biking trails
and natural areas. However, based on the projected playground
deficiency (according to state standards) and moderate resident
'
support for playgrounds, site acquisition for playgrounds should
be a part of the town's recreation improvements plan. Addition-
ally, planning and site studies for a town park/community center
should be included in the 5 to 10 year plan. Dare County
operates a tennis facility with six courts near Satterfield
Landing Road, and the abundance of private courts makes tennis
courts a minor development priority for the resident population.
23

Peak Population Needs
Non-residents will supplement the town's permanent resident
population to create a peak demand for more passive recreational
facilities such as jogging/biking trails and picnic areas. This
expectation is supported by the high ranking given to those types
of "town park" facilities by non-residents in the 1989 recreation
survey. Also, residents who responded to the survey ranked
jogging/biking trails and picnic areas as important "town park"
facilities. Table 14 provides an outline of minimum recreational
facility needs for the peak population from 1990-2000, based on
state standards.
Table 14
Town of Nags Head - Mi imal RecreationAl Facility Needs
(Based on Peak Population
and N.C. Division of Parks & Recreation Standards)
Public Trails - Picnic area
Year/ Golf Fitness/ w/Support Picnic
Peak Population Course Jogging Facilities Shelters
State Stan ar --> (1�b�0 ) (1 mi. 00 ) (1 acre 0 ) ('1"/3,600�
1990/36,677 1 1 mile 6 acres 12
1995/49,464 2 2 miles 8 acres 16
2000/59,836 2 2 miles 10 acres 20
In determining how the standards above should be applied to Nags
Head, two factors should be considered: First, the state
standards are meant to apply to a stable, year-round population.
Non-resident population, as used in this study, should not
generate enough constant facility demand to justify the level of
improvements needed above. Second, as was the case for the
resident population analysis, the abundant shoreline recreational
opportunities in Nags Head diminish the need for non -shoreline
facilities.
Taking into account the factors above, it can be assumed that the
town should not consider construction of a golf course. One pri-
vate golf course exists in Nags Head, and a golf course was not
listed as a priority by all respondents to the 1989 recreational
survey. However, walking/jogging trails, picnic areas, and bike
trails all ranked among the top four non -shoreline recreational
improvements wanted by respondents to the 1989 survey. Jogging/
walking trails exist in the Nags Head Woods, but owner demand for
more trails is still high. Based on property owner demand, and
the fact that jogging and bike trails and picnic areas are not
provided by resorts, the town should include site acquisition
for, and construction of, those types of facilities in its
10-year recreation improvements plan.
24

F. SHORELINE ACCESS A D RECREATION PRIORITIES
' The Town of Nags Head considers the provision of adequate shore-
line access and recreational facilities to be a continuing
responsibility. Based on the needs analysis performed above, the
town will:
1) Establish a recreation improvements plan to be completed in
three time sequences: 1) FY89-90, 2) FY91-95, and 3) Tong
range ( through 2000) . The plan is based on the findings of
this study and will focus on the following elements: .
' -- Improvement and protection of existing ocean access sites,
with emphasis on a) increasing parking space, b) restroom,
shower and drinking water facilities, and c) maintenance/
' clean-up and avoiding disruption to adjacent property.
-- Acquisition and improvement of new ocean access sites,
with emphasis on providing a new regional site and new
' neighborhood/.local access sites in the historic district,
i.e., between Conch Street and Enterprise Street.
' -- Improvement and protection of existing sound access sites,
with emphasis on increasing parking space and protection
and enhancement of natural areas.
' -- Acquisition and improvement of new sound access sites,
with emphasis on provision of additional sound side park-
ing, boat ramps and fishing/crabbing facilities, and
' protection and enhancement of natural areas. -
-- Provision of additional walking/jogging trails, bike paths
' and trails, natural areas, and picnic areas/shelters to
accommodate demonstrated property owner demand for those
types of non -shoreline recreational facilities. Emphasis
shall be placed on providing picnic areas and shelters at
' shoreline access areas.
-- Provision of playground areas to accommodate year-round
' resident need for those facilities.
-- Examination of land acquisition alternatives in an effort
' to provide a town park/community center, including
non -shoreline recreational facilities prioritized by
year-round residents.
2) Reassess at least once every five years the shoreline access
and other recreational needs of the town's resident and
seasonal (peak) population.
' 3) Update the Shoreline Access and Recreation Plan to deal with
new or changing conditions.
25

4) Continuously coordinate the town's shoreline access and
recreation needs with the capital improvements planning
process and the town's existing Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP).
5) Solicit public input on all access and general recreation
facilities projects.
6) Update the Shoreline Access and Recreation Plan as necessary
to insure consistency with the Town of Nags Head Land Use
Plan.
7) Continuously solicit funds (public and private) to finance
access and recreation facilities.
8) Seek new sources of funding for shoreline access and recre-
ation facilities, including examining the possibilities of
assessing facility fees at town -sponsored access sites and
recreation facilities.
Discussion of Recreation -Improvements PI -an
The prioritization of needed improvements outlined above has been
based on an analysis of citizen demand (as expressed in 1984 and
1989 surveys); state standards adjusted for a shoreline community
with differing demands from resident and non-resident population;
and the environmental, physical, and current recreational
improvements in Nags Head.
A detailed summary of one-year, five-year, and five -to -ten-year
recreational improvements is included as Appendix III. Except
for programmed improvements in Nags Head. Woods, the plan does not
include the cost of providing non -shoreline improvements, due to
the difficulty of estimating land costs for picnic areas, play-
grounds, and jogging/biking trails. The construction of these
types of improvements is an important part of this plan, however,
and the town should make annual budget allowances for their
provision.
A
26

1
IIV. SHORELINE ACCESS AND RECREATION POLICIES
The establishment and maintenance of beach and estuarine access and
recreation areas by the town will be expensive. Cooperative ventures
' involving state, local, and federal governments and private funding
sources must be pursued. To support this multiple funding approach,
the following policy statements will be pursued:
SHORELINE ACCESS POLICIES
IA. The town places a very high priority on the provision of public
access to and public use of the ocean and estuarine shorelines.
B.
The Town of Nags Head recognizes that shoreline access facilities
will not be revenue -producing. Development should be undertaken
with the clear understanding that the facilities will be a con-
tinuing expense which benefit commercial interests, residents,
'
and visitors to the town.
C.
The town will seek donations of land and grant funds in order to
'
obtain additional shoreline sites. The town will pursue all
opportunities to obtain additional shoreline areas when such
acquisition is consistent with other policies included in this
plan.
D.
Land use regulations should be expanded to support reservation/
dedication of shoreline access areas.
E.
The Town of Nags Head will consider establishing a capital
reserve fund for the express purpose of "saving" funds for the
'
purchase and improvement of shoreline access areas.
F.
The town will reemphasize goals related to shoreline development
'
in its 1990 land use plan.
G.
All available state and federal sources of funding for shoreline
access/development will be pursued as funds become available.
These sources are summarized in Appendix IV.
H.
The town will review its Subdivision Ordinance to consider the
addition of requirements to establish/reserve shoreline access
'
areas.
I.
All shoreline access and recreational facilities will, to the
extent possible, be made accessible to the handicapped.
J.
The town will establish use standards at town -maintained estu-
arine locations, in an attempt to reduce conflicting recreational
activities, minimize hazards, and provide optimum use of avail-
able space for estuarine use/access.
27

K. It is town policy to provide adequate recreational opportunities,
particularly space for beach use and parking near the sound and
ocean beaches.
L. The town supports efforts to enhance and facilitate pedestrian
travel to existing and future beach and sound access points.
M. The town may consider utilizing facility fees to generate revenue
to finance recreation improvements.
OPEN SPACE POLICIES
A. The town believes that the existence of open space contributes to
the feeling of spaciousness and the integrity of the visual
environment, and it is the town's policy to investigate ways of
acquiring and maintaining perpetual open space.
B. The town will encourage, through its development review
procedures, buildings and landscape designs which protect the
existing visual integrity of the community.
C. It is the policy of Nags Head to continue improving the appear-
ance of the town through sign, lighting, and noise controls.
D. It is _town policy to protect the wooded, veqetated nature of Nags
Head Woods. The town adopts a policy of minimizing land
disturbing activity in the Woods.
E. The unique features of the Woods call for an environmentally -
sensitive set of land use regulations that differ from standard
regulations used elsewhere in the town.
F. It is town policy that there shall be no commercial cutting of
timber within the town.
G. It is town policy that privately -owned portions of Nags Head
Woods be developed at the lowest possible residential density.
H. The town intends for the municipally -owned property to be
principally used for passive recreational uses. Any other uses
of the town -owned land, such as for town buildings, will include
the highest practical levels of environmental sensitivity.
NON -SHORELINE RECREATION POLICIES
A. The town recognizes that the need for some non -shoreline
community recreational facilities such as jogging/walking trails,
bike paths, a town park, playgrounds, ballfields, and tennis
courts, will increase with growth, and will plan for these
improvements accordingly.
28

B. It is town policy to provide passive recreational use of the
P Y P
town -owned property of Nags Head Woods.
C. The town should consider the provision of recreational amenities
in future development projects.
D. The town favors better identification of the formal entrance to
Jockey's Ridge State Park.
E. The town will support Department of Transportation efforts to
designate and establish bike routes.
■ The policies outlined above are based on the review of recreation -
related policies outlined in the town's 1985 land use plan update,
the responses to the town's 1984 and 1989 recreation and shoreline
access citizen surveys, state recreation/shoreline access guidelines,
and analysis of the town's recreation/shoreline access needs included
' herein.
1
29

m m m m= m m m m m m r m w= M .M m m

(1) A[BATRO63 (Neihood)
Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
S aces _ Pavement Light Can Boardwalk Sandpath Veh icl e
8 Non -permeable asphalt x
io]Kw-.Nvp
VMHA DARE TRAIL
,,u., E B
� 8

(2) ABALGN3 (Neighboehood)
Parking
Spaces
21
Type
Pavement
Non -permeable asphalt
COTTAGE
D
EXPANSION COTTAGE
Trash Dune Crossover
Light Can Boardwalk Sa .`th Vets icl e
x x x x
COTTAGE
VIRGIMA DARE TRAIL
O
NOM :
. No apparent potential fof expansicm except west side of Dare Trail.

(3) ACM33AL (Local )
Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Li t Can Boardwalk Sanduath vehicle
0 Non-pemmable x
Used for
motel parking
VIK�9it'QA uAttt � KAA.
MOTEL COTTAGES
Special feature: Pine buffer on north side.

(4) BAMC (Local)
Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boardwalk �
0 None x
COMMERCIAL
a7
BEACON
SPORTS
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
• No apparent potential for expansion.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(5) BARM (Neighborbood)
Parking Type Trash . Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boardwalk,E2nkmth Veh is e
17 Non -permeable Asphalt x x x x
COnAGE I I COTTAG
COTTAGES
COTTAGES
r
5
e
NOM :
Heavy concentration of single fanily cottages in the inmediate area.

Parking Type Trash
Spaces Pavement Light Can
17 Penwable x x
COTTAGE
Dune Crossover
Boardwalk Vehicle
x x
Vacant
,
pass6k
e:cpanslon
VIRGiMA DARE TRAIL
Possible expansion using R-0-44
VACANT VACANT '
r
r
NOT TO SCALE
NDMS:
• Special features: Safe pedestrian access on west side of Dare Highway;
pine buffer on each side.

Type
Pavement
Combination permable
parking and non -permeable
driveway
Trash Dune Crossover
Li t Can Boardwalk Sam Veh ul e
x x x x
Handicap
Restrocros Showers Ramp
x x x
(7) BCtM= (Regional)
Parking
Spaces
71
ri
VIRGM DARE TRAIL
NOT TO SCAM
NOTES:
' Features: Pine buffer on north side.
No apparent potential for expansion.

(8) BIT1Em (Neighborhood)
Parking
Spaces
16
+10
Type
Pavement
Permeable
Non -permeable
Trash Dune Crossover
Light Can Boardwalk Sandpath, Vehicle
x x x
COTTAGE
VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL
OVERFLOW
PARMG
NOT TO SCALE
Existing overflew parking west of Dare Highway has deteriorating pavement.
Special feature: Pine buffer on north side.

1
1
1
1
1
1
Parking 'Ripe Trash Dime Crossover
Spaces Pavenent Li t Can Boardwalk Sandoath Vehicle
11 Non-peaneable x x x x
COTTAGE
COTTAGE
COTTAGES
.1 ,. -"-z
NC2'ES :
. No apparent potential for expansion.
S
COTTAGE
VIRGfMA DARE TML
COTTAGE3

Parking
Spaces
16
:1OT.• • •0.
Type
Pavement
Peaceable
Trash Dune Crossover
Light Can Boa Veh is e
x x x
VIRGHA DARE TRAL
Special features: Pine buffer on north, growing poorly; only about half are
sur•,7 iv ing .

(11) CURLEN (Local)
Parking 'type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Vehicle
0 None x
VACANT
MOBILE HOME
PARK
VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL
• • . 3

Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavec�nt Light Can Sa V u e
5 Non -permeable asphalt
(poor condition;
breaking up)
COTTAGE I I CAT7AGE
VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
• No apparent potential for expansion.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(13) QO[M (Neig:borbood)
Parking Type Trash Dime Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boardwalk Sandpath Vehicle
20 Permeable x x x x x
I —Cor
NOTES:
° No apparent potential for expansion to west of Dare Trail.
CM

(14) SKUL (Local)
Parking Type
Spaces Pavement
0 Concrete pedestrian
walkway (poor condition,
breaking up)
COTTAGE
COTTAGES coTTAGE
Trash Dime Crossover
Light Can Boardwalk Sandpath yehxc e
• x x
COTTAGE
S. VIRGM DARE TRAIL
eon�t eotT�
Parking
NOT TO SOLE

M► WIWGN
H.LVdGWS NVWlS3Q3d
1.M OVn I I IWOVn
x x x x x
.2aAws=:) ai yseal
aTgeanuad t l
gvamAed saDOdS
8&�Z bUT42ed
. �ii 1r�=`- -

Parking Type 'Nash Dme Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boardwalk 2E�dth Vehicle
23 Permeable x x x
COTTAGE
TOWN -
HOUND

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(17) !MCM?AL. BUILDD G Meigbbozbood)
Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
SR-. Pavement Light Can_ Boar ZN Vehicle
28 Permeable and gravel x x x
( west of
Dare Trail)
I vnn vrri%oca

(18) SPSTEIN
MIDMY (Regiosal)
,
Parking
Type
Trash Dune Crossover -
Spaces
Pavement
Light Can Boardwalk Sandpath Vehicle
'
46
Combination permeable
x x x x
and asphalt
Restroams Showers
x x
WINDJAMMER APTS.
BATH
HOUSE
VIRGNA DARE TRAIL
OPEN SPACE BEACH
CLUB

Parking
Spaces
18
NAGS HI
Tye
Pavement
Non -permeable asphalt
and concrete
NAGS HEAD VILLAGE
Trash Dune Crossover
Light Can Boa Sa Vehic e
x x x x x
VIRGHA DARE TRAIL
COMMERCIAL
MOTELS

Parking Type • Trash Dune Crossover
Spweg Pavement Light Can Ebmwd Sarom_ VA u e
0 Non-pemmable roadway x
MOON
MOTEL
OTTAG
COMMERCIAL
VACANT

(.21) GLMDW (Neighborhood)
Parking Type
Spaces Pavement
14 Pe=eable
Trash Dune Cressover
Light Can Boardwalk Sandpath Vehicle
x x xx
VACANT ISLANDER MOTEL
WAGE
0 Special feature: Attractive buffer of pine trees along south side.

(22) GULL (Neighborhood)
Parking Type Trash
Sys_ Pavement Light Can
12 Pemwable x x
WGMA DARE TRAIL
[+.���it'����1
This area has a high concentration of motels.
Dune Crossover
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

m=== m m m m m m i w m m m= m = =
RESTAURANT I RESTAURANT I
A
O-
rr
�b
r-
rr

Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Hai _and a_
22 Permeable x x x x x
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
V
IZ'J0—1 k"41W—W0TdV5

Parking
Spaces
18
Type
Pavement
Permeable
Trash
Light Can
R X
Dime Crossover
Boardwalk Sandpath yeh is e
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
NOT TO SCALE

(26) BPCN (Neighborhood)
Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boardwalk Sandca_ Vehicle
25 Non -permeable x x x
800E MLAW
KACH CLUB
Possible expansion
3CATTERED COTTAGES
nI n nocanAl mu c'P on
Possible expansion.
NOT TO SCALE
3CATTERED COTTAGE3

. (27) . WMEN (Neighborbacd)
Parking
Spaces
21
Type
Pavement
Pemmable
COTTAGE
Possible expansion
SCATTERED
COTTAGES
Trash Dune Crossover
Li t Boardwalk
oa Sandcath Vets icl e
x x x
COTTAGE
COTTAGE
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
r • w
Possible expansion
SCATTERED
COTTAGES
NOTES:
• Possible potential for expansion to open parcels on west side of
Old Oregon Inlet Read.

Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement LL12it Can Boardwalk, Sandcath Veh is e
28 Permeable x x x x
COTTAGE
GULL
COTTAW3
.La
COTTAGE3
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
Possible expansion
. 5

(29) MA (Focal)
Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boa th Vehicle-
0 None x
COTTAGE
WWVED
WDO
COTTAGE
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
NOT TO SCALE

(30) LsABErjA (Tome)
Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boardwalk Sa V Lc e
0 Loose material a
COTTAOa
COTTA�3
OLD OREGON INLET RD,
a
J
J
UA
m
a
NOT TO SCALE

(31) IST.INGMi (Focal)
Parking 'ripe Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Li t Can Boa Sa Veh Lc e
con�►oE
o�
OLD OREGON NLET RD.
NOT TO SCALE

( 3:4 IMIM (kcal)
Parking Type
Spaces Pavement
0 None
F=-
Trash Dune Crossover
'Light Can Boa
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
x

( 33) . JAY (Local)
Parking
Spaces
0 None
Type
Pavement
COTTACEs
Trash Dune Crossover
Light Can Boa V is e
sAMPATH
1 COTTACEs
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
NOTPS :
• No apparent potential for expansion.
z

Trash Dune Crossover
Light Can Board Sa _e
(34) J= (?-ocal)
Parking Type
Spaces Pavement
0 None
COTTAGES
WROVED FOR V. COTTAGE,'
NOTES:
• No apparent potential for expansion.
COTTAGES
OLD OREGON MET RD.
M
UMVED FOR V. COTTAGES

(35 ) JAM (14=1)
Parking
Spaces
0
Type
Pavement
Non-pemneable
Trash Dune Crossover
Licjht Can Boardwalk Sandoath Vehic e
x x x x
0
O
a
m
OLD OREGON MET RD.
COTTAGES
NOI'E'S :
• No apparent potential for expansion.
• Features: Nice pines for barrier along sides; also has public prone.

( 36) JAMB (Local)
Parking
Spaces
rype
Pavement
WROv® 3U90fV1"
LOTS
Trash Dine Crossover
Light Can Boardwalk ae&mth Vehicle
OLD OREGON INLET RD,
IMPRovED 3U@CrvlS oN
LOT3
NOT TO SCALE
x

Parking Type Trash Dune Crossover
Spaces Pavement Light Can Boardwalk_ Sam Vehicle
20 Non -permeable x x x x x
OLD OREGON INLET RD.
SOUTH CREEK SUBDIVISION
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
Potential for expansion to open space on north side.
Low density cottages.

&-1. GRAY FAM SITE
Parking Type Trash Access to waterline
S ces Pavement Light Can Boairdwalk Sandigth Ve icle
None None
*This is a 50' wide grass lot r-o-w improved with sand/clay base.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
B-2. O%MW SITE
Parking
Spaces
Type
Pavement
Trash Access to waterline
Light Can Boardwalk Ejr!ftmth Veh icl e
15 Permeable x x x x
Bike Rack Benches
x x
SOUND
HESPERIDES DR,
NOT TO SCALE
NORM:
Potential for parking expansion to vacant sites across Hesperides Drive.
Sandbags and rock jetties installed.

E-3. FCIRREST STREET SITE
Parking Type
Spaces Pavement
None None
Trash
Light Can
Access to waterline
Boardwalk Sandpath Vehicle
*
*This is a 30' wide grass lot with no improvements, not even a sand path.
NOTES:
° No potential for expansion. Too small to be more than a local estuarine access
site.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
(PE-4) JOCKEr S RIDGB SITS
A. Existing
Parking Type
Spaces Pavement
None None
B. Proposed
Trash
Light Can
None None
SOUND
NOT TO SCALE
Parking Type Trash
Spaces Pavement light, Can
26 * Non -permeable asphalt x
*Designed to ac=mx)date existing demand.
Fran sand road to waterline
Boardwalk _ Ve icle
Four
JOCKEY'S RIDGE
STATE PARK
Dune Crossover
9Mwalk Sandpath Ve icle
x x

0
APPENDIX IIA
QUESTIONNAIRE

11
MDOM)WRIM
QUESTIONNAIRE
TOWN OF NAGS HEAD 1989 PUBLIC OCEAN AND SOUND ACCESS
AND RECREATION NEEDS
The Town of Nags Head is currently undertaking a study to determine the need for
public access areas to the ocean and to Roanoke Sound and for other general
recreation facilities. This study is paid for by a grant from the Division of
Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. All Nags Head taxpayers and voters are being asked for their
opinions on these needs. It is very important that you complete and return this
questionnaire. No postage is needed. Just fold it inside the attached page and
staple or tape so the Town's address block is showing and drop it in any mail
box.
1. Listed below are possible facilities and improvements the Town may provide at
public ocean access areas. Please choose the four that the Town needs most
and rank your four choices, with "1" being the most important.
Lifeguards
=Foot showers
Cold showers
_ Drinking water
' Restrooms
Other (specify):
Fishing Pier
_ Bike Racks
Picnic tables and shelters
Auto parking
Natural areas
2. Listed below are possible facilities and improvements the Town may provide at
public sound access areas. Please choose the four that the Town needs most
and rank your four choices, with "1" being the most important
Foot showers
'
= Cold showers
_ Drinking water
=Restrooms
Bike racks
Picnic tables and shelters
0
I
1
Auto parking
Fishing and crabbing pier
Boat ramps and parking
_ Moorings and docks
Other (specify):
3. Listed below are possible recreation activities the Town could provide.
Please choose the four most important activities the Town should provide if
it were to build a Town park or recreation areas and rank your four choices,
with "1" being the most important.
_ Tot lot/playground
_ Municipal pool
_ Jogging and walking trails
_ Bike trails
_ Outdoor basketball court
_ Indoor basketball court
_ Public golf course
_ Baseball field
_ Tennis courts
_ Picnic tables and shelters
Community building
Natural area
Other (specify):
4. Listed below are the possible public shore access and recreation needs the
Town may address. Please choose the four most important needs and rank your
four choices, with "1" being the most important.

Improve existing ocean access areas
_ Build more ocean access areas
Improve existing sound access areas
_ Build more sound access areas
_ Create a Town park
Other (specify):
5. For each need listed
below, circle the one answer
that best describes how
important each need is
to you.
a. Safer and improved
Very
Not
Very
pedestrian sidewalks
Important
Important
Sure
Unimportant
Unimportant
b. Preservation of
Very
Not
Very
natural areas
Important
Important
Sure
Unimportant
Unimportant
c. Protection/preser-
Very
Not
Very
vation of Nags
Important
Important
Sure
Unimportant
Unimportant
Head Woods
6. For the following statements, circle the one
answer
that best describes
your
opinion.
a) I support the use of Town
local tax dollars
to pay
for acquiring
land
i) for public ocean
Strongly
Not
Strongly
access areas
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
ii) for public sound
Strongly
Not
Strongly
access areas
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
iii) For Town Park or
Strongly
Not
Strongly
other Town
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
recreation areas
b) I would be willing to
accept a
local tax increase
to help pay
for
improvements at
i) public ocean
Strongly
Not
Strongly
access areas
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
ii) public sound
Strongly
Not
Strongly
access areas
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
iii) a Town Park or
Strongly
Not
Strongly
other Town
Agree
Agree
Sure
Disagree
Disagree
recreation areas

1
11
r-7
L
1
7. What, if any, negative concerns do you have about
a) public ocean access areas?
b) public sound access areas?
c) a Town park?
d) Other public recreation areas?
8. Which of the following best describes your residential status in Nags Head?
Please check one.
_ Year-round resident renter
_ Year-round resident property
owner
_ Non-resident property owner
_ Other (specify):
9. Where is your property located, or where do you stay or live in Nags Head?
Please check locations that apply.
_ On the causeway
South of Whalebone Junction, between the ocean and Old Oregon Inlet Rd.
(NC 1243)
South of Whalebone Junction, between Old Oregon Inlet Rd. (NC 1243) and
U.S. 12
_ Between the ocean and Virginia Dare Trail ("Beach Road"/NC 12)
Between Virginia Dare Trail ("Beach Road") and 158 By -Pass (Croatan
Highway)
_ Between roanoke Sound and 158 By -Pass (Croatan Highway)
10. Which type of property do you own in Nags Head?
_ Developed
Undeveloped
Both developed and undeveloped
None
11. Please use the blank area below for comments or suggestions you may have. We
would particularly like to know what you like best about existing public
recreation areas in Nags Head and what you like least.
The Town of Nags Head appreciates your completing and returning the
questionnaire. Please return it before April 12, 1989. Again, no postage is
necessary. Just fold, tape closed with the Town address showing, and drop in any
mail box. The Town welcomes all responses, both positive and negative. If you
have any questions, please call Bruce Bortz, Town Planner, at [phone]. A
public information meeting to discuss and explain the access/recreation needs
project will be conducted 10:00 a.m., Saturday, March 18, 1989, in the Council
Chambers, Nags Head Municipal Complex.

.1
APPENDIX IIB
TOTAL RESPONSES
(Resident and Non -Resident)
fl
F,

IINTRODUCTION TO APPENDIX IIB
EXPLANATION OF SURVEY TABULATION METHODOLOGY
A. General Methodology
1.
All completed survey forms (535) were numbered by hand.
2.
An input/tabulation database was developed with dBase III
Plus software and an IBM -AT compatible microcomputer. The
total number of database fields (53) corresponds to the
total possible responses (53) included in the questionnaire
(excluding questions 7 and 11). The total number of database
records (535) corresponds to the total number of completed
'
survey forms.
3.
An input format was developed and all survey responses were
entered, form by form, into the computer database (excluding
questions 7 and 11).
4.
A computer program was written to summarize all count and
weighted count information into a second (tabulation)
database.
5.
Summary database information was imported into a Lotus 1-2-3
spreadsheet, which permitted graphic depiction of the
count/percentage information for all questions tabulated.
Weighted count information for questions 1-6, as well as
numeric information for questions 8, 9, and 10, was also put
'
in tabular form utilizing the dBase III Plus report writer.
B. Expository Comments
1.
Stacked Bar Graphs (Questions 1 -4)
The stacked bar graphs included in Appendix II for questions
1-4 illustrate the total number of responses, further
differentiated by relative subtotals of importance ranking,
for each possible response to individual survey questions
1-4. These graphs thus depict 1) the responses most often
and least often picked to questions 1-4, and 2) the relative
numbers of importance rankings for each response, the sum of
which equals the total of the times that response was
selected by residents.
2.
Pie Graphs (Questions 5 and 6)
The pie graphs for questions 5 and 6 show the relative impor-
tance rankings as a percentage of the total 535 responses to
questions 5(a) and (b); question 6(a) i, ii, iii; and
question 6(b) i, ii, iii.

3. Weighted Rankings (Questions 1 - 6)
It is important to note that, in surveys requesting a pref-
erential response by numeric ranking, the response most often
chosen is not necessarily the most significant, or most
preferred, response. For example, if 530 people ranked
restrooms "1", or first, and five did not choose restrooms at
all, the response count for "restrooms" would be 530
responses on the stacked bar graph. If 535 people (all)
ranked auto parking "4", the response count for "auto
parking" would be 535, or higher than "restrooms" on the
stacked bar chart. However, which is the more significant
improvement desired? Obviously, in this case, "restrooms" is
considered more significant than auto parking. To provide an
objective response rating system, a weighted count was
utilized to tabulate and rank the responses to questions 1-4,
and to judge the relative importance of 5(a) and (b); 6(a) i,
ii, iii; and 6(b) i, ii, iii. Numeric values were assigned
to responses (for questions 1-4, "l-4" for responses 1-4, 118"
for marked with no ranking, and "9" for not marked; for
questions 5 and 6, "1-5" from "very important" to "very
unimportant" or "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree", and
"9" for not marked.) Once data entry was completed, the
numeric values for each response were summed. The possible
range of sums for a response is 535 x 1 = 535 - (all 'Ills") -
to 535 x 9 = 4,815 - (all "91s"). The response with the
lowest sum is judged to be the most significant response
(most desired improvement) for questions 1-6. The weighted
count information is summarized in tabular form on the page
behind the graphic depiction of each survey question tabula-
tion. The first response listed is the most important
improvement desired.
Questions 8, 9, 10 (informational questions)
1. The responses to questions 8, 9, and 10 are shown graphically
and in tabular form. These questions do not require prefer-
ential response, and no "weighted" tabulation was performed.

nL��'I'I0�1 1
'
Naas
Head
Questionnaire
Neede-d
OCEAN
Access
Improvements
Vote Count
by
Rank
T.
Dale
Holland,
Consulting
Planners
'
Data
MARKED
Field
Count
....
NOT
NOT
Name
Weight
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
RANKED
MARKED
01_REST
2077
109
149
107
31
3
1
0
11
124
01=AUTO
26.12
98
90
73
64
0
0
0
11
199
01
LIFE
2765
132
59
61
40
J.
1
0
e
233
'
01_NTRL
3318
90
35
40
57
0
0
0
7
306
01_DRNK
3628
it
52
70
60
1
1
0
8
33-2
01_PCNC
4024
7
24
43y
60
1
0
0
5
395
'
01_BIKE
4.115
9
17
23
34
0
0
0
1
451
01_COLD
4322
6
9
23
48
0
1
0
1
447
01_FISH
4.3.36
16
25
12
19
1
1
0
2
459
01_FOOT
4483
2
10
14
30
2
1
0
1
475
,
01_OTHR
4577
18
4
3
7
3
0
0
1
499
*
Total
498
474
469
450
12
6
0
56
3920

QUESTION 1
Nags Head Questionnaire
Needed OCEAN Access Improvements
Responses to 'OTHER'
T.
Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Form
How ranked and
Number
Content
i
1
5
TRASH CANS
13
4
TRASH LAWS ENFORCED
18
5
TRASH RECEPTICLES
30
5
PAY PHONES EVERY HALF MILE
31
3
BEACH CLEAN-UP, SANITATION
6:3
1
USE TAXES FOR BEACH PRESERVATION
70
4
BIKE LANES
88
2
PATH TO OCEAN
96
i
201
2
SIDE WALKS
213
4
FINISH ACCESS IN SOUTH NAGS HEAD
221
231
1
1
BEACH TRASH REMOVAL
SIDEWALKS PATHS
244
2
TRASH CANS
246
1
TRASH CANS
'
248
4
TRASH CANS
250
4
LITTERING FINE ENFORCEMENT
264
3
CRABING PIER
306
8
DID NOT FOLLOW DIRECTIONS
317
1
RIGHT OF WAY TO BEACH FORM SOUNDSIDE
319
4
TRASH CANS
3.17
358
1
1
TRASH CANS
SUPERVISION OF ALL PUBLIC AREAS
389
1
BEACH ACCESS FROM SOUND SIDE
395
1
RAMP IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRIVING PERMITS
'
417
2
TRASH CANS
434
3
TRASH CANS
43+7
1
TRASH CANS
446
4
TRASH CANS
453
1
NONE
481
1
TRASH CANS
511
524
1
1
TRASH CANS
NONE
526
1
TRASH CANS
527
1
LITTER SIGNS THAT SAY FINE $500-$1000
534
1
TRASH CANS
L

QUESTION 2
Data
Field Count
Name Weight ONE
02
REST
2344
02
AUTO
2717
02
RAMP
2998
02
FISH
3210
02
PCNC
3646
02
DRNK
3840
02
DOCK,
4124
02
BIKE
4422
02_OTHR
4590
02
COLD
4629
02
FOOT
4684
***
Total
***
Nags mead Questionnaire
Needed SOUND Access Improvements
Vote Count by Rangy:
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
TWO THREE FOUR FIVE
124
94
76
71 0
118
77
51
59 1
83
so
58
46 1
71
54
58
60 0
17
42
62
71 1
20
48
52
31 0
8
31
43
28 1
11
15
19
17 0
18
1
4
8 2
1
5
9
16 1
2
2
8
9 1
47•7,
449
440
416 8
MARKED
NOT
NOT
SIX
SEVEN
RANKED
MARKED
0
0
10
160
0
0
10
219
1
0
8
258
,
1
U
6
28•
0
0
8
334
1
0
9
'-374
1
U
5
418
0
0
1
472
0
0
2
500
1
0
2
500
1
0
1
511
6
0
64
4029
r

QUEST10N 2
r-
I
1
[1
1
Nags Head Questionnaire
Needed 'SOUND Access Improvements
Responses to 'OTHER'
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Form How ranked and
Number Content
1
5
TRASH CANS
13
2
TRASH LAWS ENFORCED
15
1
NO PREFERENCE
18
4
TRASH CANS
43
8
NATRAL AREAS
58
4
NATURAL AREAS
63
1
USE TAXES FOR BEACH PRESERVATION
79
1
NATURAL AREAS 2 WALKING TRAILS
Be
3
PATH TO WALE: TO SOUND
91
1
NATURAL AREAS
146
1
OCEAN ACESS
178
4
NATURAL AREAS
221
1
TRASH REMOVAL
244
1
TRASH CANS
246
1
TRASH CANS
250
4
LITTERING FINE ENFORCEMENT
265
1
DONT AGREE
280
1
MORE ACCESS ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS
297
1
NATURAL AREAS
306
8
DID NOT FOLLOW DIRECTIONS
319
4
TRASH CANS
342
5
HELP THE HANDICAPPED
366
3
NATURAL AREAS
370
1
NATURAL AREAS
392
1
NONE
395
3
SOUND DOES NOT NEED MORE ACCESS
434
4
TRASH CANS
437
1
TRASH CANS
446
4
TRASH CANS
469
1
NATURAL AREAS
474
1
NONE
481
1
TRASH CANS
5o9
3
NATURAL AREAS
524
1
NONE
52S
4
NATURAL AREAS

i m m i == m m ! = m= i m= m m=
F- A
CA " 0. ON ct ct " N " " n ,0
0
Ow
CAnItt-110U-0•-40r"t"-i
CJ
Z3r:
C'JCJC'JF7t F}Y ctcttttt0ui
u
dC
to
E
At -A
mnonr���ttrJtr�rJCJ
tt
w O w
Z I:
s Z
a
z
w
w
w
N
L
x
�CG'�rJ*1Ot?�•�.�.iO
ct
al
►+
c
U)
U]
C
w
110
H
ri
n� �-
s
L H
w
O •v O O N O --I 0 0 -4 0 -4 -4
-0
Cc
H
C f-
115 H
LL
C U
CC +)
O 2
r4
.-1
1• 5
4-JZD
m
is
ttl`*%N--4o`ooct001".or, 0
01
�O
C
V)
UJ H
4J O
O
tt
F-
C U
LL
W
O •.
v ix
U 1
�U
c
w
or,r;
-�
ww
m N
w
n
-0
T CC
a.J r-4
LC
ti
O •-+
S
Ot -0
> 0
F-
�T N
S
Z III
N
O
1!7C'JCJN0.0%nn0nNctC'J
-�
Ul
3
01 -0 10 -0 V) CA It C•'J C•'J - 4
n
Z
fG
A
H
+i W
w 01 0 Nvi It.01010 n ct -+'0
0
cZ
w0•tnU'ictlfiCJtiCJ
0l
:1 O
tt
O
U
M
4J
O n0`n.octownlow"Rt
r
00nm"w"".0d•10w
CP.
n0`L t�t".wol �C'•Jttct-0rN*
o
14
C•JL`dtit?r7r:}h7c! ct•ctttIttt*
H
U!
�E•
H
3
U)
• +
E
4
J U w> LL LA A J ix w LY ix -N
pt
0 N ti
JlXZ:4QJZJO0UJAS O
A Z
¢E-UF••+JOZM0E-aZF-h
LL
31 ZI (1 im1 0. ED ~I vl a_ 0I `mI HI 0I
r7 ry w� r} r� r� r�� r� r7 r•� r•� r•� r•� �•
G [3 G C•G G [J G G O O G[� Q •�

QUESTION 3
Nags Head Questionnaire
Needed RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Responses to 'OTHER'
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Form How ranked and
Number Content
13
2
POLICE SURVELLANCE 24 HOURS
57
1
NOT NEEDED
63
3
4 SAVE THE BEACH
67
8
FISHING PIER
237
4
REST ROOMS TRASH CANS
281
4
AMUSEMENT ROOM, POOL TABLES
297
4
CAMPING AREAS
306
8
DID NOT FOLLOW DIRECTIONS
325
4
NOTHING ELSE
342
5
HELP HANDICAPPED
344
1
NONE
349
1
GENERAL PURPOSE ATHLETIC FIELD
35.3
1
EMERGENCY ACCESS TO FIRST AID
395
2
PROMOTE UNDER USED FACILITIES STATE P.
437
3
IMPROVE EXISTING TENNIS COURTS
441
4
INPOOR POOL
469
3
SOCCER FIELDS
510
1
NO TOWM PARK
524
J.
NONE

QUESTION 4
Data
Field Count
Name Weight ONE
04
IOCN
2027
04
BOCN
2663
04
ISND
2665
04
HSND
2857
04
PARK
2 973
04_OTHR
4495
***
Total
***
Nags Head Questionnaire
Needed ACCESS and RECREATION areas
Vote Count by Rank:
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
,TWO THREE FOUR FIVE
160
102
73
69
1
121
77
68
47
0
36
126
88
88
1
60
100
64
76
3
92
40
96
46
4
25
3
8
9
1
494
448
397
335
10
MARKED
NOT
NOT
SIX
SEVEN
RANKED
MARKED
i
0
0
7
lE3
0
0
2
220
0
0
8
188
0
0
2
230
0
0
0
0
4
2
253
487
0
0
25
1501

QUF.STiON 4
Nags Head CUestionnair e
Needed ACCESS and RECREATION areas
Responses to 'OTHER'
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Form
How ranked and
Number
Content
1•71
1
UTITIZE NATIONAL SEASHORE PARKS NEED
22
3
BOAT RAMPS ON SOUND
32
i
CONSIDER REPLENISHING DUNES
33
4
SOFT DRINK SNACK PAR
35
1
RENOURISH BEACH
60
1
BEACH RENUORISHMENT
63
3
4 SAVE THE BEACH
68
4
PATH OCEAN ACCESS FOR WEST SIDE OWNERS
91
1
KEEP THINGS NATURAL
97
1
CAR AND BIKE PARKING AND RESTROOMS
137
1
NONE OF THE ABOVE. TAXES ARE TO HIGH
146
149
4
3
MORE STOP LIGHTS
TOWN PLAYGROUNDS
174
4
PROVIDE RULES AT ACCESS AREA
18i
1
WALKING, BIKE, PATHS
185
1
CAR PARKING AREAS
201
1
BIKE PATHS AND SIDEWALKS
204
1
SOUNDSIDE ACCESS
208
1
MORE ACCESS TO MAIN ISLAND
223
1
CLOSE ALL ACCESS AREAS!
247
1
NO MORE OCEAN ACCESS
252
258
1
4
DO NOT CREATE A TOWN PARK NO NO NO
RENOURISHMENT
275
1
PAVE ALL STREETS
281
3
INDOOR FACILITY
297
1
NATURAL AREAS
305
3
BETTER LIGHTED RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Zo6
8
DID NOT FOLLOW DIRECTIONS
342
5
HELP HANDICAPPED
364
1
PRESEVE NATURAL AREAS
366
4
NATURAL AREAS
367
2
BIKE TRAILS
388
3
STATE PARKS RECCEATION AREA
395
1
PROTECT NAGS HEAD WOODS
420
8
426
3
USE MONEY TO IMPROVE EXISTING ACCESS
432
1
GET A YMCA TO COME HERE
441
4
INDOOR POOL
474
476
1
4
NONE
TENNIS COURTS
481
2
BETTER RESIDENTAL ROADS
483
1
NONE
508
2
GET THE CROOKED ATTORNEY'S OUT OF N.H.
519
4
TENNIS COURTS
524
1
FIGHT BEACH EROSION
526
1
BUILD BOAT RAMP
527
1
LITTER SIGNS
532
3
BIKE PATHS

QUESTION 3
Naga Head Questionnaire
Moba+bf d NtA/1t AVA
U CKDOR
NOT SU
IlM(21.6%:
Naga Head Gueatiannaim
LIDTIN�OKTANI' d tyros Imo vows
NOT STM (9
B201 M (23.0%)
T MIPORTANT (13. 8'
NOT SM (14.4%j
Nags Head Questiannaim
wp@*� d Fags" gin A I
MPOMM (1%)
DIPOYMM (74.7%)
IMPOFWM (2.3%)
E RY alPOWANT (63.7%)
IMPORMW (34.1%)
3l4Pb tMt 729. 9%)

QUESTION 5
Nags Head Questionnaire
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF NEEDS
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Data
Field
VERY
Name
Weight
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT
05_NTRL
903
381
110
5
NAGS
1004
326
118
5
WALK
1419
173
152
**
Total
***
3,326
880
380
r
r
r�
NOT UN- VERY UN- NOT
SURE IMPORTANT IMPORTANT MARKED
7
4
8
25
49
7
12
23
73
70
40
27
129
81
60
75

QUESTION 6A
iiM: o k ei a !< H�al6
DISAGREE (8.1%)
NOT SURE (16.0%)
y4;l•..� It _
DISAGREE (11.1%)
NOT SURE (12.8%)
a "t! It '- !!'1.'11
DISAGREE (10.4%)
NOT SURE (16.1%)
Naga Head Questionnaire
us Tams to TOMr FM
AGREE (42.8%)
Naga Head Questionnaire
uo Tams r /late CWMr AMM
ZY AGREE (24.3%)
EW='AGREE (23.6%)
AGREE (40.3%)
Nags Head Queatiomairm
Use rams w mm 3mm AeMS
24GLY AGREE (21.1%)
AGREE (42.1%)

SiL .STiO:v 6 A
Nags Head Questionnaire
Support Tax Dollars
FOR ACCUIRING LAND FOR..
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Data
Field
VERY
Name
Weight
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT
06_APRK
1441
123
217
016_AOCN
1517
119
204
b_ASND
1601
104
207
***
Total
***
4559
7}46
628
NOT UN- VERY UN- NOT
SURE IMPORTANT IMPORTANT MARKED
81
41
45
28
65
56
62
29
79
51
51
43
225
148
158
100

QUESTION 6B
Naga Head Cueatiannaire
Faro.. Tom to TM ►XK
STIUNGLY DISAGREE (16
DISAGREE (16.1%)
NDT SURE (20.3%)
SIRON= DISA M (1!
DISAGREE (18.71
STRONGLY DISAGREE (19.8'
DISAGREE (18.2'
Naga Head Quesbannairs
Mwa Tm tar WaJo omw Me
NOT SURE (15.7%)
Naga Head QuenHo mire
(tire- Taw fa P{RM == N ZM
N= AGREE (14.9%)
ZME (32.2%)
SLY AGREE (11.5%)
AGREE . (34.8%)
AGREE (10.6%)
GM (33.7%)
NOT SURE (17.8%)

QUESTION 6B
Nags bend
Q;uestiannaire
Support
Tax Increase
FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT..
'
T.
Dale Holland,
Consulting Planners
Data
Field
VERY
NOT
UN-
VERY UN-
NOT
Name
Weight
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT
SURE IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT
MARKED
i
06_BPRF-.;
1766
74
160
101
80
82
37
6_BOCN
1831
57
173
78
93
96
38
6
BSND
1926
51
163
86
88
96
51
* Total
***
5523
182
496
265
261
274
126
1

QUESTIONS 9, 9 and 10
Nags Head Questionnaire
OSIER (1.0%)lll�
NON-1ESIDEUr OWNER (69
Nags Head Questionnaire
PII?811Y Wag"..
SND :::,US158 (39.3%)
V.DARE TRAIL7M158 (18.6%)
Nags Head Questionnaire
TMOESOMY on+®
m
BOTH (14.
UNDEVE LPED (4.4%)
(3.0%)
'OWNER (26.6%)
TfIE CAUSEWAY (0.8%)
OCEAN70R= n= FOAD (20.6%)
Il= RD �US12 (7.1%)
DAM TRAIL (13.5%)
PED (78.9%)

QUESTION 8
Data
Field
Name Weight
08_STAT 1682
** Total ***
1682
Nags Head Gluestionnair-e
RESIDENTIAL STATUS
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
YEAR-ROUND YEAR-ROUND NON-
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT NOT
RENTER OWNER OWNER OTHER MARKED
15 132 •344 5 39
15 132 344 5 39

QliESTION 8
Nags Head Questionnaire
RESIDENTIAL STATUS
Responses to 'OTHER'
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Form How ranked and
Number Content
9
NON—RESIDENT,PROPERTY FOR PERSONAL USE
13
6
MONTH — PROPERTY OWNER
28
PLANS OF BUILDING HOME, RENTER
29
7
MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR
30
SPENDS TIME 12 MONTHS, NOT A RESIDENT
54
4
SUMMER RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER
79
4
SUMMER RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER
era
4
OWNER RESIDENT SPRING THROUGH FALL
84
4
OWNER RESIDE FOUR MONTHS OF YEAR
88
4
SUMMER AND HOLIDAY RESIDENT, OWNER
89
4
PART TIME RESIDENT, PROPERTY OWNER
93
4
VISIT NOW, RETIRE ON PEACH IN 5 YEARS
96
4
PART TIME RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER
119
4
PART TIME RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER
136
4
DURING SUMMER SEASON PROPERTY OWNER
138
4
RESIDENT OWNER
139
4
PART TIME OWNER
181
4
PROPERTY OWNER
183
4
193
4
PART TIME RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER
20O
4
OWNER
201
4
PROPERTY OWNER
222
4
PROPERTY OWNER
228
4
PROPERTY OWNER
238
4
PROPERTY OWNER
250
4
PORPERTY OWNER
263
4
PROPERTY OWNER 40% TIME SPENT THERE
264
4
PROPERTY OWNER
274
4
284
4
PART TIME RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER
288
4
TRAILER OWNER IN TRAILER PARK
299
4
TWICE A MONTH YEAR ROUND RESIDENT
330
4
RESIDENT THREE MONTHS OF YEAR
472
4
SHOP OWNER RESIDE IN MANTIO
496
4
RESIDENT MANGER MOTEL YEAR ROUND
498
4
PART TIME RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER

Naas Head
Que=tionnair e
PROPERTY LOCATION
T. Dale
Holland,
Consulting Planners
ON
BETWEEN
BETWEEN
BETWEEN BETWEEN
BETWEEN
Data
THE
OCEAN &
OREGON
OCEAN & V DARE
ROANOKE
Field
CAUSE-
OREGON
INLT RD
V DARE TRAIL R<
SOUND &
NOT
Name
WAY
INLT RD
& US12
TRAIL BY-PASS
BY-PASS
MARKED
09_LCTN
4
107
37
70 10:3
199
15
** Total
***
4
107
37
70 103
199
15

'ST10N 10
Nags Head OLLestionnaire
TYPE OF PROPERTY OWNED
T. Dale Holland, Consulting Planners
Data
Field NOT
Name DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED BOTH NONE MARKED
RIO TYPE 416 23 76 12 8
Total ***
416 23 76 12 8

1
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 7
255 Total Responses
# of
Responses
Litter
57
Security/policing
30
People/congestion
21
Parking shortage, sound and ocean
19
Traffic
13
Disrupt neighborhoods
12
Access sites increase taxes
12
Not enough sites
11
Not enough sound access sites
9
Maintenance
9
Too many access sites
8
Loitering
7
Cost
6
Dune damage
6
No vehicular access
5
Vandalism
5
Need restrooms
5
Should charge fees for access sites
4
Erosion of ocean access
Advertise sites
4
4
Trespassing on private property
4
Enough ocean access
3
r'
Handicapped access to beach
1
I
I

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11
138 Total Responses
# of
Responses
Litter
19
Jogging/bike trails
12
Need more restrooms
11
More parking
10
More access
7
No vehicles on beach
6
Maintain natural beauty
5
Private property trespassing
5
More lifeguards (better)
5
Preserve Nags Head Woods
5
Retain family environment
4
Nags Head too developed
4
Need town park
4
Policing
4
Leash law
4
More sound access
4
Preservation of Jockey's Ridge
3
Advertise sites
3
Sound boat ramp
2
Basketball/tennis
2
Don't increase taxes
2
Need access in south Nags Head
2
Maintenance
2
Congestion
2
Cottage/building deterioration
2
Affordable golf course
1
Improve existing access
1
Not enough recreation areas
1
Boats using Danube site
1
Traffic
1
Improve traffic controls
1
User fees
1
Architectural control
1
Public phones
1

I
APPENDIX III
SHORELINE ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I
I
i
0

IFiscal Year 1989-1990
The FY1989-1990 activities will focus on: improvements to existing
ocean access sites, increasing parking for ocean access, improving
pedestrian access to ocean sites, and development of one additional
_ sound side access site. The following priorities are recommended:
Priority 1: Jockey's Ridge Estuarine Access
The Jockey's Ridge site, which is located off Sound Side Road, has
been used for a number of years for access to Jockey's Ridge and
Roanoke Sound. The site was identified in the Jockey's Ridge Master
Plan as a location for overflow parking. Currently the town main-
tains a sand/clay access road from Sound Side Road to the site.
The town should negotiate a joint management agreement with the North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. In order to minimize the
impact on adjacent residential properties, parking spaces should be
limited to a maximum of 26 spaces to serve the current demand. The
site should -be improved with a paved parking lot and access road.
Two trash receptacles with stands would be furnished and appropriate
site landscaping provided. The total cost for improvements is
estimated to be $57,625.
Priority 2: East Hollowell Street Ocean Access
Development of this site will involve removing the existing pavement,
repaving a portion of the street, and adding cold water showers.
Paving will extend approximately 170 feet to the locations of the two
houses which have access to Hollowell Street. Fifteen parking spaces
will be provided. This site is designed to serve North Ridge and the
proposed Stronach Acres subdivision. The total estimated cost is
$29,825.
Priority 3: Dowitcher Street Ocean Access
This project will involve closing the street and
constructing a
20-car parking
lot. The parking lot will extend
west of South
Virginia Dare
Trail for approximately 205 feet.
The project includes
approximately
150 feet of 4-foot wide sidewalk running north along
South Virginia
Dare Trail to Small Street. Development of the side-
walk will require
NCDOT approval. Also included
in the project is
the culverting
of the existing drainage ditch in
Dowitcher Street.
Total estimate
of cost is $23,825.

Priority_4: Facility Improvements at Existing Ocean Access Sites
Based on empirical neighborhood observations of the town's staff, the
following 13 ocean access sites experience heavier usage than the
remaining neighborhood sites: East Albatross, East Barnes, East
Bladen, East Bainbridge, East Enterprise, East Epstein North, East
Forrest, East Gulfstream, East Governor, Blackman, Conch, Glidden,
and Gull. Presently the only ocean access showers are located at two
regional access sites. In order to better serve the users of the
access sites, showers should be installed at neighborhood/local
sites. For FY89-90, it is proposed that showers be installed at the
following nine sites: East Albatross, East Barnes, East Bladen, East
Bainbridge, East Enterprise, East Epstein North, East Forrest, East
Gulfstream, and East Governor. The estimated cost per site will be
$625.
Priority 5: Shoreline Pedestrian Access Improvements
The development and implementation of a pedestrian access plan will
aid in providing safer access to both ocean and estuarine shoreline
areas. A pedestrian system should utilize existing rights -of -way.
The system should link major residential areas to both sound and
ocean shoreline. As peak population increases, and parking shortages
become more critical, the importance of a safe pedestrian access
system will increase.
A complete list of shoreline pedestrian access improvements that are
currently included in the town's Capital Improvements Plan is
included as Appendix V.
As a minimum, the following shoreline pedestrian access improvements
should be installed in FY89-90. While the town has not adopted
construction specifications, general cost estimates were provided by
the Town of Nags Head 1989 Capital Improvements Plan, and $23,500 was
allocated for sidewalk improvements in the town's FY89-90 budget:
Barnes Street: Pedestrian route running east/west beginning
from corner of Meekins Drive, east on Barnes to crosswalk over
U.S. 158, following along Barnes Street and being joined by
proposed north/south pedestrian routes along the way to an
existing ocean beach access, benefitting Vista Colony, Vista
Colony West, and Vista Colony Place. Total cost is estimated at
$16,000.
Bonnett Street and Bittern Street: Pedestrian route
east/west asphalt road extension connecting Memorial Avenue to
existing public beach access. Some dune stabilization need at
Bittern Street dune crossover site; benefitting Vista Colony,
George T. Stronach Tract, Nags Head Shores, Edwards Subdivision,
and North Ridge. Total cost is estimated at $7,500.

IThe following provides a total project FY89-90 year cost summary:
Jockey's Ridge Estuarine Access
$ 57,625
East Hollowell Street
29,825
Dowitcher Street
23,825
Cold water showers at 9 ocean sites
5,625
Pedestrian access
23,500
Total
$140,400
One additional estuarine access site may be made
available through
donation. The Ammons Corporation has proposed to
donate a small
estuarine access site at the south end of Roanoke
may be developed as a local site with minimum improvements
Court. The site
and no
parking facilities. The site will provide additional
access for
residents of the Old Nags Head Cove subdivision.
1
I

Five Year Plan: Fiscal Years 190/191 to 194/195
The Nags Head five-year access and recreation plan will focus on the
following:
-- Securing additional sound side access sites, including a regional
sound side site.
-- Securing an additional ocean side regional access site.
-- Increasing ocean side parking.
-- Protecting Nags Head Woods and securing in -town access.
-- Improving facilities at the ocean side access sites.
-- Securing additional neighborhood/local ocean side access sites.
-- Acquiring property for, and making improvements to non -shoreline
recreational facilities such as bike paths, jogging/walking
trails, picnic shelters, and playgrounds.
There are several obstacles which will complicate implementation of
the five-year access and recreation plan. The following provides a
summary of these obstacles:
-- Presence of historic area along oceanfront areas from Jockey's
Ridge south to Enterprise.
-- Private streets in the southern section of Nags Head.
-- Lack of undeveloped property and right-of-way along sound side
shoreline.
-- Wetland areas along sound side shoreline.
-- Increasing cost of/scarcity of land for ocean access sites.
-- Shallow water in most sound shoreline areas.
These obstacles will make it impractical for the Town of Nags Head to
meet all recommended shoreline access standards. The boat access
standards may not be applied to Nags Head because of water depth and
lack of sufficient land area.
The provision of parking requires specific attention as an element of
both 5-year and long range plans. In FY89/90, 61 new parking spaces
(35 ocean, 26 estuarine) have been recommended, bringing the town's
total inventory of shoreline access parking spaces by June, 1990, to
573. The town's projected year 2000 need is 1,883 spaces (1,707
ocean, 176 estuarine). In order to meet that demand, an annual
increase of approximately 131 parking spaces will be required over

�
' the ten-year period from June, 1990, through June, 2000 (13.5 spaces
per year at estuarine sites; 117.5 spaces per year at ocean sites).
These spaces may be provided at new and existing access sites. The
town is investigating the possibility of a facility fee ordinance to
help support the cost of constructing and new parking lots.
The following provides a summary of the 5-year project priorities by
year. Priorities for project construction will be established on an
annual basis. Except for proposed improvements in Nags Head Woods in
FY90-91, site acquisition for, and improvements to non -shoreline
activities such as picnic areas, playgrounds, and jogging trails/bike
paths are not budgeted below, due to the uncertain cost of land
acquisition. However, the town should make every effort to make
additional non -shoreline recreation improvements during the five-year
plan period.
FY1990-1991
Project 1: Gray Eagle Street Estuarine,Access
This project will involve utilization of an unimproved local
estuarine access site to provide an additional improved sound
side access site for auto parking. The project will require
construction of a 20-car parking lot, crosswalk on U.S. 158, and
a wooden walkway. The total estimated cost will be $29,825,
excluding land cost.
Project 2: Nags Head Woods
Both the 1984 and 1989 survey recreation/access questions indi-
cated interest in: 1 ) preserving Nags Head Woods; 2) providing a
town park, 3) providing walking/jogging trails, and 4) providing
general play areas. To respond to those needs, the town has
placed improvements to Nags Head Woods as the FY90/91 second
priority. In addition, improvements at Nags Head Woods would
provide in -town access.
The project will require development of a 16-car parking lot,
1,800 linear feet of trails, picnic tables, and playground equip-
ment. The project will provide access to approximately 9,300
linear feet of trails located on town property in Nags Head
Woods. The trails are maintained by the North Carolina Nature
Conservancy. Total cost is estimated to be $30,600.
Project 3: Additional Beach Access
An additional
ocean shoreline beach access will be
acquired and
developed as a
neighborhood site with parking. At
least 20, and
preferably 40,
parking spaces will be provided. The
site could
be located at the Forbes Street right-of-way. Some
tion may be required. Total cost, excluding land,
land acquisi-
is estimated
to be $52,000.
l_�

Project 4: Facility Improvements to Existing_Ocean Access Sites
The town will continue its emphasis on improving facilities of
existing access sites. Foot showers will be installed at the
following nine sites: Blackman Street, Conch Street, Glidden
Street, Gull Street, Bittern Street, Small Street, Municipal
Building site, Huron Street, and Holden Street. The total cost
will be $5,625, or $625 per site. (This utilizes the same cost
stated in FY89-90 for foot showers, with a 10% inflation increase
factor.)
Project 5: Pedestrian Access Improvements
The town will continue implementation of its pedestrian access
improvements. Priorities will be set on an annual basis. The
expenditure for FY90/91 will be $29,000, which will provide for
approximately 2,900 linear feet of pedestrian access route.
The total cost of implementing the FY90/91 shoreline access improve-
ments will be $147,050. Some of this cost may be shared by the
state. The total addition to the parking space inventory will be 76
spaces. The town will not meet the annual goal of 127 parking
spaces.
FY1991-1992
Project 1: Estuarine Access Site Regional Facility
The citizen attitude survey and accepted planning standards
indicate the need for a regional sound shoreline access facility.
Only one potential site exists which has the potential to be
properly developed as a regional estuarine access facility. The
Rigger property, located on the south side of the Causeway,
Virginia Dare Trail, includes approximately 1.35 acres. The site
is accessible to some of the deepest water along the sound shore-
line. Because of the limited size of the site, existence of
wetland areas, and narrow configuration, development of the site
as a regional facility will demand innovative design work.
Development of the site is estimated at $86,000, including 40
parking spaces.
Project 2: Ocean Access Parking
The second priority for FY91/92 will be an increase in ocean
access parking. Additional ocean access parking should be
divided at four sites with the provision for 35 parking spaces
each. Emphasis will be placed on providing parking at unimproved
sites. Those include Jacob Street, June Street, Jay Street,
Curlew Street, Indigo Street, Islington Street, Isabella Street,
Ida Street, and Grouse Street. The general improvements cost per

parking lot will be $50,000 (excluding land acquisition cost).
Priority for locations will be given to those sites being most
heavily utilized and having access to vacant land. The parking
lots may be located west of Virginia Dare Trail or Old Oregon
Inlet Road because of the high cost of ocean front property.
Parking may need to be added in south Nags Head in later years,
if demand "spills over" from the northern sections of town.
Project 3: Facility Improvements to Existing,Ocean Access Sites
The town will continue its emphasis on improving facilities at .
existing access sites. Cold water showers will be installed at
the following sites: Junco Street, James Street, Hargrove
Street, Grouse Street, Baltic Street, Admiral Street, and Abalone
Street. The total cost will be $4,816, or $688 per site. (This
utilizes the same cost stated in FY90/91 for cold water showers
with a 10% inflation increase factor.)
Project 4: Pedestrian Access Improvements
The town will continue implementation of its pedestrian access
improvements. Priorities will be set on an annual basis. The
expenditures for FY91/92 will be $24,000, which will provide for
approximately 2,400 linear feet of pedestrian access route.
The total cost of implementing the FY91/92 shoreline access improve-
ments will be $316,242. Some of this cost may be shared by the
state.
FY1992-1993
Project 1: Additional Ocean Access Site
The addition of an ocean access site will be scheduled for
FY92/93. The site will be developed as a neighborhood facility
with 40 parking spaces provided. The total cost, excluding land,
is estimated to be $55,770.
Project 2: Ocean Access Parking
The second priority for FY92/93 will be the provision of ocean
access parking. A total of 80 parking spaces will be divided
among four existing ocean access sites to provide 20 spaces per
site. Emphasis will be placed on providing parking at the
unimproved sites which were not provided parking in FY91/92. The
cost per lot will be approximately $25,000 (excludes land cost).
Priority consideration will be given to those sites being most
heavily utilized and having access to vacant land. The parking
lots may be located west of Virginia Dare Trail.

Project 3: Lifeguard Housing
The increasing shortage of summer housing for temporary help has
made it difficult for the town to hire summer lifeguards. This
project will convert part of the current fire station to summer
housing for lifeguards. This would be dormitory style housing
for which some minimal rent would be charged. Several alter-
natives to this proposal were considered, including using a
portion of the new fire station and the current Planning Annex
which will be vacant after a new town hall is built. The town
may not be able to hire sufficient lifeguards if the temporary
housing issue is not addressed.
The project is important to increasing beach security/safety and
responding to a concern which was emphasized in the citizen
attitude survey. The cost of the building improvements is
estimated to be $10,000.
Project 4: Facility,Imppovements to E fisting Ocean Access Sites
The town will continue its emphasis on improving facilities at
existing access sites. Cold water showers will be installed at
the following seven sites: Jacob Street, June Street, Jay
Street, Indigo Street, Islington Street, Isabella Street, and Ida
Street. The total cost will be $5,292, or $756 per site. (This
utilizes the same cost stated in FY91/92 for foot showers, with a
10% inflation increase factor.)
Project 5: Pedestrian Access improvements
The town will finalize implementation of its pedestrian access
improvements (see Appendix V). All sections of the access system
not previously installed will be completed during this fiscal
year. The cost of implementation will be $62,500, which will
provide for approximately 6,250 linear feet of pedestrian access
route.
Project 6: Additional Estuarine Access Site
The FY92/93 sixth priority will be the acquisition/development of
an additional estuarine access site. This project responds to
both comments received in the citizen attitude survey and
deficiencies indicated by the shoreline access standards.
The project could utilize the existing approach to the Washington
Baum Bridge and the purchase of an additional lot for parking.
The parking lot will contain approximately 15 parking spaces. A
fishing/crabbing pier will be constructed where the current
bridge is located. This project will demand close cooperation
with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The total
estimated cost is $152,500.
The total cost of implementing the FY92/93 shoreline access improve-
ments will be $386,062. Some of this cost may be shared by the state.

FY1993-1994
Project 1: Bath House and Regional Ocean Access Facility
This project will require construction of a bath house and 70-car
parking lot on the west side of Virginia Dare Trail. The project
will be essential to the town's keeping pace with the increasing
' demand for shoreline access. Gull and Gulfstream Streets should
be given strong consideration as the top priorities for upgrading
to regional facility because of: (1) their central location, (2)
good traffic access, and ( 3 ) the existence of vacant land adja-
cent to or near the pedestrian access sites. The total cost,
excluding land, is estimated to be $355,505.
Because of the financial commitment required to construct a regional
access facility, no other shoreline access improvements are proposed
for FY93/94.
FY1994-1995
Project 1: Additional Ocean Access Site
In FY94/95, the town will acquire and develop an additional ocean
access site as a neighborhood facility with 40 parking spaces
provided. The site will be the remaining site of the three sites
prioritized for FY90/91. This will be either Gallery Row,
Forbes*, or Deering Street. The total cost, excluding land, is
estimated to be $62,225.
Alternate access locations may be found at the Dunn Street area,
or an unnamed right-of-way located between Dunn Street and
Enterprise Street. Land availability at the priority sites may
be a problem. This is especially important at the Deering Street
location, which is in the historic properties area. Within the
"historic area," the town will seek 5-foot unimproved pedestrian
easements to provide ocean access. Parking may be provided at
sites located west of Virginia Dare Trail.
Project 2: Additional Ocean Access Parking
The second priority will be the provision of 150 additional ocean
access parking spaces. Development of the spaces will focus on
access sites in south Nags Head. The spaces will serve the total
town demand, and not just south Nags Head parking demand.
Twenty-five (25) additional spaces will be provided at six
separate access sites. The cost will be approximately $25,000
per site, for a total cost of $150,000.
The total cost of implementing the FY94/95 plan will be $212,225.
The town will conclude the five-year recreation access plan with a
total shoreline access parking inventory of 1,288 (1,092 ocean, 116
estuarine). This is consistent with the schedule of providing 1,883
parking spaces (1,707 ocean, 176 estuarine) by 2000.
*At the east end of Forbes Street, there is a 27-foot wide lot.
Tax records indicate the owner is unknown.

Cost Summary of Five -Year Implementation Plan
FY1990-1991
Project 1: Gray Eagle Street Estuarine Access $ 29,825
Project 2: Nags Head Woods (parking, trails,
picnic tables, playground equipment)
Project 3: Additional Beach Access
Project 4: Facility Improvements to Existing
Ocean Access Sites
Project 5: Pedestrian Access Improvements
FY1991-1992
Project 1:
Project 2:
Project 3:
Project 4:
FY1992-1993
Project 1 :
Project 2:
Project 3:
Project 4:
Project 5:
Project 6:
FY1993-1994
Project 1:
FY1994-1995
Project 1:
Project 2:
Estuarine Access Site Regional
Facility
Ocean Access Parking
Facility Improvements to Existing
Ocean Access Sites
Pedestrian Access Improvements
Additional Ocean Access Site
Ocean Access Parking
Lifeguard Housing
Facility Improvements to Existing
Ocean Access Sites
Pedestrian Access Improvements
Additional Estuarine Access Site
Bath House and Regional Ocean Access
Facility
Additional Ocean Access Site
Additional Ocean Access Parking
30,600
52,000
5,625
29,000
$147,050
$ 86,000
200,000
4,816
24,000
$314,816
$ 55,770
100,000
10,000
5,292
62,500
152,500
$386,062
$355,505
$ 62,225
1500000
$212,225
TOTAL COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN $1,416,342

1 Upon full implementation of the five-year plan, the Town of Nags
Head will have compiled the following inventory
of access and
recreational
facilities:
38
Neighborhood and local ocean access
sites
3
Regional ocean access sites
1
Regional estuarine access site (Rigger
site)
4
Neighborhood estuarine access sites
1
Local estuarine access site
1,208
Shoreline access parking spaces (116
estuarine spaces
and 1,092 ocean spaces)
2
Equivalent tot lot/play areas (Nags
Head Woods)
15
2
Picnic tables
Estuarine waterfront park areas and
visual enhance-
ment areas (Jockey's Ridge and Nags
Head Woods)
1
Boat access area
2 mi.
Jogging/walking trails
2.5 mi.
Pedestrian access routes
400 ac.
Preservation of Nags Head Woods natural
area
Deficiencies will remain in the following areas:
-- Provision of ocean and estuarine access sites
Boat ramp access
Bike routes, trails, and paths
-- Picnic areas
'_ -- Tot lots/playgrounds
Maintenance of recreation and shoreline access facilities will be
a major concern and fiscal drain on the town. It is difficult to
assign specific maintenance costs to individual access sites.
However, it is estimated, based on the experience of Nags Head,
that the annual operating and maintenance costs for neighborhood
and regional access sites will be $1,000 and $4,600, respec-
tively. Thus, in 1995, the total annual operating and mainte-
nance cost for shoreline access sites will be approximately
$57,400. (Source: Nags Head Public Works Department.)
I
171

Long Range 5-10 Year Shoreline Access and Recreation Plan
While it is difficult to specifically define facilities/improvements
that should be developed five to ten years in the future, the plan-
ning process should begin now. It is recognized that circumstances
in Nags Head will make meeting all state -recommended recreation and
shoreline access standards impractical (refer to Section III.C. of
the plan, and obstacles stated under the five-year plan). The town
will not be able to significantly increase its sound side shoreline
access facilities or provide usable boat ramp facilities. In
addition, large areas of the town's oceanfront will not be available
for public 'shoreline access. In some locations such as Nags Head
Village, significant amounts of private access will be provided.
These include the area from Epstein Midway to Forrest Street, and
large areas of south Nags Head.
The following will identify the Nags Head priorities for the long-
range planning period. These projects are not ranked in order of
significance. Priorities and the specific components of each item
should be defined in the five-year update of this plan.
1. Additional Estuarine and Ocean Shoreline Access:
Based on anticipated peak population growth, additional ocean and
estuarine shoreline access may be required, despite improvements
undertaken from FY89-95. However, the options are limited. The
only existing unimproved right-of-way which will remain will be
Glidden Street (estuarine). Access to this area must be pro-
tected. Emphasis should continue to be placed on establishing
5-foot pedestrian easements in the historic area between the
Small and Conch sites. Parking may be provided at sites west of
Virginia Dare Trail. Also, the options for establishing a shore-
line access ordinance should be pursued. Very little land
remains to be subdivided. However, as land values increase,
structures may be cleared and land redeveloped. Also, in the
event of a major storm, land subdivision may occur. An ordinance
should be in place to require reservation/dedication of public
shoreline access.
The town should also encourage donation of land having access to
public rights -of -way. A specific program should be developed to
encourage donation of land which has lost its utility because of
shoreline erosion.
2. Shoreline Access Parking:
The provision of parking spaces adjacent to shoreline access
sites (both estuarine and ocean) will become increasingly diffi-
cult because of land availability and expense. The town should
identify remote sites between U.S. 158 and Virginia Dare Trail
which may be acquired or leased. From 1995 to 2000, a total of
675 spaces must be provided, 615 at ocean sites and 60 at

I
estuarine sites. This will require approximately five acres
total. The parking should be distributed in 10 to 12 individual
lots. However, the unavailability of large parcels of land may
require that more lots be constructed.
3. Non -Shoreline Recreation:
The town should pursue the establishment of jogging/walking
trails, and tot lot/playground facilities (bike routes are
discussed below). These should be developed in concert with
picnic shelter facilities. Ten-year goals for constructing these
types of facilities should be at least consistent with meeting
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation standards for year-round or
peak population in the year 2000, as applicable, that are defined
in Section C. of this document. However, based on citizen
demand, the town should consider exceeding state standards for
jogging/walking trails during the 10-year planning period.
While traditional recreation facilities such as ball fields and
golf courses may continue to be unjustified, the town should also
give consideration to the establishment of a town park during the
5-to-10-year planning period, including additional picnic
shelters, playground equipment, and tennis courts for the primary
use of year-round residents.
4. Boat Access:
The Town of Nags Head cannot easily develop a major usable boat
access ramp. Water depth and shoreline access are major
obstacles. It is recommended that the town consider partici-
pation with Dare County in the development of a major public boat
ramp facility. The first priority for a site should be the west
end of the abandoned Washington Baum Bridge.
5. Bike Routes:
The Town of Nags Head should pursue the formal designation of
bike route trails and paths. The town has made specific requests
for routes in the State Transportation Improvement Program. The
town supports the signing of bike routes on the Outer Banks.
Widening of road shoulders to 4' has been proposed on U.S. 158
for the entire length of Nags Head, and of 2' for the entire
length of N.C. 12, Virginia Dare Trail. Both routes are proposed
in the Dare County Ten -Year Bicycle Plan. However, the pref-
erence is to have most bicycles off U.S. 158 and onto N.C. 12 by
1995. The town will support these projects but will not yet
commit local funds.
I

I
1
I
1
APPENDIX IV
ACCESS FUNDING SOURCES
A
I
I
1
a
C
I

APPENDIX IV
SECTION 2. ACCESS FUNDING SOURCES
h
The -purchase of land and materials for the construction of access
sites can be funded not only by existing federal and state grant programs
but also by drawing on other sources. Federal and state grant programs
are extremely competitive. By drawing on an array of funding sources, the
local government's chance of actually receiving a grant to construct a new
accessway is improved. Public accessways can be constructed as a
community -wide endeavor by developing local funding sources and utilizing
volunteer labor as well as private contributions and donations. This
section reviews available funding sources and programs and cites contacts
for further information.
FEDERAL FUNDING
The Land and Water Conservation Fund administered for the U. S.
Department of Interior through the N. C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Paris and Recreation, makes funds
available on a 50 percent matching basis to local governments for outdoor
recreation planning, acquisition and development activities. Each year
grant criteria and the amount of available funds varies. The funds can be
used for the acquisition of land and the construction of public recreation
facilities including public access facilities. Past projects include
regional and neighborhood access facilities at Nags Head, a regional
access project at Fort Fisher and the Wilmington waterfront development.
Contact:
Jack Frausoa, Recreation Consultant
Division of Parks and Recreation
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
7ZZ5 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone]
Li
11
2-1
11

STATE FUNDING
The Coastal and Estuarine Water Beach Access Program administered by
the Division of Coastal Management makes funds available to local
governments to acquire land and make public access improvements. The
amount of grant funds available varies from year to year. The division
.has an annual project application and grant contract cycle. Past projects
include numerous neighborhood and regional access sites at Kitty Hawk,
Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head, West Onslow Beach, Surf City, Wrightsville
Beach, Fort Fisher and Long Beach.
Contact*
14r. John Crew, Chief, Resource Evaluation LYdt
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
P. 0. Box 1507
Vlashington, NC 27887
Phone: [phone]
The Civil Works Program administered by the Office of Water Resources
makes funds available to local governments on a matching basis for the
following types of water resources development projects: general
navigation improvement; recreational navigation improvement; water
management (flood control and drainage); stream restoration (clearing and
snagging and limited channel excavation); beach protection; and land
acquisition and facility development for water -based recreation sites.
Contact:
John Sutherland
Office of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
The Wildlife Resources Commission has constructed 145 public boat
launch areas throughout North Carolina. The commission makes its
technical services available to local governments that have secured a site
and funding for boat ramp construction. The commission may construct a
ramp on public property or on private property with at least a 20-year
lease to the commission.
Contact:
Dick Hamilton
Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
2-2

The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries is developing a
recreational fishing access funding program. Several "experimental"
projects have been funded. The program is designed to provide sport
fishing access to the pedestrian or non -boating public. All projects
must be in sound waters. No ocean projects will be funded. In addi-
tion, projects which would compete with commercial piers will not be
funded. Each project must have a long-term local sponsor. Funds may
be utilized for both new construction and pier refurbishment follow-
ing major damage. All projects must be accessible to the handi-
capped. There is not a maximum grant limit. Funding is provided by
"pass through" federal funds for 75% of the project cost. The 25.%
local match may be provided with cash contribution or in -kind match.
Contact:
Maury Wolff
Federal Aide Coordinator
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone]
LI
I
1
I 2-2a
LJ

SURPLUS STATE PROPERTY
Real property no longer needed by state agencies is disposed of
either by the State Property Office or by the N. C. Department of
Transportation. The normal procedures for disposal of surplus state
property by the State Property Office (SPO) are set out in G. S. 146-27
through 146-30. In general, these procedures entail a declaration of the
property as surplus by the state agency managing the parcel; an appraisal
of the property by an appraiser hired by SPO; advertisement for public
bids; and selection of the highest bid, approval by the Council of State,
and title transfer with the aid of the Attorney General's office. While
there is no specific statutory program comparable to the federal program
for conveying properties at a discount to other governmental units for
specific purposes, G. S. 160A-274 generally authorizes the state to lease
or sell real property "with or without consideration" to any other
governmental units in the state. In the past, surplus properties which
other state agencies and local governments have shown interest in have
been conveyed to them by the State Property Office at discounts up to 100
percent.
The N. C. Department of Transportation is responsible for its own
property transactions. The disposition of surplus property depends upon
the nature of the title: most highway rights -of -way are only easements,
and when these parcels are abandoned, the Department of Transportation
simply quitclaims all interests it held in the property. Rights -of -way
owned in fee simple that are to be abandoned are usually put up for public
sale. If other state agencies or local governments are interested in the
property, it is possible for them to receive title from the Department of
Transportation at discounts up to 100 percent.
Contact:
N. C. Department of Administration
State Property Office
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Right -of -Way Branch
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
LOCAL FUNDING
Towns and counties have a wide variety of funding options to choose
from. Some of these options are described on the following page.
2-3

• General Av,,rovriation
On an annual basis a town or county can appropriate a portion of its
recreation or public works budget to general beach access development or
for the acquisition and construction of specific access projects.
• Parking peters
The revenues collected from parking meters during the peak tourist
season (or throughout the year) are an appropriate source of funds for
continued facility development and maintenance. Proceeds from off-street
parking facilities may be used for any public purpose, but those from on -
street parking must be used for enforcement and administration of traffic
and parking ordinances and regulations (G.S. 160A .301(a)).
I• Water Fees
A percentage of the revenues collected from water usage
(particularly summer water usage as a result of peak seasonal use) could
be allocated to the development of access projects.
• Accomodations Tax
A percentage of the revenues collected from an accomodations tax
could be directed toward the development of increased public access
opportunities. In the coastal area, only New Hanover County, Ocean Isle
Beach, Topsail Beach and Surf City have authorization to levee an
accommodations tax. In New Hanover County, 80 percent of the revenue must
be spent on erosion control and 20 percent on promotion, travel and
tourism. Ocean Isle Beach, Topsail Beach, and Surf City have broader
authority to spend revenues.
Local citizens and civic groups can also be valuable resources. They
may donate materials or funds,. volunteer labor, or act as coastal
watchdogs to ensure that beach access facilities are properly used. By
including such groups in town or county access projects, community
involvement, participation and commitment can be strengthened. Retirees,
local scout troups, Riwanis clubs, school clubs, university groups,
garden clubs, clean county groups, local civic and local or national
environmental organizations are among the numerous groups which would be
interested in such coastal activities. Several local groups include The
Neuse River Foundation, Carteret County Crossroads, Onslow County
Conservation Group, North Carolina Coastal Federation and the Pamlico -Tar
River Foundation.
Local corporations can also be valued supporters of public access.
Timber companies, for instance, have had a noted history of land and
material donations. Such donations, along with the contribution of funds
for access development, strengthens the corporation's support of the
community and its citizens.
2-4

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
The Trust for Public Land (TPL) conserves land as a living resource
for present and future generations and works closely with governmental and
nonprofit agencies to acquire and preserve open space to serve human
needs, share knowledge of nonprofit land acquisition processes, and
pioneer methods of land conservation and environmentally sound land use.
Because donations of land to the TPL are tax deductible, individuals
or corporations may be able to take advantage of substantial tax benefits.
Once the TPL acquires land through purchase or donation, the land is
conveyed to a government agency for public open space preservation.
Contact:
Kathy Blaha
Trust for Public Land
219 East Fifth Avenue
Tallahassee, Fla. 32303
Phone: [phone]
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to identifying, protecting and
managing important natural areas throughout the state. The Conservancy
identifies land that supports the most significant examples of all
components of the natural world. It protects habitat and natural systems,
assists or advises government or conservation organizations, and
increases public awareness of the need to safeguard natural diversity. It
also manages numerous Conservancy -owned preserves in North Carolina.
Land donations to the Conservancy are tax-deductible and therefore
individuals or corporations may be able to take advantage of substantial.
tax benefits. Once the Conservancy acquires land through purchase or
donation, the land is often conveyed to a public agency.
Contact:
Katherine Skinner,_ Field Representative
North Carolina Nature Conservancy
209 N. Columbia Street
P.O. Box 805
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Phone: [phone]
VOLUNTEER LABOR SOURCES
The Community Service Work Program is administered by the Division of
Victim and Justice Services under the Department of Crime Control and
Public Safety. Community service is work performed without compensation
by an offender for a'governmental or nonprofit organization. Individuals
convicted of offenses commonly contribute 20 to 200 hours of community
service work. Services performed can include office work, construction,
clean-up or project design depending on the offender's background and
training. Contacts are listed in Appendix C.
2-5

I
1
SECTION 3. LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGIES
Continued acquisition of land is necessary if adequate public access
to the shoreline is to be maintained. There are generally two approaches
to acquiring access: direct acquisition techniques and land use controls
which incorporate public access requirements. The strategies presented
here can be used by local governments to assist in acquiring waterfront
property.
DIRECT ACQUISITION
• Purchase
The purchase of property at its fair market value is the simplest,
most direct means of acquiring land. A disadvantage of direct purchase is
that governmental agencies have limited financial resources. A further
disadvantage of direct purchase is that the seller's net profit from the
sale would be affected if the seller of the property is liable for income
tax on the capital gain of the appreciated value of the property. Other
purchase options, including bargain sale or installment sale, may benefit
the buyer and seller by stretching a land -acquiring agency's funds and
reducing immediate tax consequences.
rIn
a bargain sale, the landowner sells the property to a governmental
agency at less than fair market value. By doing so, the seller will be
able to receive some income from the sale of the land and will be eligible
to claim an income tax deduction for a charitable contribution on the
difference between the bargain price received and the fair market value of
the land. Thus, the amount of the capital gain would be less and so would
the accompanying tax on that gain.
In an installment sale, an agreement is made between the landowner
and the purchaser whereby the purchaser agrees to pay for the land in
annual installments or agrees to acquire a portion of the total property
each year with an option to acquire the remaining tracts in future years.
By spreading the income gained from the sale of the property over a number
of years the seller may be able to spread taxable gains and any associated
taxes over an equal number of years.
An easement, or right to use private property in a specific,
designated manner, may also be purchased. The purchase of an easement
entitles the purchaser to use the property for a specific purpose, such as
conservation, passing over the land, or installing a water or sewer line.
The ownership of the land remains with the property holder, but the use of
1 3-1
11

a designated portion of the land for a specific purpose is transferred to
the acquiring agency.
Easements are typically purchased when it is not possible to buy the
land. Although there is no requirement compelling a landowner to sell an
easement, landowners may be interested in the resulting tax benefits.
Where easements are sold, a decrease in property tax value would result.
• Donation
The donation of property or an easement involves a landowner deeding
the property to a government agency that has agreed to accept it. In a
donation, the donor receives no cash for the property although numerous
tax benefits are realized. These benefits include real estate, estate,
and income tax reductions as well as no capital gains tax that would
otherwise result from the sale of the property. If the recipient of the
land donation is a governmental agency, the donor can claim an income tax
deduction based on the market value of the land as determined by a
qualified appraiser. In the instance of an easement, the donor may take
the difference in the value of the land after the easement as a charitable
deduction. (See Appendix D, Tax Credits for Donated Properties.)
• Prescription
An easement can be established through prescription, the process by
which an individual or group obtains the right to use another's property
in a specific manner. In this instance, the courts recognize that a
prescriptive easement has been established if the following tests are met:
1) the use has been open;
2) the use is adverse or under a claim of right;
3) the use has been continuous and uninterrupted for 20 years;
4) there has been actual use of the property by the general public;
and
5) the same path has been used for 20 years.
Currently, North Carolina does not have any case law directly
addressing the establishment of a prescriptive easement in a beach access
context. It is difficult to establish a prescriptive easement because of
the requirement that the use of the property must be adverse. In this
case, "adverse" means that the user of the property did not have the
owner's permission and, instead, used the pathway in the belief that he
had a right to use it. Permissive use, no matter for how long, can never
be the basis for a prescriptive easement. A local government may want to
consider legal action to establish a public easement where it believes a
prescriptive easement for beach access exists across private property.
• Dedication
A dedication begins with an offer to dedicate the use of land. The
offer is made by the landowner to the public and must be followed by the
local government's acceptance of that offer on behalf of the public. A
3-2

dedication made orally or in writing is called an express dedication. A
"certificate of dedication" indicates an individual's express intention
to dedicate an area to the public.
An implied dedication is based on the property owner's intention to
dedicate as indicated by conduct. For instance, the owner's intention to
dedicate may be indicated by recognizing the rights of the public in a
deed or by the owner's actions with respect to permitting the public to
use the land. A 1970 Supreme Court case confirmed the public's right to
use two privately owned beaches in California. The court said that when
the public has used a beach for a long time without paying attention to
the fact that the beach is privately owned, the public acquires a legal
right to use that beach. The owner's intent to give the land to the public
may be implied from his conduct of not preventing public use of the beach.
And the public's acceptance of the dedication may be implied from public
use of the beach. Nothing need be written by either side -- the dedication
and acceptance is implied by conduct. With respect to beach access, a
public access sign at an accessway is one indication by a local government
of an express or implied dedication.
Cities and counties may accept dedication offers for the maintenance
of roads and pedestrian easements running to and along the beach. Before
accepting a dedication offer, it is recommended that a title search or
"chain of ownership" survey be conducted to ensure that the offer to
dedicate has at no time in the past been withdrawn.
Cities and counties may own, maintain and manage land for
recreational purposes including public access parking. Although it is
possible for cities to own public streets and roads, counties cannot. It
is possible, however, for counties to accept the dedication of certain
roads so long as they were dedicated to the public prior to 1975.
Although a county may accept such a dedication, a county is not authorized
to maintain or improve such roads.
In many local jurisdictions there may be a number of accessways and
roads that have been dedicated by the developer but not yet accepted by
the county or municipality. These accessways represent opportunities to
local governments that should not be neglected. The actions necessary to
show acceptance should be given high priority in light of the provision of
the state law allowing developers to withdraw unaccepted, unimproved
dedications after a period of 15 years (G.S. 136-96).
LAND USE CONTROLS
Local governments are able to use the police powers granted to them
by the state to protect the public's ownership of and right to use the
shoreline to the mean high water mark. As the beach erodes and the mean
high water mark moves landward, the boundary between public and private
property moves landward. Land use regulations or local ordinances can be
used to protect the public's ownership and right to use the shoreline.
When erosion or storms destroy structures, local ordinances can require
3-3

the property owner to remove, within a given time period, all debris which
may endanger public health, safety and welfare. This is particularly
important where remnant bulkheads, building foundations, pilings and
septic systems would be located below the mean high water mark or on the
public beach.
Local governments can also use land use controls to compel developers
to provide public beach accessways. Through zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations, developers can be required to dedicate, PAY a fee
or reserve access areas, as outlined below. (See Appendix E, Model Land
Development Regulation.)
• Dedication
State enabling legislation for county subdivision regulations (G.S
153A-331) provides that such ordinances may require "the dedication or
reservation of recreation areas serving residents of the immediate
neighborhood within the subdivision and of rights -of -way or easements for
street and utility purposes." The comparable legislation for cities (G.S.
160A-372) is virtually identical. Likewise, the zoning enabling
legislation for counties (G.S. 153A-340) and cities (G.S. 160A-381)
authorizes local regulations to provide for special use or conditional use
permits. The conditions for approval of these permits may include the
dedication of utility rights -of -way and of recreational space.
A local unit of government may require the compulsory dedication of
land for public recreational use consistent with local subdivision
regulations and/or as a condition of a special or conditional use permit.
In requiring a developer to dedicate recreational land, the local
government should ensure that the location of the access area will
adequately provide for the recreational needs of the residents in the
development as well as the residents of the immediate neighborhood within
the subdivision who might otherwise be precluded from general use of the
area.
Definitive standards for the size of such areas and the types of
facilities to be installed should be specified in local subdivision
ordinances. The regulations should specify why, when, where and how much
land will be required as well as criteria pertaining to the type of land
that may be offered for dedication. A formula for determining the amount
of land a developer must offer should be made explicit. The amount of
land to be dedicated should not be based on an arbitrary case -by -case
basis. Instead the amount of land to be required for dedication should be
related to recognized open space standards and should reflect the density
and type of development proposed.
As a condition to a special or conditional use permit, access should
be provided for when the permit is issued by the local governing board. At
that time, a plat should be prepared and incorporated by reference into
the terms and conditions of the permit. The plat should bear a
certificate of dedication and both the permit and plat should specify when
improvements by the developer will be completed.
3-4

State enabling legislation (G.S. 136-102.6) requires that
subdivision plats filed since 1975 designate all streets as being public
or private. Streets designated as public are presumed to be offers of
dedication.
Subdivision ordinances can also require that interior subdivision
streets be dedicated to the public. The subdivision enabling statutes for
both cities and counties allow local ordinances to provide for "the
coordination of streets and highways within a proposed subdivision with
the existing or planned streets and highways and with other public
facilities." To make use of this authority, the subdivision ordinance
should clearly indicate that streets and roads running generally
perpendicular to the beach be platted to extend to the mean high tide
line.
• Fee
County subdivision regulations provide the developer with the option
of paying a fee to the county in lieu of dedicating recreational land
(G.S. 153A-331). The developer may be required to pay an amount of money
equal to the value of the space required to be dedicated. This money
should be placed into a fund specifically designated for the acquisition
of access areas. The "fee in lieu" option is not available to
municipalities.
• Reservation
An emerging land use tool allows both county and municipal
subdivision regulations to require developers to reserve land for
1
recreational purposes and for street and utility rights -of -way or
easements (G.S. 153A-331 and G.S. 160A-372). One advantage of such
reservations is that they do not impose dedication requirements in
instances that may amount to a taking without just compensation, yet they
give the local government time to acquire funds to purchase the property.
As this is a relatively new tool, its advantages and disadvantages have
not been evaluated.
Case law regarding the use of developer exactions to provide beach
access is poorly developed, particularly in North Carolina, and the
ability of local governments to use these techniques is not firmly
established. There are a number of questions regarding the implementation
of these measures for access purposes. As there are few court decisions,
these standards should be carefully studied before such measures are
attempted. A thorough reading and understanding of Dedicating and
Reserving Land to Provide Access to North Carolina Beaches (September
1982), by Richard Ducker of the UNC Institute of Government, is highly
recommended in addition to contacting and consulting one's local
government attorney.
1 3-5
1

1
1,
1
L,j
APPENDIX V
PEDESTRIAN SHORELINE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDED IN THE TOWN OF NAGS HEAD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
1

'
Eighth Street: A sidewalk down south side of road, running
east/west from Wrightsville Avenue to existing ocean beach access
will benefit subdivisions including: Mosier Shores, Nags Head
Shores, Lanier Subdivision. A portion of this project has
already been completed by a local developer. Total cost is
estimated at $7,500.
Memorial Avenue: Sidewalk following Memorial Avenue north/
south in two sections. These are necessary to move pedestrians
'
to direct routes to beach access sites. Subdivisions using these
corridors include Mosier Shore, Nags Head Shores, Lanier Subdi-.
vision, North Ridge, and Edwards Subdivision. Total cost is
estimated at $65,250.
Albatross Street: Sidewalk running from Memorial east to
existing pedestrian access point, benefitting Nags Head Shores.
'
Total cost is estimated at $3,750.
Gallery Row: Sidewalk running from Memorial east to existing
pedestrian access point, benefitting Mosier Shores, Nags Head
Shores, and Conch Shell Estates. Total cost is estimated at
$9,700.
Admiral Drive: Pedestrian route running east/west starting
at Adams Lane and South Anchor running east along Adams Lane to
cross U.S. 158, and connecting to and following along a town
'
drainage eastment via wooden walk on grade to Wrightsville
Avenue. Crossing Wrightsville and following along Admiral Street
with asphalt road extension, leading to an existing beach access
point. Proposed pedestrian route along Memorial running south
'
joins this corridor heading east to N.C. 12 crosswalk. This
existing beach access is currently a heavily used vehicle cross-
over point. Measures should be taken to limit damage to barrier
dune by vehicles and channel pedestrians over dune via elevated
walkway. Extra site work and stabilization is included in
miscellaneous extra costs. This will benefit Nags Head Shores,
Mosier Shores, and Nags Head Acres. Total cost is estimated at
'
$22,000.
Blackman Street: Pedestrian route running east/west wood
'
walk on grade along Blackman Street (a paper street) between
Memorial Avenue and N.C. 12. This route is a heavily traveled
pedestrian path to existing beach access. Will benefit Nags Head
Shores, Vista Colony, Villa Dunes. Total cost is estimated at
$2,000.
' Wrightsville Avenue: Pedestrian route north/south sidewalk
between Baltic Street and Barnes Street connecting to main pedes-
trian route running east/west along Barnes Street; benefitting
Vista Colony. Total cost is estimated at $7,500.

Bladen Street: Pedestrian route beginning at the north end
of Buccaneer Drive (North Ridge) and following an easement across
property owned by Outer Banks Worship Center, crossing U.S. 158
to asphalt extension along Bark Street, turning north along
Wrightsville Avenue, turning east on Bladen Street, picking up
with Memorial Avenue pedestrian route, and continuing to east,
crossing N.C. 12 to existing beach access; benefitting North
Ridge, George T. Stronach Tract, Nags Head Shores, and Edwards
Subdivision. Total cost is estimated at $21,500.
Dowitcher Street: Pedestrian route east/west beginning at
northeast corner of Old Cove Road and Cobia Way (Nags Head Cove),
routing pedestrian travel east along road extension of Old Cove
Road, crossing U.S. 158 to follow Dowitcher, a paper street, to
N.C. 12 and along N.C. 12 heading north to Small Street beach
access; benefitting Old Nags Head Cove, Roanoke Sound Shores,
Nags Head Dunes, and Nags Head Beach. Total cost is estimated at
$11,500.
Forrest Street: This paper street runs east/west, ocean to
sound. Route is bordered on the west side section by Nags Head
Links Golf Course and sparsely developed residential lots. A
wood walk on grade will be run from the sound access point to
U.S. 158, crossing U.S. 158 to continue between highways and
crossing N.C. 12 to an existing public beach access. Total cost
is estimated at $15,000.
Forbes Street (Parcel #4535): This 271x450' ocean front
parcel would be a good site for a pedestrian access. Also, 2.9
acre parcel could be purchased for the use of a public beach
access, bath house, and parking. Total cost is estimated at
$4,700.
Indigo Street: New pedestrian access point, South Old Oregon
Inlet Road to cross over dune; benefitting South Creek Acres and
Hollywood Beach Recombination. Total cost is estimated at
$10,800.
June Street: New pedestrian access point, South Old Oregon
Inlet Road to cross over dune; benefitting South Creek Acres and
Hollywood Beach Recombination. Total cost is estimated at
$10,925.
Jacob Street: New pedestrian access point, South Old Oregon
Inlet Road to cross over dune; benefitting South Creek Acres and
Hollywood Beach Subdivision. Total cost is estimated at
$11,175.

LEGEND j
EMSTING fhPROVED ACCESS SITES t
EXISTING UNI PROVED ACCESS SITES 4
PROPOSED I TO 5 YEAR ACCESS SITES
PARKING SPACE ADDITIONS
GENERAL FACILITY 11 PROVEMENTS
NAGS HEAD WOODS SITE MAPROVEMENTS -
FDOTSHOWERS a
FYI 92-93 LIFEGUARD HOUSING
- - FYI S 4 POSSIBLE BATH
REGIONAL ACCESS LOCATION �
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 0
FYI 89-90 TO FYI 92-93
POTENTIAL 5 TO 10 YEAR ACCESS SITES o
' The preparation of this map was financed in part
through a grant provided by the North Carolina s'
- -
Coastal Management Progran• through funds d - _ -_ O
_
~ FYI 92-93 ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION _. 1i
provided by 1M Coastal Zone Management Ad of , PROPOSED - __ n+ .
1972. as amended, which is odminlstered by the > - - _ fir: - - -: •-•� _ - -- - x _ _ Cf -
ESTUARINE sP020 Special Flamed Development
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource s ✓_,`Z- �- =• - _
Management. National Oceanic and Atmospherk {( y �`- 3- y 3 SED80 Special Emirom+anid District - - - • _ - - 1
Administration, _ - i O a •'"•-�.�.- '!':}; lM1;, OLD WASHINGTON - d - ��-
p -�`�•T _ SHORELINE AND BEACH R-1 wDonsPtah. De..lapm.,,fca,,,m..n� o" _ _ - _ _ _ • - -
n , BAUM BRIDGE �T R 1 La. Darstty R.eldennal
�( - •�-.� _ '_ • } • s _ ,� ACCESS SITES ES R-2. MaAvn Density Reskentid C _ _-- - ��: i. - _ • - - - - - _ _ -
e
• - • '- - '`~- ---_► �';�?'sr- l •-_' `.. - l_-' - L- - ..- . _ _~ --'�_ ` _-ue•- . _ :iL:_:3' __ ' _ {, � s Lr .:.�:I�3'• - -:.c-._2}�-' Ps."':,• _= _ -"_- ---=••=__ _ -_•-s•_- '_ _-_iM-'_% ' ft-,'!--._r'-'-- -•='--s�,�-:-_-.>•t%�.-'.:.!� ..: _ ,='tl�%-i-- -ris ,}1l-�%'1>a'•-JJ:=aS_ =- •• -- _'-�_-- _ • i - _1f-_= • -f_ ._ .�+_;_; ,_,!,_'- -'-�-3_: ,'-.�a?: -::^ ." .L.•a>- •••r.'r'am,, rd _,t•,w_ ,: >
,t: a-ry' _•. `�..i_�!_•__
f
A.
' ,
sPD 40 a.s%igf1o1na. beenR-3 High Density ResidentdsNOVEMBER. 1989 CR Commercial ResIdentid NOTE:OV n : town Of Megd to SED 80.
_�C-1 Neghbortrood Commercial
•C-2 General Commercial y�' C-3 Commercial Serdcu Dbtrle"_
-4 Vfoge Commerclda CNAGS HEAD
fA
_
!4 _ - _ j- - ;� - :b . _ :r-. - •'_ ,.."- : «..>.,.... do
_ r o l i n a -_ _
n o r t h c a _ ,ria s head
�r ;t
HEAD WOODS �::ar: .T J;"•y >' r -� '
-e. '_ _
NAGS fl . -J.«Y- '�•4�r..,,, ' : � :� • •J. �r...,� , r ? •jn." ' '- ,,;,
- ` GRAY EAGLE MARSH _-r
•/;• IJ-!
(TO BE IMPROVED MARIT/iE FOREST Y : /;/•. '""Yr :.. ]•i
• ~c S-.• = .: �`i �. r I 1i r.. - �rC.. �. , 6ti'�:::)" ! :" r !:•'_i! ' 5.,1' �'^a rj.•" :'r• f'S
0 - :r_ . J.r? =Y.. �'�a-.. :., w•>'!� �., "v.. ..�: i .L..- I '•,t� .:"'(f'-... '� .'.-> �
.i .'Y •`"_ L =f :-I'_. __ .�D ..4 :C -�5+- -...,� "'-L, t' _ _.-. _ --- - L' S :' iii''. ,1:.jif ' �•J%ir.' �. +l i�!:,�it;:.{r� 't, ;',!: ,t;.,��;•�.I..f�,f ,., - )
yy :�._. %� +.*-diC.y. -�-• sYJ-' v - -W.+ ] .r rf,..Y sty, :.✓i... ,, ..�:. yr-/,, u. !.� jy ,I
� .'7 �. • �[ - >r .r _ ;y: "i•.' ,�i 3 � pia;• •, .,_ •' ,'�:.:' .•i:i � r^.'-;-,f . ,✓; - ->� E-
I
:,a-ti -. .•_,, J-w..i�_•., .T.•',t-,��, r.-- - ar:"'r:! -.i'1 -. _. _. _ :• '+,':- '!.. •.i:f.n, .>.'i.`.�). , ,r- ;�-..,,�!••;�',�f}n, a
FYI O�FY/ 90-91 _i:.
89-90 ',c-- _ - .,, _11 .lL.,f>. .cam..r�.. .�,• tt!
�`�`k=`•+- f�'•• > FYI 90-91,. .3 ::" 1t.:••- `'" ::,_'.; ,.. , s., ,y'CL
-L e PROPOSED .:.:. • - "i r 1. i�1r" ;�' �� '��i>t;' i : s-'� - �' 0
r , ^s PROPOSED tr, a-• �:` `Y ;"
-x'•e:}<:..-�..c t :tz--`�--xr+'�� - ESTUARINE•r' ' 'i;:•;.� •r.:"f.'''L%...i,.+ 'I» •..•. /, '''`'l., J+, :>• ff.';
�zr's t' _- ` K ? t- I•: ' t. %% r J $ xTJ ti;�, ,. ?I ,t , J, �•:!K
l.� � ,•f-� � _ ESTUARINE
'.�•_. : if ,f%J, ,.. � , i; •J.+';t;'! •r' y ` r,td. •y_,� j, jrJ;.. ,'/y � .
SITE.t. 'S'>-- •::v' i.-v..:... ' /r'.+' - S- ''j'..../}.rt'. .+ „'S' i..+.i/r......'. :�,.5•' �>.. �.+, i r6
(BY DONATION) / . . �. . r: � . , , >, , r � , , , r !
GLIDDEN ANUB z f ;; ,. ,% , J r �:, r- s .,, _ ,
1'-K)00 ROANOKE COURT•. -ems-. _ i=•:fS-` r .t .i -r .tiJf'J. r"
:.� :N' �'i•'�' �`- "•'�- JOCKEY'S RIDGE ,-.-.�;. ;;"' .:4' ��r:= ..,.• '� . �,y;'.
_wag- DCM _ _ �- •�:,';.s"� �"' f� ��•.. / pt1�i�3P:L��#�'�R � - 3
- _ ,+.•.. 1 _�1•.�- -•x'• aQ ,rrt<._� .,., :it._ -I, Jy.� t .r S- ::.v. •,. -s,:., S;�S•.'.,>-'. ".1�:' _
LE
.ti. - - _ - -raw ''%a :.�. _ .a 'K. :,v.:' •/;-^ !. ,•! is ,� '�i;a'.x/�si' �f' ,tif11,' 'x'^., psi fY,'- .S' ..� H
al`�•• y+• �1,a-:- .. ._ y� - _ '_S - R .1.?- ?�} fi ..; � ,t .9 ,i� `Y31'iit 4 'N:
.�-x-'�':R ..)•�_,` 4ry�}} �aG�..-{._ _ - � !�- ram.•., ,,..,' ;r: '��,r .1. - '"i:'1?a, .,r,;:y'
- -
.yam
.a
3 0 E E
h L - - - ca- - r;I y - _ter . . l � �A•-`• � 1.�'/� • .
seashore ;ram
cape hatteras national
-'�'•::-�i- .-,►_ �.�a:at_:a_#i. _ _ :r�-��.�►ee.�dC*xi"i>ri.� ,.. '•jyt;-- j _+6 3• _�'_:��C..=.b� -- tom""'_-:-�s• ac; -� � 'J 1 I• jockey's ridge_ --
_.•,>• - �i...cl•. ]- 3;'�.>,:_x�:C.,�:.•• -r' _.sir{-;^ •[1_^•0! y .: i• 4•5- = ^'• < 1 p n
s-+:: I- 1 I state park SI-D 40 p•
.7'rt.�j;. +--•-•s .'�r.-av�rµy�...-r--a,+•.,w S_• ^ �,y �- Y_ s-si- r ►+ o 'Sr.-_-. 1 'iI (I v-
' ,. FY�,.an`P•° '`3' -=4[•;t:a>r�`",-tea<_*'S�_�.k�''s�`P''.; i '".= iSsse a�r?5� t ■'' O
191-92
ESTUARINE 15r,PROPOSE RZ
- _ C
RRIGGE
PROPERTY e,'y -ef 1►"-'-#'�'e.` _�`� I \ SSPD C 11
_
a!1 nl.,• asa.YM 1gfy.1 J
l + ® 1 I IInR
_ O
ri0.7u, A, a Haas r e,+.se •mass •a,,,a •••r- , I , , ., I. FR
I =
III I I I �I `t I I e I I 1 I IH IHILI
On 1 I'll I I
;;•. - - LY � t . . t l I � l •,-`'•{>�•.e. .>+� }-.:_e _s'!i icY-•�1 -r��^�"t•- _ �1s ' � eI I I I I �. II I Eli
I �
i
♦ t.
I IL
.s
.�=•� y � p :._ ..�. top 11
_ _�-. �_ a
ti, •_l ate_ `,t - =3v _t:_,
a.
N-`i�- - SI Y-• f i f �1' • C '� - - -.
--illillik- 11111
.. y
t,
is
a4'� •eer •. V c= -
J �1a•-
J
rtikQA
8. BITTERN 2.wWABALONE I. ALBATROSS
27. HOLDEN 23. GRAY EAGLE 20.GROUSE DEERING LWCF
4l y 91-92 LWCF
QC�M LWCF IFY 91-9 UNNAMED PROPOSED YY •IFY 89-90
I Y 90-91 A GLIDDEN^^',,; 9;,,�� 9. GLAD N ADMIRAL
3 JACOB 28. HARGROVE LWCF
• FY 92-93 LWCF FORBES RIGHT OCEAN
4� BALTICYe 1-92
37. JUNCOS LWCF 22. GULL •/FY 90-91 WAY FYI9t 9z t. GALLERY ROW
FY 2t-92 PROPOSED FY/ 90-91 IFY 91-92 tY19t•9z
rrf 94-95 29.IDA •IFY 91-92 OF FYI 92-93 /f 89-90 5. BARNES ^ FYI' ss 9s
LWCF IFY 92-93 LWCF OCEAN PRIVATE I�WCFNBRIDG fYI9.-9a
•IFY 91-92 30. ISAB LL A ^FYI"°z~ •/FY 90-91■ 3 2 •/ Y 89 0 OCEAN
PRIVATE •IFY 9 ?3� IFY 4-93 24. GULFSTREAM FYI 94-93 DCM A PROPOSED
•IFY 89-90 FF 9 .;
IL IFURLE9W 6. BLAGKM N 1
31. ISLINGTON AFY19-nto LWCF FYf90-9b 17• MUNICIPAL BUILDING 15. ENTERPRISE 121 HOLLOWELI E?Jbl-92 To LWCF �/ 90_gl
FYI 94-9s FY 192-93-
•/FY 92-93 •/EY 89-90■ DCM
32. INDIGO evrr9�nt. 25. GOVERNOR FY194-95 •IFY 90-91 LWCF p♦ FYI 89-90 FY/94-95 •!FY 90-9I FYI 92-93
• IFY 92-93 fY/ 94 s9
33. JAY Fir1+��=� DCM. 18, EPSTEIN MIDWAY •IFY 89-90 13. CONCH 7, BONNETT
&F, 1.12 •/FY 89-90 DCM LWCF LWCF FYI 94-95
•IFY 92-93 26. HURON •IFY 90-91 7, PUBLIC BEACH
34. JUNE ^rtr ,L92 to 19. FORREST 16. EPSTEIN NORTH 14. SMALL �
• IFY 92-93 FYr s4 n DCM
35. JAMES eF;;;;,'• •IFY 90-91 •/FY 89-90 D YI89-90 DOWITCHER LWCF/DCM
• •IFY 91-92