Washington County-Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

Washington County-

Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan November 2008

Published November 2008 by The Wooten Company, Raleigh, NC

The development of the WASSP was supported by an award from the North Carolina Cleanwater Management Trust Fund.

This material is also based upon work supported in whole or part by an award from the Rural Economic Development Center. Any opinions, findings, and

conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Rural

Economic Development Center.

TABLE OF CONTENTS WASHINGTON COUNTY-ALBEMARLE SOUND

SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary .................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Planning Area............................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Plan Goals .................................................................................................. 1-2

A. Land Use and Development Goals ....................................................... 1-2 B. Utility Goals .......................................................................................... 1-2 C. Environmental Goals............................................................................. 1-2 D. Economic Goals.................................................................................... 1-3 E. Transportation Goals ............................................................................ 1-3 F. Aesthetics Goals................................................................................... 1-3 G. Public Involvement Goals ..................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Vision Statement........................................................................................ 1-3 1.6 Executive Summary................................................................................... 1-4

A. Existing Conditions Analysis ................................................................. 1-4 Land Use Analysis ................................................................................ 1-5 Population Analysis .............................................................................. 1-5 Housing Analysis .................................................................................. 1-5 Infrastructure Analysis .......................................................................... 1-5 Economic Conditions Analysis .............................................................. 1-6 Environmental Features Analysis.......................................................... 1-6 Land Regulatory Tools Analysis............................................................ 1-6 Adjacent Area Influences ...................................................................... 1-7

B. Development Scenarios........................................................................ 1-7 C. Population Projections .......................................................................... 1-8 D. Sustainable Land Development Objectives........................................... 1-9 E. Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable Land Development....... 1-10 F. Preliminary Engineering Report Recommendations............................ 1-11

2.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Existing Land Use...................................................................................... 2-1

A. Agricultural and Forestry....................................................................... 2-1 B. Residential............................................................................................ 2-4 C. Commercial and Industrial .................................................................... 2-5 D. Public and Institutional .......................................................................... 2-5 E. Conservation ........................................................................................ 2-7

2.2 Population and Housing............................................................................ 2-7 A. Population............................................................................................. 2-7 B. Housing .............................................................................................. 2-12

2.3 Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 2-14 A. Water.................................................................................................. 2-14 B. Sewer ................................................................................................. 2-14 C. Transportation..................................................................................... 2-16 D. Stormwater ......................................................................................... 2-18 E. Electric and Gas Utilities ..................................................................... 2-18

F. Other Community Facilities ................................................................. 2-18 Fire Protection................................................................................ 2-18 Law Enforcement ........................................................................... 2-20 Recreation ..................................................................................... 2-20 Schools .......................................................................................... 2-20 Other.............................................................................................. 2-20

2.4 Economic Conditions .............................................................................. 2-21 A. Employment........................................................................................ 2-25 B. Income................................................................................................ 2-23 C. Commuting Patterns ........................................................................... 2-24 D. Agriculture ........................................................................................... 2-25 E. Forestry .............................................................................................. 2-26 F. Mining................................................................................................. 2-26 G. Retail and Services............................................................................. 2-26 H. Tourism............................................................................................... 2-27

2.5 Environmental Features .......................................................................... 2-27 A. Wetlands............................................................................................. 2-27 B. Estuarine Shoreline ............................................................................ 2-29 C. Floodplain & Storm Surge................................................................... 2-32 D. Natural Hazards.................................................................................. 2-33 E. Soils.................................................................................................... 2-34 F. Land Suitability ................................................................................... 2-36 G. Water Quality...................................................................................... 2-36 H. Significant Natural Heritage Areas ...................................................... 2-38 I. Historic and Archeological Sites.......................................................... 2-39 J. Threatened and Endangered Species................................................. 2-39

2.6 Development Regulations & Plans ......................................................... 2-42 2.7 Adjacent Area Influences ........................................................................ 2-43 2.8 Summary Analysis................................................................................... 2-46

3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections.......................... 3-1 3.1 Alternative Development Scenarios ......................................................... 3-1

A. Development Scenario One.................................................................. 3-2 B. Development Scenario Two .................................................................. 3-3 C. Development Scenario Three ............................................................... 3-5 D. Summary of Development Scenarios.................................................... 3-8

3.2 Preferred Development Scenario............................................................ 3-10 A. Future Land Use Map Classifications.................................................. 3-10 B. Redevelopment of Existing, Developed Areas .................................... 3-13

3.3 Population Projections ............................................................................ 3-13 A. Population Projection 1 ....................................................................... 3-13 B. Population Projection 2 ....................................................................... 3-13 C. Population Projection 3 ....................................................................... 3-15 D. Summary of Population Projections .................................................... 3-16 E. Recommended Population Projections ............................................... 3-17

4.0 Objectives, Policies and Recommendations ...........................................4-1

4.1 Land Use and Development Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Strategies ................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Objective - Ensure that new nonresidential development is compatible with its surrounding environment. .......................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Objective - Ensure that new residential developments do not detract from the existing rural character. ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1.3 Objective - Ensure that new land developments do not overburden the County’s ability to provide public services. . .............................................. 4-2

4.1.4 Objective - Ensure that the county’s land development regulations implement WASSP objectives and adopted policies. ................................................ 4-2 4.1.5 Objective - Limit intensive development within the 100-year floodplain....... 4-3 4.1.6 Objective - Reduce the potential impact of increased stormwater flow from new land development sites.. ..................................................................... 4-3 4.1.7 Objective - Preserve and maintain the natural hydraulic and ecological functions of drainage systems.................................................................... 4-3 4.1.8 Objective - Use site planning techniques to assist with maintaining or enhancing pre-development hydrologic systems........................................ 4-4

4.1.9 Objective - Protect surface waters from pollution and soil erosion. ............ 4-4 4.1.10 Objective - Delineate, in conjunction with the municipalities, service area boundaries to identify areas that will be receiving urban services, particularly water and sewer services....................................................... 4-4 4.1.11. Objective - Limit utility infrastructure extensions into environmentally fragile areas to discourage urban-type development patterns in such areas. . .......................................................................................... 4-5

4.2 Recommendations for Sustainable Land Development Regulations..... 4-5 4.2.1 Low Impact Development Practices and Standards ................................. 4-5

A. Guiding Principles of Low Impact Development .................................... 4-5 B. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management BMPs................... 4-6 C. Low Impact Development Roadway, Parking Area, and Lot Design

Principles .............................................................................................. 4-6 D. Implementation of Low Impact Development Principles and Standards 4-6

4.2.2 Conservation Subdivision Practices and Standards ................................. 4-6 A. Guiding Principles of Conservation Subdivision Design ........................ 4-7 B. Implementation of Conservation Subdivision Design Principles and

Standards ............................................................................................. 4-8 4.2.3 Stormwater Management Master Plan and Stormwater Ordinance 4-8

A. Guiding Principles of a Stormwater Management Ordinance ................ 4-9 B. Typical Stormwater Management Ordinance Standards ....................... 4-9 C. Implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan and Stormwater

Ordinance ........................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.4 Highway Corridor Overlay District Standards and Requirements ........... 4-10

A. Typical Highway Corridor Overlay Standards...................................... 4-11 B. Implementation of Highway Corridor Overlay District Standards ......... 4-11

4.2.5 Minimum Open Space and Recreational Space Requirements 4-11 A. Open Space Requirements................................................................. 4-12 B. Recreational Space Requirements...................................................... 4-14

4.2.6 Adequate Public Facility Ordinance 4-14 A. Implementation of an Adequate Public Facility Ordinance .................. 4-14

4.3 Preliminary Engineering Report Recommendations ............................. 4-15 4.3.1 Water Supply ......................................................................................... 4-15 4.3.2 Regional Management Approach........................................................... 4-15 4.3.3 Spray Irrigation System.......................................................................... 4-15 4.3.4 Mackey’s Ferry Area Sewer Service ...................................................... 4-15 4.3.5 Pea Ridge Area Sewer Service.............................................................. 4-15 4.3.6 Phased Implementation ......................................................................... 4-15 4.3.7 Technological Options............................................................................ 4-15 4.3.8 Financing ............................................................................................... 4-15

Appendices A Index of Data Sources B Water Quality Classifications C Definitions of Endangered and Threatened Species Status Codes D Preliminary Engineering Report

Maps

Map 1 General Location Map .................................................................... 2-1 Map 2 Existing Land Use .......................................................................... 2-2 Map 3 Existing and Proposed Shoreline Development .............................. 2-6 Map 4 Existing Infrastructure................................................................... 2-15 Map 5 Transportation Systems................................................................ 2-17 Map 6 Community Facilities .................................................................... 2-19 Map 7 Natural Features........................................................................... 2-28 Map 8 Estuarine Shoreline Types, Floodplain and Storm Surge.............. 2-30 Map 9 Land Suitability ............................................................................. 2-37 Map 10 Existing Zoning Patterns............................................................... 2-44 Map 11 Development Scenario One............................................................ 3-4 Map 12 Development Scenario Two............................................................ 3-6 Map 13 Development Scenario Three......................................................... 3-9 Map 14 Future Land Use Map................................................................... 3-12

Tables Table 1 Components of Population Change, Washington County ............... 2-8 Table 2 Population Density, Adjoining Counties ........................................ 2-10 Table 3 Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin, 2000 .................................... 2-11 Table 4 Comparison of Housing by Structural Type, 2000......................... 2-12 Table 5 Seasonal Housing, Washington County ....................................... 2-13 Table 6 Washington County Building Permits............................................ 2-13 Table 7 Commuting Patterns, Washington County, 1970-2000 ................. 2-24 Table 8 Place of Work—Workers 16 Years of Age or Older ...................... 2-24 Table 9 Top 5 Destinations of Workers Commuting Out of Washington County ...................................................................... 2-25 Table 10 Agricultural Profile ........................................................................ 2-26 Table 11 Identified Hazards and Risk Assessment...................................... 2-34 Table 12 Soils Characteristics..................................................................... 2-35 Table 13 Water Quality Classifications, WASSP Study Area....................... 2-38 Table 14 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... 2-40 Table 15 Land Use Patterns, Scenario One .................................................. 3-2 Table 16 Residential Buildout, Scenario One ................................................ 3-3 Table 17 Land Use Patterns, Scenario Two .................................................. 3-5 Table 18 Residential Buildout, Scenario Two ................................................ 3-5 Table 19 Land Use Patterns, Scenario Three................................................ 3-7 Table 20 Residential Buildout, Scenario Three.............................................. 3-8 Table 21 Buildout Comparison, Residential Units and Population ................. 3-8 Table 22 Comparison of Land Use Patterns, Percent of Total Land Area.... 3-10

Figures

Figure 1 Existing Land Use, WASSP Study Area ......................................... 2-4 Figure 2 Population by Municipality .............................................................. 2-8 Figure 3 Adjacent County Population Trends ............................................... 2-9 Figure 4 Forecasted Countywide Population ................................................ 2-9 Figure 5 Percentage of Population 50+ Years of Age................................. 2-10 Figure 6 Unemployment Rates by County .................................................. 2-22 Figure 7 Median Family Income ................................................................. 2-23 Figure 8 Percent Below Poverty ................................................................. 2-23

WASSP - Section 1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary 1-1 Final, November 14, 2008

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction

Washington County is an economically distressed area and the county’s population is projected to slowly decline for the next 25 years. However, the county believes that new development along the Albemarle Sound shoreline and along the US Highway 64 corridor can assist with stimulating the struggling local economy and reversing the loss of population. The provision of adequate wastewater service to these anticipated growth areas is viewed as a crucial factor in expediting their development. The impact that land development may have on the region’s ecology is extremely important to the county. The development of unimproved property increases the likelihood of negative impacts from increased rates of stormwater runoff, degradation of water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, and erosion. While the county encourages and supports development, it wants to ensure that the fragile ecology of the region is protected. To that end, the county wishes to promote efficient land development patterns that balance economic needs with environmental concerns. It is important not only to balance the need for growth and development with the need to protect the natural environment but also to ensure that meeting the needs of the current generation does not compromise the needs and aspirations of future generations.

1.2 Purpose

It is the intent of this plan to prepare a strategy for guiding the location, rate, type and intensity of this anticipated development and to plan for adequate infrastructure to support that development. This plan identifies the preferred land use patterns, design standards, and policies for balancing the desired development with the need to maintain and preserve fragile environments. The plan also includes recommendations for providing a wastewater treatment system to serve the needs of the anticipated development. Long term sustainability of the region within the Albemarle Sound is a major concern for Washington County. Proper planning and environmentally-sensitive development will help to mitigate some of the negative impacts that often accompany land development.

1.3 Planning Area

The study area for the Washington County-Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan is located in the northern portion of Washington County. It is generally bordered on the north by the Albemarle Sound, to the east by Bull’s Bay and the Town of Creswell, to the west by the Town of Plymouth, and to the south by US Highway 64 (see Map 1, General Location Map). The study area is approximately 72,500 acres in size, over 30 percent of the total Washington County land area. The study area is located within a general area, commonly referred to as the Inner Banks, that is expected to be subjected to increasing land development pressure over the next 20 years.

1.4 Plan Goals

A. Land Use and Development Goals

• Create efficient and harmonious growth patterns which are sensitive to the fragile ecology of the Albemarle Sound.


• Promote the conservation of ecologically sensitive areas by utilizing creative site development and design techniques.

• Encourage higher density development in areas that have sufficient support infrastructure and that are environmentally suitable to accommodate such development.

B. Utility Goals

• Strategically locate wastewater facilities to accommodate anticipated land development within identified growth areas.

• Plan for phased, efficient extension of water and sewer to serve areas most suitable for development.

• Provide future utility needs to support development in rural areas while maintaining smart growth patterns.

• Determine the location of a suitable wastewater treatment system. Evaluate the feasibility of connecting to existing community systems (Plymouth, Roper, and Creswell).

• Evaluate the most efficient organizational arrangement for sewer service delivery.

• Incorporate the wastewater treatment systems of existing and new developments into the proposed county system.

• Assess the types of package treatment systems that may be suitable for interim as well as long-term use by the county.

• Explore public/private partnerships for the reuse of treated wastewater (turf farms/golf course).

• Explore possible use of borrow pits for wastewater infiltration ponds.

• Address the stormwater quantity and quality issues associated within land developments in the anticipated growth areas.

• Explore re-use opportunities for collected stormwater.

C. Environmental Goals

• Balance economic development interests with environmental concerns.

• Preserve environmentally sensitive areas such as coastal shorelines, riverine waters, floodplains, coastal wetlands, and Section 404 wetlands.

• Identify coastal shoreline ecologies that are particularly susceptible to erosion.

• Assess methods to minimize the impact of development on stormwater drainage and flooding.

• Identify key fragile environmental areas for preservation as open space or for passive recreation uses.

• Prevent industrial and agricultural uses in environmentally sensitive areas.

D. Economic Goals

• Identify the types of economic development that will potentially be attracted to the area.

• Promote commercial services in key locations that serve the traveling public as well as local residents.

• Promote outdoor recreational and nature tourism opportunities.

• Promote bio-technological uses in the vicinity of the US Highway 64/NC Highway 32 interchange.


E. Transportation Goals

• Coordinate growth scenarios with the proposed NC Highway 32 Connector.

• Utilize the US Highway 64 Corridor as a key location for non-residential uses, particularly tourism-oriented commercial uses, bio-technological uses, and agri-industries.

F. Aesthetics Goals

• Identify key visual characteristics of the study area that should be preserved to protect the attractiveness of the area.

• Identify natural and historic resources that should be protected.

• Identify architectural and building design standards and guidelines that promote the desired character of development.

G. Public Involvement Goals

• Provide opportunities for the general public and identified stakeholders to have input into the planning process.

• Keep citizens informed regarding plan preparation and implementation. 1.5 Vision Statement

The vision for the Study Area reflects the wishes and desires of Washington County, as expressed by the county’s leadership and its citizens, for the future of the area. The vision statement illustrates the desired community form and content and provides a foundation for formulating goals and objectives, establishing priorities, and developing policies for the future of the Study Area.

Vision Statement

The Study Area is a region that effectively balances land development and the protection of environmentally sensitive natural resources. The Albemarle shoreline includes a variety of housing types and mix of land uses in planned developments that compliment the aesthetic and natural qualities of the Albemarle Sound environment. The redevelopment of some former low density residential areas to higher density residential and support local commercial uses has been undertaken in a manner that is sensitive to the natural environment and the need to maintain a desirable overall land use and development pattern for the larger Study Area. Additional residential growth along major county road corridors, within the Town of Roper, and along the peripheries of the Towns of Plymouth and Creswell has met much of the affordable housing need of an expanded population base. The US Highway 64 Corridor is the center for non-residential uses within the Study Area, particularly travel and tourism-oriented commercial uses, bio-technological uses, and agri-industries. Inter-governmental cooperation has resulted in the provision of adequate infrastructure to accommodate the increased density and intensity of urbanizing development. Outside of the primary growth areas, large portions of the Study Area maintain a rural character with farms, forests, and natural areas as the predominant land uses. New growth has been planned and developed in a manner that is consistent with the overall goals of providing economic opportunities, accommodating local community needs, and preserving the natural and scenic qualities that make Washington County a unique place.


1.6 Executive Summary

The remaining sections of this study include (i) an analysis of existing conditions; (ii) an evaluation of alternative development scenarios, identification of a preferred development plan, and preparation of population projections; and (iii) formulation of land use objectives, policies, and implementation strategies.

A. Existing Conditions Analysis

Section 2.0 includes an analysis of existing conditions in Washington County which have an impact on land use and land development. This section of the study provides a sound factual and analytical base to support the formulation of sustainable development objectives and policies. Existing conditions analyzed in Section 2.0 include:

• Existing Land Use

• Population and Housing

• Infrastructure

• Economic Conditions

• Environmental Features

• Development Regulations and Plans

• Adjacent Area Influences

A summary of the major findings of the existing conditions analyses is provided below. Land Use Analysis

• The study area is primarily a sparsely developed rural area.

• Almost two thirds of the study area is agricultural and undeveloped land.

• The lack of viable wastewater disposal and treatment alternatives has resulted in very low densities of land development and limited opportunities for higher density developments.

• Further development of the Albemarle Sound shoreline presents an opportunity to spur new growth within the study area.

• Very little tourism-oriented development exists within the study area. Population Analysis

• The population of the county and study area is forecasted to drop over the next several decades.

• The youth continue to leave the county for educational and employment opportunities.

• Without employment opportunities, the population of Washington County and the study area will continue to decline.

• The population of the county is aging significantly, increasing the demand for services geared toward the elderly.

• The existing population density is among the lowest in North Carolina.

• The seasonal population within the study area is made up largely from low density single-family vacation/seasonal dwelling units located along the Albemarle Sound shoreline.

Housing Analysis

• Housing within the study area is principally comprised of single-family detached dwellings and manufactured homes on individual lots.


• Seasonal housing within the study area is made up largely of low density single-family vacation/seasonal dwelling units located along the Albemarle Sound shoreline.

• Vacation and retirement-oriented housing is expected to account for a larger share of the future housing stock.

• Between 2000 and 2006, the county’s housing stock increased by an annual average of approximately 16 new residential units and 59 mobile homes. Commercial building permits averaged 27 per year during the same time period.

Infrastructure Analysis

• Washington County and the Towns of Roper and Plymouth provide water within the study area. These systems have the capacity to support additional users.

• Washington County does not provide sewer service to the study area. Small portions of the study area have sewer, which are provided by the Towns of Plymouth, Roper, and Creswell. None of these towns have adequate capacity to support additional service.

• The study area relies on drainage ditches and swales to control stormwater. Use of drainage swales and other BMPs (Best Management Practices) is important to maintaining water quality.

• Transportation facilities within the study area consist primarily of State roads.

• The proposed NC 32 connector will improve north/south traffic movement and access to the Albemarle Sound.

• Major road access is limited from the study area to the recreational facilities located in the southern portion of the county.

• Public water access to the Albemarle Sound is limited.

Economic Conditions Analysis

• The economy of Washington County has relied heavily on the manufacturing industry. Recent layoffs have proven the need to establish economic diversity.

• The countywide high unemployment rate and low median family income are signs of a struggling economy. Employment opportunities are needed to improve the long term sustainability of the economy.

• Without increased jobs or an influx of retirees to the area, the negative growth trends will only continue.

• The lack of adequate wastewater treatment facilities hampers nonresidential development activity.

• Promotion of eco-tourism can possibly provide an impetus for the growth of additional economic development opportunities.

Environmental Features Analysis

• Preservation of a large percentage of wetlands within the study area is crucial to the sustainability of the fragile ecology of the area.

• Continued erosion of the shorelines within the study area is inevitable. Proper planning techniques and vegetative stabilization is necessary to maintain the natural state of the shoreline as much as possible.

• Intensive and high density development within areas susceptible to flooding should be limited.

• The soil suitability for on-site waste disposal within the study area is extremely limited. There are very few areas that can support development under the current


conditions. Growth in the area will remain stagnant unless sewer is available to the county.

• Controlling stormwater run-off by using BMPs and the preservation of wetlands can minimize additional pollution in the already impaired waters.

• The county should coordinate with the state and federal agencies when a proposed development may negatively impact significant natural features, historical sites or wildlife.

Land Regulatory Tools Analysis

• County development regulations are in need of updates to promote flexibility and creativity.

• Additional zoning classifications are necessary to allow for a greater range of uses.

• Additional standards for the protection of natural resources are necessary.

Adjacent Area Influences

• Increased tourism within and outside the study area will improve and sustain the economy by establishing small support businesses.

• The proposed Outlying Landing Field could have had a negative impact on the tax base for the county as well as significant environmental impacts.

There are many factors that impact the future growth and protection of the fragile environment of the study area. Population growth, land development, utilities and the environment must correlate with one another to maintain long term sustainability for the study area. Each must be considered when property is proposed to be developed. Much of the study area cannot be developed without the extension of wastewater service, the absence of which limits population growth and economic sustainability. On the other hand, any development can have adverse impacts on the precious natural features that attract people to the area. Development must be properly planned to prevent the destruction of wetlands, degradation of water quality, erosion of the shoreline, and threats to historic and naturally significant areas within the study area.

B. Development Scenarios

Three land development scenarios for the WASSP study area are described in Section 3.0. The scenarios illustrate options for the general spatial distribution of future land use patterns. The narrative for each scenario describes the projected land use patterns, identifies the acreage within each land use classification, and illustrates the maximum number of dwelling units and population that would result if the land is fully developed as portrayed in the scenario. Maps graphically illustrating each scenario accompany the narrative descriptions. A summary comparison of the three scenarios is also provided. Scenario One forecasts higher density residential growth in the vicinity of the Albemarle Sound while Scenario Two projects such growth in close proximity to Roper, Plymouth, and Creswell as well as along the Albemarle Sound. Scenario Three includes the higher density residential pattern of Scenario Two as well as the majority of the low density residential pattern of Scenario One. Scenarios Two and Three reflect a more compact residential development pattern than Scenario One. While Scenarios Two and Three include less total acres used for residential purposes than Scenario One, a higher proportion of the residential acreage is devoted to medium/high density


residential use resulting in higher projected buildout populations. Scenario Three includes the highest residential levels and, therefore, the highest projected buildout population. The projected number of residential units and population at buildout for all three scenarios is summarized below:

Buildout Comparison

Residential Units and Population

Scenario

Total Residential Acreage

Residential Units at Buildout

Population at Buildout

One 7,452.9 13,254 33,400 Two 6,278.0 14,492 36,519

Three 7,370.0 20,340 51,257 All three scenarios project nonresidential development to be concentrated principally along the US 64 corridor. Scenarios Two and Three, however, also include a small amount of local commercial development in two locations along the Mackeys Road corridor. A comparison of the distribution of land uses within each scenario is provided below:

Comparison of Land Use Patterns Percent of Total Land Area

Land Use Scenario One Scenario

Two Scenario

Three

Medium/High Density Residential

4.0%

5.7%

5.7% Low Density Residential 6.3% 3.0% 4.5% Nonresidential 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% Rural Agriculture 42.2% 43.7% 42.1% Developed/Constrained 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Scenario Three was selected as the most desirable pattern of future growth for the study area. This preferred development option reflects expectations for increased second home/retirement housing in close proximity to the Albemarle Sound shoreline, medium and high density residential growth on the peripheries of established urban areas, additional low density residential growth adjacent to major county road corridors, new nonresidential development primarily concentrated along the US 64 corridor, and the continued use of the majority of the study area for agricultural and forestry land uses. Map 14, Future Land Use illustrates projected future land use patterns in the study area. This map incorporates the anticipated future growth patterns reflected in the preferred development scenario as well as existing land use patterns.

C. Population Projections

This section of the study reviews three different sets of population projections and provides a recommended population forecast for use in the WASSP study area for general land use and utility planning purposes. Projection 1 reflects the projected population trends prepared by the NC State Data Center. According to the 2000 Census data, the project area contained approximately 5,200 people,


which is approximately 38 percent of the countywide population. Based upon current population projections prepared by the State, the study area population will decrease to 4,455 by 2030. Projection 2 assumes a countywide population growth rate similar to that of the region. Six different variations of this population projection are based upon growth rates in immediately adjacent counties, Albemarle Sound counties, and counties in the larger region. This methodology produces 2030 population projections for the study area that range from a low of 5,569 to a high of 6,802. Projection 3 selects a low, medium, and high growth rate from the various projections made in # 2 above and, additionally, illustrates the impact of a 5% and 10% increase in the study area’s capture rate of the total countywide population gain between 2010 and 2030. With this projection, the 2030 study area population ranges from a low 6,304 to a high of 7,780. While State population projections forecast a declining population for Washington County through 2030, the surrounding region is expected to experience positive population growth. Optimistically, Washington County’s future population will be somewhat reflective of the larger region. Growth rates increase significantly when the region is expanded to include Currituck and Dare Counties. However, inclusion of these two counties most likely distorts growth potential for Washington County since Currituck and Dare Counties are heavily influenced by beach tourism and spillover growth from Tidewater Virginia. Consequently, projections illustrated in Population Projection #3 probably more accurately reflect the range of growth potential in the study area. The following is recommended as the population projections to be included in the Washington County-Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan for general land use and utility planning purposes:

Recommended Population Projections WASSP Study Area

2010 2020 2030 Low 5,360 5,663 5,890 High 5,360 6,036 6,668

The ‘low’ forecast represents a growth rate based on the average state projections for select Albemarle Sound counties (including Bertie, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties). The ‘high’ forecast assumes that the study area will increase its proportional share of the total countywide population gain by 5 percent each decade between 2010 and 2030.

D. Sustainable Land Development Objectives Section 4.0 provides a delineation of land use and land development objectives that Washington County believes are critical to achieving long term sustainability. These objectives would:

• Ensure that new nonresidential development is compatible with its surrounding environment.

• Ensure that new residential developments do not detract from the existing rural character.

• Ensure that new land developments do not overburden the county’s ability to provide public services.


• Ensure that the county’s land development regulations implement WASSP objectives and adopted policies.

• Limit intensive development within the 100-year floodplain.

• Reduce the potential impact of increased stormwater flow from new land development sites.

• Preserve and maintain the natural hydraulic and ecological functions of drainage systems.

• Use site planning techniques to assist with maintaining or enhancing pre-development hydrologic systems.

• Protect surface waters from pollution and soil erosion.

• Delineate, in conjunction with the municipalities, service area boundaries to identify areas that will be receiving urban services, particularly water and sewer services.

• Limit utility infrastructure extensions into environmentally fragile areas to discourage urban-type development patterns in such areas.

Specific policy statements related to each objective outlined above are also provided in Section 4.0.

E. Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable Land Development Major recommended implementation actions delineated in Section 4.0 include:

• A comprehensive revision to and update of the existing zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.

• Open space and recreational space requirements for all new residential land developments.

• Incorporation of low impact development practices and standards into the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.

• Preparation and adoption of a stormwater management master plan and stormwater ordinance.

• Utilization of conservation subdivision design practices and standards.

• Incorporation of adequate public facility provisions in the zoning ordinance.

• Preparation of highway corridor overlay zoning district standards and requirements.

• Development of a local watershed plan through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.

• Increased riparian buffer requirements.

• Collaboration with the towns of Plymouth, Roper and Creswell to establish utility service areas and a regional approach to providing wastewater treatment and disposal for the WASSP study area.


F. Preliminary Engineering Report Recommendations

The Water and Sewer Preliminary Engineering Report was prepared to identify and plan for water and sewer infrastructure needs in the planning area. Providing a safe and reliable means of water and wastewater service is essential to promote sustainable development. This is accomplished through protection of public health and safety by providing safe drinking water, reducing exposure to partially- and untreated-wastewater, protection of the environment by reducing risks for surface water and groundwater contamination, and job creation/retention by allowing sensible economic development that otherwise would be improbable due to unsuitable soils. A full copy of the Preliminary Engineering Report is provided in Appendix D. The Preliminary Engineering Report’s major recommendations are delineated below.

• Water Supply. Sufficient water supply is available between the four water utilities to meet projected water demands in the WASSP study area in the immediate future. The County should further investigate means of reducing hydrogen sulfide levels in its distribution system. The County has installed hydrogen peroxide feed units at the wellheads which has reduced hydrogen sulfide levels at the Water Treatment Plant, but water customers are still occasionally reporting foul odors.

• Regional Management Approach. Washington County should work closely with the Towns of Plymouth, Roper and Creswell to identify the most efficient means of managing wastewater treatment and disposal for the WASSP study area. Implementation of a regional management structure may benefit all participants with regards to staying abreast of regulatory issues, benefiting from economies of scales associated with system operation and maintenance, and contributions to capital reserves for system repairs and overhauls.

• Spray Irrigation System. Washington County should not pursue construction of a spray irrigation system for disposal of wastewater in the WASSP study area. Inadequate soil types, high groundwater tables and expansive land area requirements (required due to low hydraulic application rates) would make this an undesirable alternative.

• Mackey’s Ferry Area Sewer Service. Washington County should consider working with the Town of Plymouth for treatment of wastewater generated in the Mackey’s Ferry area. After Plymouth completes its sewer rehabilitation project, the Town may be willing to accept wastewater generated in the County.

• Pea Ridge Area Sewer Service. Washington County should consider partnering with area developers in regards to construction of a new wastewater treatment system to serve the Pea Ridge and expected Highway 32/64 commercial area. The County may benefit from reduced permitting and funding timeframes, and developers may benefit if the County is willing to dedicate land or partial funds for WWTP construction. This would reduce wastewater transmission costs for pumping wastewater to Plymouth or another system for treatment and disposal.

• Phased Implementation. Washington County should evaluate implementation of a wastewater transmission system in four phases. Phase 1 would serve Mackey’s Ferry, Phase 2 would serve Pea Ridge, Phase 3 would serve the proposed Highway 64/32 commercial area and Phase 4 would allow Roper to pump its wastewater to Plymouth. Construction of all four phases is expected to total $8.901 million in 2008 dollars.


• Technological Options. Washington County should compare the benefits of available wastewater collection technologies – gravity, low pressure and vacuum - and determine which of the technologies it will allow for private development activities within the WASSP study area. A small diameter variable grade system is not recommended due to insufficient relief in topography.

• Financing. Washington County should seek financial assistance from private developers, NC Rural Economic Development Center, NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, NC Construction Grants and Loans and USDA Rural Development to undertake desired capital improvements projects. State and Federal agencies can provide grants and loans to help offset the initial capital expense, but may require Washington County to match with local funds.

WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions 2-1 Final, November 14, 2008

2.0 Existing Conditions The study area for the Washington Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan is located in the northern portion of Washington County. It is generally bordered on the north by the Albemarle Sound, to the east by Bull’s Bay and the Town of Creswell, to the west by the Town of Plymouth, and to the south by US Highway 64 (see Map 1, General Location Map). The study area is approximately 72,500 acres in size, over 30 percent of the total Washington County land area. The study area is located within a general area, commonly referred to as the Inner Banks, that is expected to be subjected to increasing land development pressure over the next 20 years. Washington County lies in the northern coastal plain of North Carolina on the southern side of the Albemarle Sound. It is bordered by Martin County on the west, Beaufort and Hyde Counties on the south, and Tyrrell County on the east. There are three municipalities within the county, the Town of Plymouth which is the county seat, and the Towns of Roper and Creswell. Major employers in the area are Weyerhaeuser in Martin County and the Tidewater Research Station east of Plymouth. Washington County has an estimated total population of 13,364 persons and a density of about 39 persons per square mile. The Roanoke River, Conaby Creek, and Kendricks Creek (also known as Mackeys Creek) are three of the major tributaries within the study area that feed into the Albemarle Sound. There are two large swamps located within the study area: Swan Bay Swamp to the northwest and Bull Neck Swamp to the northeast. Historic sites within the study area include Garrett’s Island House and the Rehoboth Methodist Church. Tourist sites outside the study area include the Davenport Homestead, Somerset Place, Pettigrew State Park and the Civil War Trail. Two national wildlife refuges, Roanoke River NWR and Pocosin Lakes NWR, are also in the vicinity of the study area. 2.1 Existing Land Use The study area is primarily a rural area with scattered, low density residences and rural businesses and services widely dispersed among agricultural, forested, and open tracts of land. The most intensive development within the study area is located within the Town of Roper corporate area; along the NC Highways 32, 45, 308, and 94 road corridors; and east of the Town of Plymouth adjacent to the US Highway 64 corridor and in the intersection area of NC 45 and NC 308. Rural villages and crossroad communities located within the study area include Mackeys, Westover, Basnight, Albemarle Beach, Pleasant Grove, Batemens Beach, Leonards Point, Beasley, Skinnersville, Davenport Forks, and Scuppernong. The 6,158-acre Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest makes up a large part of the northeastern section of the study area and the 670-acre Conaby Creek/Swan Bay Swamp Nature Preserve occupies the northwestern corner of the study area. Generalized existing land use patterns are illustrated in Map 2, Existing Land Use Map. A. Agricultural and Forestry As shown on Map 2, Existing Land Use, agricultural land is the most prevalent existing land use classification within the study area. An estimated 45,514 acres (65 percent of the study area) are currently used for agricultural purposes, including crop production, woodland, horticultural, and livestock/poultry feeding operations (as shown in Figure 1). Vacant and underdeveloped parcels are also included in the agricultural classification. Approximately ten hog farms,

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKe

ndric

k Cree

k

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot C

anal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

Conaby Creek -Swan Bay Swamp

TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

dUs Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Jones White Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Alligo

od Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d Back Rd

Cherry R

d

Woodlawn Rd

Backwoods Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

B Can

al Rd

Deep Creek Rd

Thirty

Ft Ca

nal R

d

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Barber Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Slough Rd

Scuppernong RdMarriner Rd

Spruill Rd

White Oak Ln

Ward Rd N

Mt Pl

easa

nt RdLoop Rd

Gus Town Rd

Landfill Rd

Benson Rd

Railroad Bed Rd

River

Rd

Bush St

Gage

Ln

Downing Rd

Styons Rd

Learys Beach

Spruill Lp

Robin Dr

White Rd

Parrish Rd

Nixon Rd

Norman Rd

Private RdLil

y Ln

Ferris

Dr

Davis Rd

Fairlane Rd

Plume St

Shelly Dr

Nc Hwy 3

2 N

1 inch = 7,000 feet

0 8,250 16,5004,125Feet

NJuly 24, 2007

Study AreaCorporate LimitsETJ

Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

Map 1General Location

Pamlico Sound

AlbemarleSound

Pamlico River & Pamlico Sound

Currituck Sound

Core Soun

d

Roanoke Sound

Croatan SoundDARE

HYDEPITT

BERTIE

MARTIN

GATES

BEAUFORT

TYRRELL

CARTERET

PAMLICO

HERTFORD

CRAVEN

CAMDEN

WASHINGTON

NORTHAMPTON

CURRITUCK

CHOWAN

PERQUIMANS

PASQUOTANK North Carolina

Virginia

Georgia South Carolina

Tennessee

Kentucky

Charlotte

RaleighDurhamGreensboro

Cary

Winston-Salem

FayettevilleGastonia

High Point

Jacksonville

Asheville

Wilmington

Greenville

Rocky MountRoanoke River

Cashie River £¤64

£¤17

""45

""308

""94

""32

""171

""37

""99

""149

""308

""45

""308""32 £¤64

BERTIECOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY TYRRELL

COUNTY

MARTINCOUNTY

HYDECOUNTYBEAUFORT

COUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

PERQUIMANSCOUNTY

NewLake

PhelpsLake

Roanok

e Rive

r

Chowan River AlbemarleSound

PungoLake

PocosinLakes NationalWildlife RefugeVan Swamp

Gameland

PocosinLakes NationalWildlife Refuge

Pocosin LakesNational

Wildlife Refuge PettigrewState Park

PettigrewState Park

Roanoke RiverBottomlands

Lantern AcresGameland

PocosinLakes NationalWildlife Refug


Wildlife RefugeRoanoke RiverWetlands


Wildlife Refuge

Ncsu BullNeck ForestResearch

Roanoke

River

Wetlands

Askewville

Edenton

Windsor

Columbia

RoperPlymouth

Creswell

Jamesville

2006 Orthophoto

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKe

ndric

k Cree

k

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot C

anal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell±°̄ ±°̄

&3

&3

!H

&3

z

&3

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

d

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Alligo

od Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Jones White Rd

Back Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d

Cherry Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

Westo

n Rd

B Can

al Rd

Deep Creek Rd

Thirty

Ft Ca

nal R

d

Holly Neck Rd

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Barber Rd

Slough Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Spruill Rd

Marriner Rd

Scuppernong Rd

White Oak Ln

Ward Rd N

Hortontown Rd

Loop Rd

Mt Pl

easa

nt Rd

Gus Town Rd

Landfill RdBe

nson

Rd

River

Rd

Railroad Bed Rd

Bush St

Downing Rd

Styons Rd

Learys Beach

Cypre

ss S

hores

Rd

Robin Dr

Ida St

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd

Private RdLil

y Ln

Ferris

Dr

Davis RdKing Ln

Plume StUs Hwy 64 E

Nc Hwy 3

2 N

Nc Hw

y 32 N

1 inch = 7,000 feet

0 8,000 16,0004,000Feet

N

July 26, 2007

Landmarksz D.O.T. Maintenance

&3 Fire Station!H Mine, Sand Pit±°̄ School

Study AreaCorporate LimitETJIndustrial Park

Existing Land UseConservationAgriculturalForestryResidentialPublic InstitutionalCommercialAgricultural IndustrialIndustrialMining


Map 2Existing Land Use

Lewis

Cana

l

Kendrick Creek

£¤64

""32±°̄

&3&3

!

!

!

Cros

s Rd

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

d

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64 E

Nc Hwy 32 N

Slough Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond

Rd

Hortontown Rd

Backwoods Rd

Bush St

N Plume St

Newby St

Parrish Rd

W Us 64 Byp

Walker St

Davis Rd

Plume St

Oak St

Griffin Rd

Us Hw

y 64 E

Roper Inset

21Landfill Correctional

Facility

NCDOTMaintenance

IndustrialPark

PinesElementary

UnionSchool


identified on Map 2, as agricultural industrial land uses, are located within the study area and are largely concentrated in the area south of US 64 along Northline Road. Within the study area, 12,281 acres (or approximately 18 percent of the total study area land area) are currently devoted to forestry use. Major forestry tracts are located within the central portion of the study area between the Town of Roper and the Town of Creswell. The Weyerhaeuser Company owns approximately 50 timberland tracts within the study area.

Figure 1

B. Residential The majority of residences within the study area are comprised of single-family detached dwellings and manufactured homes on individual lots. Multi-family residences and higher density residential developments are not prevalent within the study area, due in large part to the absence of adequate widespread waste disposal and treatment facilities. A small number of multi-family residences are located within the Town of Roper. Residential land uses account for 3,337 acres or about 5 percent of the study area. Single-family residential uses are clustered close to crossroads and along primary and secondary thoroughfare corridors. The largest clusters of residential developments are near Mackeys, Pleasant Grove, Leonards Point, Batemans Beach, Albemarle Beach, east of Plymouth, and in Roper. The density of the majority of these residential clusters ranges from less than one dwelling unit per acre to approximately two dwelling units per acre. Homes associated with agricultural uses are present at even lower densities and are sporadically located throughout the study area. The majority of residences within the study area are comprised of single-family detached dwellings and manufactured homes on individual lots. Multi-family residences and higher density residential developments are not prevalent within the study area. A small number of multi-family residences are located within the Town of Roper. Approximately seventeen residential subdivisions, containing a total 655 lots, have been developed along the Albemarle Sound shoreline. These shoreline subdivisions range from a high of 179 lots/units to 10 lots/units, averaging over 38 lots per subdivision. Average lot sizes within these developments vary from over 1.5 acres per lot to 0.2-acre per lot. Recently, there has been increased interest in constructing secondary vacation and retirement homes along the Albemarle Sound shoreline. Two additional subdivisions, Cedar Shores II and

Existing Land Use

WASSP Study Area

Agricultural Industrial

Mining

Commercial

Public Institutional

Residential

Conservation

Forestry

Agricultural


Sandridge II which total about 35 acres, have recently been approved. In addition, potential shoreline subdivisions have been discussed in three other locations. Existing and proposed shoreline developments are depicted on Map 3, Existing and Proposed Shoreline Developments. C. Commercial and Industrial Clusters of nonresidential uses are located in the Town of Roper, the village of Mackeys and the eastern portion of the study area, near the Town of Plymouth. There are several small businesses and services located at some of the crossroads throughout the study area which generally support the rural population of the study area. Commercial uses make up approximately 0.7 percent of the study area (459 acres). Other than the agricultural industrial uses described in the Agricultural and Forestry classification description, the only other concentration of major industrial land uses is within the Washington County Industrial Park. The approximate 60-acre Washington County Industrial Park, located in the western study area off of US 64, contains six lots, four of which are currently used for industrial and heavy commercial purposes. A sand and gravel mining operation is located in the western corner of the study area along the Roanoke River shoreline southwest of NC 45. Approximately 305 acres (0.3 percent of the study area) is classified for mining use. D. Public and Institutional The Public and Institutional land use classification includes county, municipal, and state land and facilities; churches, fire stations, schools, parks, and similar community facilities. Approximately 2 percent of the study area (1,532 acres) is used for public and institutional purposes. The Tidewater Research Station makes up the majority of property designated as public and institutional. This research station was established in 1943 as part of the statewide system of agricultural research farms and is located approximately five miles east of Plymouth in the southwestern portion of the study area. The facility includes a total of 1,558 acres--840 acres of woodland, 428 acres of cropland, 195 acres of pastures, and 95 acres of aquaculture ponds, waterways, buildings, roads, and related support areas. Approximately one-half of the research station’s acreage is within the study area boundary. The research station is primarily engaged in the research of grain and swine production but current research also involves field crops, horticultural crops, soil, water, livestock, and aquaculture. Also situated on the research station grounds is the Vernon G. James Research and Extension Center, a 32,000-square foot facility that houses research and extension specialists in the swine, beef, soil, entomology, plant pathology, crop science, horticulture science, and aquaculture disciplines and other related staff. The center includes seven research laboratories and a 300-person seating capacity conference center. Other large public and institutional land uses include the Washington County landfill site located north of NC 308 on Landfill Road, the NC Department of Transportation maintenance facility and state correctional facility located on NC 94 northwest of Scuppernong, and the 16-acre Washington County Recreational Park located on NC Highways 32/94.

""32

""308

£¤64

""94

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards PointBatemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks


Conaby Creek -Swan Bay SwampTNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

ProposedUnnamed

Development

SandridgeApproved &Recorded

ProposedSandridge II

ProposedShadberryLanding

SummerfieldFarm

Beech Ridge

Arnold's Beach

Beech Bay

Mackey's FerryLanding

Blair Shores

SoundsidePlace

Small Estates

NewberryLanding

Cypress Shores

Albemarle Beach

Driftwood Estates IDriftwood Estates II

Learys Beach

CedarShores

Summerby

Cedar Shores IIApproved &RecordedWaterside

at the Point Us Hwy 64 E

Mackeys Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

Cros

s Rd

Nc Hwy 32

Nc Hw

y 32 N

Back

wood

s Rd

Spruill Rd

Woodlawn Rd

Marriner Rd

Loop Rd

Land

fill Rd

Spruill Lp

Lamb

Rd

Lily Ln

Golden Ln

Spruill Rd

Proposed & Existing Shoreline DevelopmentWithin the WASSP Study Area


Map 3Existing & Proposed

Shoreline Development

July 24, 2007

Subdivision StatusApproved & RecordedExistingProposed N

0 8,100 16,2004,050Feet

""94

""32

""45

""308

""45

""32

""94

""308

£¤64

£¤64

""32

""32

Extent of ExistingShoreline Development

Subdivision Number Acres Average Lot Size Name of Lots (Acres)

Albemarle Beach 72 16.9 0.23Arnold's Beach 49 31.8 0.65Beech Bay 39 39.6 1.02Beech Ridge 13 19.6 1.51Blair Shores 47 28.3 0.6Cedar Shores 14 12.4 0.88Cypress Shores 23 12.5 0.54Driftwood Estates I 10 5 0.5Driftwood Estates II 11 5.5 0.5Learys Beach 12 6.3 0.52Mackey's Ferry Landing 46 40.2 0.87Newberry Landing 22 13.9 0.63Small Estates 22 11.6 0.53Soundside Place 40 25.6 0.64Summerby 19 27.7 1.46Summerfield Farm 37 55.4 1.5Waterside at the Point 179 50 0.28Totals 655 402.2 0.61

Table 1Existing Platted Shoreline Subdivisions

WASSP Study Area


E. Conservation The majority of the 6,772 acres classified as Conservation consists of the Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest in northeastern corner of the study area and the Conaby Creek/Swan Bay Swamp Nature Preserve in the northwestern corner. Two privately-owned conservation tracts are also included in this land use classification. Conservation-classified land accounts for almost 10 percent of the study area.

2.2 Population and Housing A. Population The study area consists of the northern one-third of Washington County, a portion of the Town of Plymouth, and all of the Town of Roper. Based upon US Census data and the estimated number of dwellings in the study area, there are approximately 5,200 people residing in the study area. The study area makes up approximately 30.3 percent of the total land area of Washington County, and accounts for approximately 37.8 percent of the total county population. Washington County and other counties in the surrounding area have experienced little growth over the last several decades. Since 1980, the population of Washington County has continued to decrease. This decrease in population can be attributed to several factors including industry closures, decline of the child bearing-aged segment of the total population, or out-migration of younger people from the county for educational or employment opportunities. Out-migration in Washington County exceeds the natural birth/death rate increase. As shown on Table 1, the natural growth increase was 1,319 (births 5,196, deaths 3,877) from 1980 to 2005. From 1980 to 2005, an estimated 2,702 people left the county, an average of 108 per year.

All three municipalities in Washington County experienced a decrease in population from 1980 to 2005, as shown on Figure 2. The Town of Plymouth experienced a steady population decline of 12.8 percent over the last 25 years. Creswell and Roper experienced a more significant decrease in population since 1980, 38.7 percent and 20.8 percent respectively. The non-incorporated rural areas of Washington County have experienced a population decrease of 5.1 percent over the same amount of time, a lower rate of population decrease than the rest of the county.

LAND USE ANALYSIS

• The study area is primarily a sparsely developed rural area.

• Almost two thirds of the study area is agricultural and undeveloped land.

• The lack of viable wastewater disposal and treatment alternatives has resulted in very low densities of land development and limited opportunities for higher density developments.

• Further development of the Albemarle Sound shoreline presents an opportunity to spur new growth within the study area.

• Very little tourism-oriented development exists within the study area.


Table 1

Components of Population Change

Washington County

1980 to 2005

Washington County

Population Change -1,383

Births 5,196

Deaths 3,877

Natural Increase 1,319

Net Migration -2,702

Migration Rate -108/yr

Source: NC State Data Center

Source: US Census and NC State Data Center

As evidenced on Figure 3, the surrounding counties in the region have varying growth trends. Martin County has experienced stable population growth since 1970. However, Martin County is projected to begin dropping in population. Bertie County has experienced similar closings and layoffs in the manufacturing industry. Both Bertie and Martin Counties are rural in nature and still rely on agriculture as the staple of the economy. East of the study area is Tyrrell County and Hyde County, both have had a stable growth rate with only a slight increase and decrease respectively. Beaufort County to the south and Chowan County to the north have experienced population growth since 1970 and both counties are forecasted to continue increasing in population for the next 25 years. There has recently been an influx of shoreline and retirement-aged developments locating in these areas.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Plymouth 4,774 4,571 4,328 4,107 3,983

Roper 649 795 669 613 629

Creswell 633 426 361 278 261

1970 1980 1990 2000 2005

Figure 2

Population by Municipality



Figure 4

Forcasted Countywide Population

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Po

pu

lati

on


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Year

Beaufort

Bertie

Chowan

Hyde

Martin

Tyrrell

Washington

Population

Figure 3 Adjacent County Population Trends


Figure 5

Percentage of Population 50+

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Years

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 50 y

ears

or

old

er County

Percentage

State Percentage

Source: US Census and State Data Center

The State has seen a significant surge of in-migration of retirees throughout the state over the last 20 years. Washington County is projected to have a significantly higher increase in the percentage of an older population in the coming years. From 1970 to 2000, the number of persons 50 years of age or older statewide jumped from 21.9 percent to 27.4 percent of the population. This upward trend is expected to continue and is projected to total 30.9 percent in 2010. Washington County has experienced an even higher percentage of persons 50 years or older, as shown on Figure 5. In 1970, the percentage of 50+ year olds was 21.8 percent, a proportional rate that was comparable to the rest of the state. In 2000, the percentage jumped to 33.6 percent and is forecasted to be at 41.5 percent of the population by 2010. Currently, the density of development is extremely low. Washington County is in a region that includes some of the lowest population densities in North Carolina. The adjoining counties of Hyde and Tyrrell are the least densely populated counties in North Carolina. As shown in Table 2, Washington County and all of the adjoining counties are well below the average statewide population density.

Table 2

Population Density

Adjoining Counties

Jurisdiction Persons per Square Mile

Beaufort County 54.30 Bertie County 28.26 Chowan County 81.96 Hyde County 9.51 Martin County 55.39 Tyrrell County 10.64 Washington County

39.38

North Carolina 165.20 Source: NC State Data Center


According to the 2000 US Census data (see Table 3), Black or African Americans composed 48.9 percent of the total Washington County population and Whites, 48.3 percent. Hispanics made up about 2.3 percent of the 2000 population. The county population contains a higher proportion of Black/African Americans and lower proportions of White and Hispanics than the statewide average.

Table 3

2000 Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin

Washington County

North Carolina

Race Category Number Percent Number Percent White 6,626 48.3% 5,647,155 73.62% Black/African American 6,716 48.9% 1,723,301 22.47% American Indian/Alaska Native

7 0.05% 95,333 1.24%

Asian 44 0.3% 112,416 1.47% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 6 0.04% 3,165 0.04% Other Race 228 1.7% 9,015 0.12% Two or More Races 96 0.7% 79,965 1.04% Total 13,723 100.00% 7,670,350 100.00% Hispanic or Latino Origin 311 2.26% 378,963 4.94%

Source: US Census, 2000 - SF1 Table P4

Seasonal population in Washington County consists of temporary inhabitants of vacation or seasonal homes; hotels, motels, and similar accommodations; campsites; and transient boat slips. The estimated seasonal population for the entire county in 2006 is 1,212 persons. When added to the estimated 2006 permanent countywide population, the peak 2006 population for the county totals 14,576 persons. The county’s seasonal population comprises just over 8 percent of the estimated peak population. Seasonal population within the study area is estimated to total about 375 persons. Within the study area, the overwhelming majority of the seasonal population results from vacation and seasonal dwellings located along the Albemarle Sound shoreline. Other than one bed and breakfast operation and one marina with transient, rental boat slips, there are no seasonal housing accommodations within the study area. The peak 2006 population for the study area is estimated at 5,575 people; the seasonal population represents slightly less than 7 percent of the peak population.


B. Housing The predominant housing type in Washington County is the single-family detached dwelling – comprising approximately 67 percent of all housing units in the county in 2000 (see Table 4). Manufactured homes accounted for approximately one-quarter of the county’s housing stock. Multi-family residences (2 or more dwelling units per structure) made up just over 7 percent of all housing units. The median year built of all housing units in the county is 1971. According to the 2000 US Census, 33 percent (2,031 units) of all housing units were defined as urban and 67 percent (4,143 units) as rural. Three percent of the rural housing was classified as farm housing and 97 percent was defined as non-farm housing. The 2000 median value for owner-occupied housing units was $69,400 compared to the statewide median of $108,300.

Table 4

Comparison of Housing by Structural Type, Year 2000

Structural Type Number of Structures

Washington County %

North Carolina %

Single-Family 4,176 67.64% 67.37%

Multi-Family 463 7.50% 16.08%

Manufactured Home 1,522 24.65% 16.38%

Other (boat, RV, van, etc.)

13 0.21% 0.17%

Totals 6,174 100.00% 100.00%

Source: US Census 2000 - SF3 Table H30

The estimated 2,063 housing units within the study area are almost totally comprised of single-family detached dwellings and manufactured homes on individual lots. According to the 2000 Census, the Town of Roper included a total of 276 housing units. Approximately 73 percent of the town’s housing units were single-family detached residences (201), 12 percent were multi-family dwellings (32), and 15 percent were manufactured homes (43). There are currently no large resort or retirement-aged housing developments located within the study area. The majority (47.8 percent) of the estimated 481 seasonal housing units in Washington County is made up of hotel/motel and bed and breakfast rooms which are located almost exclusively in the Town of Plymouth. Seasonal dwellings (vacation, recreational, and

POPULATION ANALYSIS

• The population of the county and study area is forecasted to drop over the next several decades.

• The youth continue to leave the county for educational and employment opportunities.

• Without employment opportunities, the population of Washington County and the study area will continue to decline.

• The population of the county is aging significantly, increasing the demand for services geared toward the elderly.

• The existing population density is among the lowest in North Carolina.

• The seasonal population within the study area is made up largely from low density single-family vacation/seasonal dwelling units located along the Albemarle Sound shoreline.


occasional use housing) comprise an additional 43.2 percent of seasonal housing units and transient boat slips and campsites compose the remaining 10 percent (see Table 5). Seasonal dwellings made up just over 3 percent of the total housing stock in 2000. Seasonal dwellings consist primarily of detached single-family dwelling units and manufactured homes.

Table 5

Seasonal Housing

Washington County

Type of Seasonal Housing

Total Seasonal Housing

Units

% of Seasonal Housing

Seasonal dwellings 208 43.2%

Hotel, motel, B&B 230 47.8%

Campsites 13 2.7%

Transient marina slips

30 6.3%

Totals 481 100.0%

Source: US Census, Washington County Travel and Tourism

Although a precise count is not available, it is estimated that approximately 125 to 150 of the total number of seasonal housing units in the county are located within the study area. This estimate includes detached single-family seasonal/vacation dwellings located along the Albemarle Sound shoreline, bed and breakfast rooms, and transient boat slips at the Mackeys Landing Marina. There are no hotels or motels offering seasonal housing accommodations within the study area. Since 2000, the Washington County Planning and Safety Department issued building permits for 113 new residential units, 413 mobile homes, and 187 commercial units (see Table 6). Mobile homes accounted for approximately 78 percent of all new residential permits issued between 2000 and 2006.

Table 6

Washington County Building Permits

Residential Commercial New Units Value Mobile Home Permits Units Value

2000 17 $ 2,225,821 72 22 $ 7,000,560 2001 9 $ 1,053,650 86 38 $11,859,550 2002 9 $ 1,213,072 64 17 $ 1,661,448 2003 20 $ 2,510000 34 20 $ 1,013,644 2004 10 $ 1,088,500 60 36 $ 1,184,000 2005 19 $ 2,757,831 56 23 $ 3,423,091 2006 29 $ 5,153,700 41 31 $ 1,733,129

Totals 113 $16,002,574 413 187 $27,875,422

Sources: Washington County Planning and Safety Department; US Census


2.3 Infrastructure A. Water Washington County provides a regional water system that is available throughout the county and the study area. The water system consists of 135 miles of distribution lines and three wells (see Map 4). The wells draw water from the Castle Hayne Aquifer, each at a depth of 280 feet. The entire water system has been constructed within the last 20 years, the last section being completed in 2000. The water system has a capacity of 1 million gallons per day (MGD) and a storage capacity of 1.2 million gallons. The water treatment facility has a storage capacity of 500,000 gallons. There are 5 elevated storage tanks located throughout the county with a total storage capacity of 700,000 gallons. The 2002 Washington County Water Supply Plan states that there were 2,434 residential customers, 7 commercial customers and 2 institutional customers. The average daily water usage was 0.415 mgd, approximately 60 percent of system capacity. All three municipalities in Washington County have their own water treatment system. The Town of Roper, which is inside the study area, has a water system capacity of 100,000 gallons. B. Sewer Currently, Washington County does not operate a sewer system. An on-site septic system is the only option for individual residents to dispose of sewage. Information from the local health department indicates that septic systems fail on a regular basis. The majority of the soils within the county have severe limitations for septic system use. The Towns of Plymouth, Roper and Creswell all have wastewater treatment systems and provide some wastewater services within a small portion of the study area. The Town of Plymouth has a capacity of 800,000 gallons and is at 65 percent capacity, leaving 15 percent capacity for additional services before requiring an expansion. Roper has a capacity of 85,000 gallons, and is currently using approximately 70 percent. The NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requires expansion of wastewater treatment facilities when usage reaches 80 percent of capacity.

HOUSING ANALYSIS

• Housing within the study area is principally comprised of single-family detached dwellings and manufactured homes on individual lots.

• Seasonal housing within the study area is made up largely of low density single-family vacation/seasonal dwelling units located along the Albemarle Sound shoreline.

• Vacation and retirement-oriented housing is expected to account for a larger share of the future housing stock.

• Between 2000 and 2006, the county’s housing stock increased by an annual average of approximately 16 new residential units and 59 mobile homes. Commercial building permits averaged 27 per year during the same time period.

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKe

ndric

k Cree

k

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot C

anal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

21

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Us Hwy 64 E

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

d

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Newland Rd

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Alligo

od Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Jones White Rd

Back Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d

Cherry Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

Deep Creek RdHolly Neck Rd

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Thirty

Ft Ca

nal R

d

Barber Rd

Slough Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Spruill Rd

Marriner Rd

Scuppernong Rd

Ward Rd N

Hortontown Rd

Loop Rd

Mt Pl

easa

nt Rd

Gus Town Rd

Landfill RdBe

nson

Rd

River

Rd

Bush St

Downing Rd

Learys Beach

Cypre

ss S

hores

Rd

Robin Dr

Ida St

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd

Private RdLil

y Ln

Ferris

Dr

Davis RdKing Ln

Plume StUs Hwy 64 E

Newland RdNc H

wy 32 N

Nc Hw

y 32 N

3''6''

14''

4''

2''8''

2''

6''

6''

3''

2''

3''

2''

3''

6''

8''

10''

24''

8'' 8''

8''

8''

8''

8'' 8''

8''8''

8''

8''

8''6''

4''2''

3''

6''

6''6'' 4''

2''

6''

6''

6''

6''

6''

4''

2''

8''

6''

6''

3''

6''

8''

4''6''

6''

4''

6''

2''

6''

6''

6''

8''

6''

3''

8''

6''

6''

6''

4''

4''

8''

4''

4''

4''

6''

6''

6''

6''

8''

6''4''

6''

6''

2''6''

6''

4''

8''

2''4''

4''

6''

6'' 8''

6''

2''

4''

6''

8''

8''

4''

6''

3''

6''

4''

3''

2''

6''

6''

6''

6''

6''

6''

4''

6''

6''

6''

6''2''

2''

6''

4''

6''

6''

4''

6''

4''

6''

6''

4''

4''

4''

8''

6'' 4''

4''

1 inch = 7,000 feet

0 8,000 16,0004,000Feet

N

July 18, 2007

Study AreaCorporate LimitETJ

Z Cell Towers

21 Landfill

U Communication Towers

} Electrial Transmission LinesNatural Gas Lines

Sewer InfrastructureForce MainsGravity Sewer

"5 Sewer Pumps

"!;Î Sewer Discharge

UT WWTP

Water Infrastructure(Pipes by diameter)

1" - 4"5" - 6"7" - 12"

# Water Treatment

#$

Water Towers

!( Water Wells

"5 Water Pumps

UT Water Tanks

Soil Septic SuitabilitySevereModerateSlightWater


Map 4Existing Infrastructure

UT

UT

UT!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

#

#

UT

"!;Î

"5

"5}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

}}

Z

U#$

#$

Lewi

s Can

al

£¤64

&3&3

Cross Rd

Bush St

N Plume St

Newby St

Newland Rd

Buncombe St (old Us 64)

Railroad St

Bank St

Us Hwy 6

4 E

W Us 64 Byp

Walker St

Nc Hwy 32 N May St

W Mill Pond Rd

E Us 6

4 Byp

Plume St

Hortontown Rd

Oak St

Tom St

Railroad Street

Mill Pond Rd

S Plume St

Bullock St

Clemmons St

Lonsda

le St

Driveway To Wastewater Treatment

Nc Hw

y 32 N

Bank St

Railroad St

4''

2''

8''

10''

12''

8''8''

12''

8''

8''

8''

8''

8''

8''

10''

8''

8''

8''8'' 8''

4''

8''

2''

6'' 3''

8''

8''

2''6''

6''

8''

2''

4''

2''

6''

6''

6''

8''

6''

6''

6''

6''

6''6''

6''

8''

2''

2'' 4''6''

8''

8''

6''

6''

6''

3''

6''

6''

6''

6''4''

6''6''

8''

6''

8''

2''

Roper Inset


In 2003, Washington County completed a sewer study to determine the feasibility of a countywide sewer system. The study analyzed seven different scenarios to provide wastewater service to the county. The user rates necessary to establish a new county-wide treatment facility were considered to be too high. A countywide system with a surface spray lagoon was estimated to cost over $12 million dollars. It was determined that the most economically feasible alternative would be to tie into the Town of Roper’s sewer system and expand the town’s existing facility. Without an expansion of Roper’s existing sewer treatment capacity, a limited amount of customers will be provided sewer services. C. Transportation Washington County is served by several highway arteries, US 64, NC 32, NC 45, NC 308 and NC 99 (see Map 5). The main artery is US 64 which traverses the county in an east/west direction. Highway US 64 is the primary access highway serving eastern North Carolina and the Outer Banks. In 2005, the US 64 bypass of Roper was completed. As a result, east/west traffic movement through the region has improved. Other major highway arteries in the county include NC 32 and NC 45. Both of these highways serve traffic in a north/south direction providing access to adjoining rural counties. A 2000 Traffic Capacity Analysis conducted as part of the preparation of the Thoroughfare Plan, Study Report for Washington County (NCDOT, October 2001) indicated that all roadways in the county were operating well below capacity. However, it was noted that during peak periods, such as summer tourist peaks, capacity deficiencies could occur, particularly along US 64. The 2025 Analysis determined that all of the existing facilities will be operating at acceptable levels in the design year. Two major transportation improvements projects scheduled for Washington County are in the current NCDOT Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP). The first project is the US 64/NC 32 connector. The recent realignment of US 64 does not allow for direct access to the north and other portions of northeastern North Carolina. This planned connector will provide a direct link from the new US 64 to NC 32 and other roads within the transportation system. The project includes a 3.3-mile stretch of 2-lane highway on new location, projected to begin construction in 2012. The project is in the planning and design stage and the exact roadway corridor has not yet been identified. The alternate roadway alignments currently being considered for the NC 32 connector are depicted on Map 5. The second TIP project involves a new 2-lane connector on new location between Newland Road (SR 1126) and Millpond Road (SR 1125). Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2012 and construction, in 2013. The only railroad within the study area is located in the western portion between Plymouth and the village of Mackeys. This rail line continues westward from Plymouth to Williamston and points west. The rail line formerly extended from Mackeys across the Albemarle Sound to Chowan County and points north. However, this portion of the rail line is inactive and the rail bridge has been removed. There are no commercial air transportation facilities within the study area. The Plymouth Municipal Airport is located just southwest of the study area approximately 2 miles south of Plymouth. The existing 3,700-foot runway at this airport is proposed to be extended to 5,500 feet in 2007 as part of a seven-year improvements plan. The nearest major air passenger terminal facilities are located in Norfolk, Virginia about 80 miles northeast of the study area and

"

"

"

"

""

" "

" """ "" "

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"""

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"""

"

"""

" "

""

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKe

ndric

k Cree

k

Æ·32

alt 1

Æ·32

alt 6

Æ·32alt2

Æ·32

alt 5

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot C

anal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Plymouth

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

o

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

d

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Alligo

od Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Jones White Rd

Back Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d

Cherry Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

Westo

n Rd

B Can

al Rd

Deep Creek Rd

Thirty

Ft Ca

nal R

d

Holly Neck Rd

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Barber Rd

Slough Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Spruill Rd

Marriner Rd

Scuppernong Rd

White Oak Ln

Ward Rd N

Hortontown Rd

Loop Rd

Mt Pl

easa

nt Rd

Gus Town Rd

Landfill RdBe

nson

Rd

River

Rd

Railroad Bed Rd

Bush St

Downing Rd

Styons Rd

Learys Beach

Cypre

ss S

hores

Rd

Robin Dr

Ida St

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd

Private RdLil

y Ln

Ferris

Dr

Davis RdKing Ln

Plume StUs Hwy 64 E

Nc Hwy 3

2 N

Nc Hw

y 32 N

1 inch = 7,000 feet

0 8,100 16,2004,050Feet

N

July 24, 2007

Study AreaRiverside AirstripProposed RoadsActive RailroadsCorporate LimitsETJ


Map 5Transportation Systems

RiversideAirstrip

Future Newland Roadto Millpond Road

Connector

"

"

"

"

"

"

""32

£¤64

Cross Rd

Bush St

Newland Rd

N Plume St

Newby St

Us Hwy 6

4 ENc

Hwy 3

2 N


Railroad St

Bank StW Mill Pond Rd

W Us 64 Byp

Hortontown Rd

Walker StMay S

t

E Us 6

4 Byp

Plume St

Oak St

Tom St

Little Clay Ln

Station

St

Bullock St

Railroad St

Bank St

Us Hwy 64 E

Roper Inset

To PlymouthMunicipal Airport

(~ 4 miles)


in Raleigh, approximately 125 miles to the east. A private airstrip, Riverside Airport, is located in the western section of the study area just off of NC 45. D. Stormwater There is not a man-made stormwater system in the county outside the Town of Plymouth. Stormwater is currently handled through canals, ditches, roadside swales and ground infiltration. The county and its municipalities are not subject to the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program. The NC Division of Land Quality (DLQ) is the only program that requires stormwater management. Under DLQ rules, projects that disturb more than one acre as a result of construction are required to submit a sedimentation and erosion control plan for review by the state. The intent behind these plans is to prevent sediment from draining off the site during construction. Typically, this includes silt fencing along the periphery of the property during construction to trap sediment from draining off the site. Stormwater management will play a large role in water quality in the future. As land continues to be altered from its natural state, an increase in stormwater run-off will occur. Development generates an increase in impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots and roof tops. These surfaces prevent water from being absorbed into the soil. Stormwater is a significant source of excess nutrients, sediment and bacterial pollution for estuarine waters. The nutrient loaded sediment generated as a result of runoff fills stream channels and reduces flow and habitat. The nutrient loading of nitrogen and phosphorus alters the food chain by fostering excessive algal growth. Such algal growth takes up habitable space in the water for useful food source organisms. A stormwater best management practice (BMP) is a technique used to control the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater run-off. BMPs are constructed or engineered to limit the amount of run-off thus reducing the amount of pollutants into the groundwater and surface water. Common BMP’s include detention ponds, filtration systems, constructed wetlands and minimizing impervious surfaces. Requiring the use of BMPs for new development within the study area will help to reduce the runoff and have a long term positive impact on the water quality. E. Electric and Gas Utilities Electric service within the study area is provided by Dominion North Carolina Power. One major electric transmission line bisects the study area in an east-west direction and extends from Plymouth to Creswell. Gas service in Washington County is provided by Piedmont Natural Gas Company. Gas service is available to the western portion of the study area via a gas line that extends from Plymouth to Roper along the NC Highway 32 corridor and in the southeastern section by a gas line in the Scuppernong and Creswell areas along the US Highway 64 corridor. F. Other Community Facilities Fire Protection The study area is primarily within the MidCounty and Roper Fire Districts but the western section of the study area is within the Plymouth Fire District and the southeastern section, within

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kend

rick C

reek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot

Canal

Western

Canal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64 Eastbound

Us Hwy 64 W

estbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Alligo

od Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Jones White Rd

Back Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d

Cherry Rd

Woodlawn Rd

Backwoods Rd

Westo

n Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

B Can

al Rd

Thirty

Ft Ca

nal R

d

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Barber Rd

Slough Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Spruill Rd

Marriner Rd

Scuppernong Rd

White Oak Ln

Ward Rd N

Loop Rd

Mt P

leasa

nt Rd

Railroad Bed Rd

Landfill Rd

River

Rd

Bush St

Coop

er Rd

Downing Rd

Styons Rd

Learys Beach

Spruill Lp

Robin Dr

White Rd

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd Ferris

Dr

Davis Rd

Nc Hwy 3

2 N


Map 6Community Facilities

1 inch = 6,967.507535 feet

0 8,000 16,0004,000Feet

July 27, 2007

© Fire Station±°̄ School¢ Rescue SquadG Health Center®v Hospital

Paddle Access PointPaddle TrailStudy AreaCorporate LimitETJ

Mid CountyVFD

Union MiddleSchool

PinesElementary

School

Health Dept. Resource

Center

Trestle HouseCape ColonyPaddle Trail

Trestle HouseCape ColonyPaddle Trail

Mackeys/ Kendrick CreekPaddle Trail

WashingtonCounty Park

õôó

Conaby CreekPaddle Trail

Roanoke RiverPaddle Trail

Lake PhelpsFire District

RoperFire District

Mid CountyFire District

PlymouthFire District

Conaby CreekNCWRC Boating

Access Site


the Creswell and Lake Phelps Fire Districts (see Map 6). Two fire stations are physically located within the study area: the MidCounty Volunteer Fire Department is located on NC Highway 32 North just south of Leonard’s Point and the Roper Volunteer Fire Department is located within the Roper corporate limits. The county water system includes some fire hydrants which are located principally along the major highway corridors and collector roads throughout the study area. The Town of Roper water system includes fire hydrants throughout the corporate area. Law Enforcement Law enforcement in the unincorporated portions of Washington County is provided by the County Sheriff’s Department which is headquartered in the Washington County Courthouse in Plymouth. Each of the three municipalities in the county has their own police department. Recreation A 16-acre Washington County Recreational Park is located on NC Highway 32 North at the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 (see Map 6). The site includes a soft ball field, bleachers, basketball court, and tennis courts. Fishing, boating, birding, and hiking opportunities abound within the county and the study area. A North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission boat access site is located adjacent to Conaby Creek just off of NC Highway 45 on Conaby Lane. Within the study area, paddle trails are located on Conaby Creek and Mackeys Creek. The 6,158-acre Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest makes up a large part of the northeastern section of the study area and the 670-acre Conaby Creek/Swan Bay Swamp Nature Preserve occupies the northwestern corner of the study area. Schools The Washington County School District includes five school campuses: two high schools, one middle school, and two elementary schools (see Map 6). The Plymouth and Creswell High Schools are located in their respective municipality. Creswell Elementary is in Creswell and Pines Elementary is located within the study area east of Plymouth on US Highway 64 east. Union Middle School, located within the study area in Roper corporate limits, is the only middle school in the county. There are 2,278 students currently enrolled in the county school system. According to the Washington County Schools Central Office, the school system is well under capacity and the enrollment numbers have been decreasing. One school issue that has been discussed is having one centralized high school that serves the whole county rather than the two in different sections of the county. Other The Washington County landfill is located within the study area on Landfill Road just off NC 308 near the Westover community. This landfill is used for the disposal of construction and demolition materials, land clearing inert debris, white goods, and tires. Most solid waste is collected and transported to the privately run East Carolina Regional Landfill located in Aulander in Bertie County. Other facilities within the study area include the County Health Department and Senior Resource Center located on NC Highway 45 just east of Plymouth and the NCDOT maintenance facility on NC Highway 94 northwest of Scuppernong.


2.4 Economic Conditions According to the NC Department of Commerce, Washington County and the study area are considered to be economically depressed. The Department of Commerce assigns a tier designation of 1 through 5 based upon economic status. The lower the tier designation, the greater the level of economic distress. Washington County is designated as a Tier 1 county by the Department of Commerce. This designation provides for financial incentives for large employers to locate within Washington County. The county’s unemployment rate has historically been from 2.5 to 4.0 percent higher than the state and national unemployment rates. The poverty rate in Washington County far exceeds that statewide. The labor force has declined due to an aging population, out migration, out commuting, and absence of in-county job opportunities. Educational attainment levels are lower than the statewide averages. A. Employment The textiles, forest products, and agriculture sectors of the economy have traditionally provided the economic base for the county. However, manufacturing employment has declined each decade since 1980. Farm industry employment has declined every decade since 1970. Transportation and public utility jobs have also decreased in recent decades. Governmental, services, and construction employment have, however, experienced increases. Currently, there are few opportunities for employment or commerce. The manufacturing industry has traditionally been the major employment sector in Washington County for many years. According to data from the Washington County Economic Development Office, the county continues to lose jobs due to layoffs and plant closings. The largest manufacturing employer in the region is Weyerhaeuser. In February 2006, Weyerhaeuser cut 210 jobs, 119 of which were residents of Washington County. The Weyerhaeuser plant produces pulp from local

INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ANALYSIS

• Washington County and the Towns of Roper and Plymouth provide water within the study area. These systems have the capacity to support additional users.

• Washington County does not provide sewer service to the study area. Small portions of the study area have sewer, which are provided by the Towns of Plymouth, Roper, and Creswell. None of these towns have adequate capacity to support additional service.

• The study area relies on drainage ditches and swales to control stormwater. Use of drainage swales and other BMPs (Best Management Practices) is important to maintaining water quality.

• Transportation facilities within the study area consist primarily of State roads.

• The proposed NC 32 connector will improve north/south traffic movement and access to the Albemarle Sound.

• Major road access is limited from the study area to the recreational facilities located in the southern portion of the county.

• Public water access to the Albemarle Sound is limited.


timber to be used for paper. According to the County Economic Development Department, Mackey’s Ferry Sawmill employs 45 people, more than any other manufacturing industry in the study area. The Plymouth Garment Company eliminated approximately 125 jobs when it closed in 2004. The Tidewater Research Station, which employs approximately 36 people and is located just east of Plymouth, provides research of grain and swine for the agriculture in the area. According to the NC Employment Security Commission, the annual average unemployment rate in Washington County was 6.6%, considerably higher than the statewide unemployment rate of 4.8%. Since 2000 the County unemployment rate has consistently been higher than the State. The surrounding counties in the region have also experienced higher unemployment rates than the statewide average (see Figure 6).

Figure 6

Unemployment Rates by County

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Avera

ge A

nn

ual

Un

em

plo

ym

en

t R

ate

Washington Bertie Tyrrell Beaufort Martin State


Washington County’s high unemployment rate is attributed to many factors, particularly the recent layoffs and closures from major employers such as Weyerhaeuser and Plymouth Garment. Washington County has experienced a trend where high school graduates leave the area for additional education or employment and do not return. Generally, higher education relates to higher salaried jobs. There are few non-manufacturing employers which would draw recent college graduates back to the region. As a result, the median family income of the county is not increasing as fast as the statewide rate. The median age in Washington County has increased from 24.8 in 1970 to 39.2 in 2000. This significant increase shows an aging population. Elderly on fixed incomes cannot keep up with the rate of inflation and many are falling into poverty status.


B. Income Income levels for median family income, median household income and per capita income in Washington County and the State of North Carolina have increased since 1970. However, the rate of increase in Washington County is slower than the rest of the State (see Figure 7). Since 1980, the percent of persons in poverty in Washington County has remained stagnant, at approximately 20 percent, while the statewide percentage in poverty has continued to decrease from 14.8 percent in 1980 to 12.3 percent in 2000 (see Figure 8).

Figure 7

Median Family Income

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Inc

om

e

Washington County State of North Carolina

Source: US Census

Figure 8

Percent Below Poverty

12.3%

29.2%

21.8%20.4%

21.7%

20.3%

14.8%13.0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Washington County State of North Carolina

Source: US Census


C. Commuting Patterns Data from the US Census (see Table 7) indicate that in 1970 there were more workers commuting to jobs located outside of Washington County than were workers commuting to jobs within the county. Since 1980, however, the number of workers commuting to jobs in Washington County has consistently exceeded the number of outcommuting workers. In 2000, the number of outcommuters rose to the approximate 1970 level while the number of incommuters decreased below the 1990 level---thus, an almost equal balance of in and out-commuting occurred. The following table illustrates general commuting patterns in Washington County from 1970 to 2000.

Table 7

Commuting Patterns

Washington County

1970-2000

1970 1980 1990 2000 In-commuters 519 1,369 1,872 1,757 Out-commuters 1,760 1,190 1,132 1,731 Net Number of Workers Commuting into Washington County

-1,241 179 740 26

Sources: US Census Bureau and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis

As indicated in Table 8, the overall percentage of Washington County workers employed within their county of residence in 2000 was lower than the statewide average, 67.4 percent compared to 75.1 percent. While the percentage of Washington County workers employed outside of their county of residence was higher than the statewide average, the county’s percentage of workers employed outside their state of residence is lower than the statewide average.

Table 8 Place of Work—Workers 16 years of age or older

2000

Washington County North Carolina Number Percent Number Percent

Worked in State of Residence 5,274 99.4% 3,762,169 98.0% Worked in County of Residence

3,577 67.4% 2,826,122 75.1%

Worked outside County of Residence

1,697 32.0% 936,047 24.9%

Worked outside State of Residence

34 0.6% 75,604 2.0%

Total Workers 5,308 100.00% 3,837,773 100.0% Source: US Census 2000

As shown in Table 9, the counties immediately surrounding Washington County have traditionally been the top destinations for out-commuting workers. While Martin County has


been the principal location of jobs for workers commuting outside of Washington County since 1970, Beaufort and Dare Counties have recently attracted a growing share of out-commuting workers.

Table 9

Top 5 Destinations of Workers Commuting

Out of Washington County

1970-2000 1970 1980 1990 2000

Martin Co. Martin Co. Martin Co. Martin Co. Beaufort Co. Chowan Co. Beaufort Co. Beaufort Co. Tyrrell Co. Tyrrell Co. Chowan Co. Dare Co.

Chowan Co. Beaufort Co. Dare Co. Tyrrell Co. Perquimans Co. Bertie Co. Tyrrell Co. Chowan Co.

Sources: US Census and US Bureau of Economic Analysis

In 2000, the largest percentage (43 percent) of all workers commuting to Washington County for employment came from Martin County. Other areas supplying workers that commuted to jobs in Washington County include Beaufort County (17 percent), Tyrrell County (8 percent), Bertie County (8 percent), Pitt County (5 percent), Chowan County (4 percent), and Pasquotank County (4 percent). Out of state commuters from Virginia comprised approximately 1.6 percent of the total incommuters in 2000. The mean travel time to work in 2000 for Washington County workers was 28.3 minutes as compared to 24.0 minutes for workers statewide. D. Agriculture Based upon information in the 2002 Census of Agriculture, the total number of farms in Washington County has decreased by 18 percent since 1997 but the number of acres devoted to farming and the average farm size has increased. Approximately 88 percent of the farm land in Washington County is devoted to crop production compared to 60 percent statewide. Major crops produced in the county include soybeans, corn for grain, cotton, wheat for grain, Irish potatoes, and peanuts. Hogs, pigs, and chickens are also important components of the local agricultural economy. Table 10 provides a comparison of agricultural statistics for Washington County and the State of North Carolina. Agriculture is a very important sector of the local economy. According to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the market value of all agricultural products sold in Washington County in 2005 was approximately $58.1 million. Of that total, cash receipts from crops made up approximately $31.4 million (54 percent); livestock, dairy, and poultry cash receipts accounted for $18.7 million (32 percent), and government payments comprised $8.0 million (14 percent). Many local agribusinesses rely on locally grown agricultural products.


Table 10

Agricultural Profile

Washington County North Carolina

2002

1997 %

Change

2002

1997 %

Change No. Farms 193 236 -18% 53,930 59,120 -9%

Ac. In Farms

114,423 107,741 +6% 9,079,001 9,444,867 -4%

Av. Farm Size

593 457 +30% 168 ac. 160 ac. +5%

Market Value of

Production

$46,149m $68,108m -32% $6,961.6m $7,832.4m -11%

Government Payments

$1,705m $1,052 +62% $97.7m $52.5m +86%

Source: Census of Agriculture, 2002

E. Forestry According to Forest Statistics for North Carolina, 2002, 84,200 acres (or approximately 38 percent) of Washington County’s total land area is forest land. Of that total amount of timberland, 22,800 acres (27 percent) is owned by the forest industry, 15,800 acres (19 percent) is owned by the federal and state government, and 44,600 acres (54 percent) is in nonindustrial, private ownership. Within the study area, 12,281 acres (or 18 percent of the total study area land area) are currently devoted to forestry use. Major forestry tracts are located within the central portion of the study area between the Town of Roper and the Town of Creswell. Weyerhaeuser Company owns approximately 50 timberland tracts within the study area. F. Mining The potential for sand, rock, and gravel deposits suitable for extraction is limited within Washington County. According to ratings made by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of soils as a source of sand and gravel, all of the soils in Washington County are rated as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ as a sand source and all of the soil classifications are rated as ‘poor’ as a gravel source. Currently, there are five active mining permits for sand and gravel operations within the county. These mining operations include a total of 59 permitted acres and range in size from 3 acres to 25 acres. One sand and gravel operation is located in the western corner of the study area along the Roanoke River shoreline southwest of NC Highway 45. G. Retail and Services Retail businesses are predominantly located at crossroad communities throughout the study area and within the Town of Roper. For the most part, these consist of convenience stores and services that support the rural population. Major retail shopping is conducted outside of the study area. There are very few accommodations and food service businesses that cater to the tourist trade.


H. Tourism Washington County has grown as a tourist destination. According to data from the Division of Tourism of the NC Department of Commerce, Washington County in 2005 ranked 89th in travel impact among North Carolina’s 100 counties. Tourism generated an economic impact of $11.09 million in 2005, an increase of 6.33 percent from 2004. More than 100 jobs in Washington County were directly attributable to travel and tourism. Travel and tourism generated a $1.67 million payroll in 2005. State and local tax revenues from travel to Washington County totaled $1.12 million. Local attractions include Somerset Place State Historic Site and Pettigrew State Park; fishing, boating, paddling, hiking, birding, and camping opportunities; Pungo Lake and Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge; Davenport Homestead; and Plymouth Historic District.

2.5 Environmental Features A. Wetlands Washington County, including the study area, has coastal and non-coastal wetlands. Coastal wetlands include salt or other marsh that is subject to regular or occasional flooding by lunar and wind tides and also includes plant species which have a salt water tolerant habitat. Identification of coastal wetlands can only be determined through an on-site field investigation by the NC Division of Coastal Management. The study area includes a large area of non-coastal wetlands; also known as Section 404 wetlands (see Map 7). Section 404 wetlands include areas covered by fresh water or those lands that contain swamp-like soils that are typically waterlogged during growing seasons. As with coastal wetlands, an on-site investigation by the US Army Corps of Engineers must be conducted in order to determine precise wetland locations. The general location of coastal and non-coastal wetlands is depicted on Map 7, Natural Features. Approximately 31,973 acres (44.1 percent) of the study area is classified as coastal and non-coastal wetlands. The high percentage of wetland property within the study area limits the amount of developable property. Preserving wetlands during development is crucial to sustaining the fragile ecology of the study area.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

• The economy of Washington County has relied heavily on the manufacturing industry. Recent layoffs have proven the need to establish economic diversity.

• The countywide high unemployment rate and low median family income are signs of a struggling economy. Employment opportunities are needed to improve the long term sustainability of the economy.

• Without increased jobs or an influx of retirees to the area, the negative growth trends will only continue.

• The lack of adequate wastewater treatment facilities hampers nonresidential development activity.

• Promotion of eco-tourism can possibly provide an impetus for the growth of additional economic development opportunities.

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kend

rick C

reek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot

Canal

Western

Canal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Moun

tain C

anal

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

MARTINCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

PERQUIMANSCOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Plymouth

Plymouth

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Bachelor BayBlack Bear Sanctuary

Roanoke River

WetlandsWildlife Refuge

Great Island

Bache

lor Ba

y

Black

Bear S

anctua

ry

Roanoke RiverWetlands

Wildlife RefugeGoodman Island

Lantern AcresGame Land

ScuppernongGame Land

ScuppernongGame Land

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kend

rick C

reek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers Ca

nal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot

Canal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Can

al

Bona

rva C

anal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's C

reek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

POCOSIN LAKESNATIONAL

WILDLIFE REFUG

ROANOKERIVER - TNC/GPPARTNERSHIP

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

RECREATION PARK

WILLIAM/PRISCILLATARKING

WILLIAM/PRISCILLATARKING

NCSU BULLNECK FOREST

RESEARCH

ENR/CM BOTTOMLANDS OF

ALBERMARLE SOUND

ROANOKE RIVER WETLANDS

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kend

rick C

reek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers Ca

nal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot

Canal

Western

Canal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mounta

in Ca

nal

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's C

reek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

MARTINCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Plymouth

Plymouth

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

PRKSPETTIGREWSTATE PARK

WRC LANTERNACRES

GAMELAND

AGRIC TIDEWATERRESEARCH

STATION

AGRIC TIDEWATERRESEARCH

STATION

FR RANGERHEADQUARTERS



WRC SANSSOUCI

ACCESS AREAUNC-GEN COLUMBIA TV

TRANSMITTERTOWER SITE

FR SCUPPERNONGTOWER

NCSU BULL NECKFOREST RESEARCH

NCSU BULLNECK FOREST

RESEARCH

CM BOTTOMLANDS OF

ALBERMARLE SOUND

PocosinLakes NationalWildlife Refuge


Wildlife Refuge

Roanoke RiverNational

Wildlife Refuge

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kend

rick C

reek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirt

y Foo

t Can

al

Western

Canal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mounta

in Ca

nal

Bona

rva C

anal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Mack

ey's C

reek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Map 7Natural Features

N

Wetlands, Closed Shellfish Harvesting Areas,Gamelands & Riverbasins

RoanokeRiverbasin

ChowanRiverbasin

PasquotankRiverbasin

River BasinsGamelandsClosed Shellfish Harvesting AreasWetlands (National Wetlands Inventory)

Federal Ownership State Owned Complexes Significant Natural Heritage Areas

Land Managed for Conservation & Open Space Prime Farmlands

Prime FarmlandFarmland of statewide importanceAll areas are prime farmlandPrime farmland if drainedNot prime farmlandWaterLand Managed for Conservation or Open Space

Significant Natural Heritage Areas,State & Federally Owned Properties

July 18, 2007



Property that is designated as coastal or non-coastal wetlands should remain undisturbed and conserved wherever possible. Wetlands are one of the essential natural features that prevent the pollution of estuaries and surface waters. The county’s land development regulations must limit the disturbance of wetland designated area s. B. Estuarine Shoreline The study area consists of approximately 29 miles of shoreline along the Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound. The shoreline consists of high banks, low banks and swampforest. The location of the different types of shoreline is depicted on Map 8, Estuarine Shoreline Types. The highest shoreline banks, which are the least abundant, are located near Leonards Point. These areas are in the greatest demand for homesite development. High banks, between 5 feet and 20 feet, consist of tight clay and cemented sandstone near their base. These bases tend to resist undercutting better than low sediment banks. High banks have well-developed sand beaches and often support some fringing plant growth.

High Banks

Source: The Soundfront Series, NC Coastal Management and NC Sea Grant

Low Banks

Source: The Soundfront Series, NC Coastal Management and NC Sea Grant Low banks, less than 5 feet in height, are the most common type of sediment bank in the Albemarle Estuarine system. Within the study area, only one-third of the shoreline is

! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !!!!

! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !!

!

!

! ! ! ! !!!!

!

!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!!

! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !") ")

") ") ") ") ")! !

! !!! ! !

") ") ")! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Deep Creek

Scuppernong River

Bull'sBay

Bakers Swamp

Bunton C

reek

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Mackey'

s Cree

k

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kendr

ick Cr

eek

""32

""45 ""308

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Us Hwy 64 EMackeys Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

Cros

s Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Folly

Rd Jones White Rd

Woodlawn Rd

Nc Hwy 32

Nc Hwy 3

2 N

Back

wood

s Rd

Beasley RdHolly Neck Rd

Barber Rd

Spruill Rd

Marriner Rd

Deep Creek Rd

Loop Rd

Land

fill Rd

Downing Rd

Learys Beach

Cypre

ss Sh

ores R

d

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd

Blair S

hores

Rd

Lily Ln

Mallar

d Cov

eFe

rris D

r

Davis Rd

King Ln

Erosion") ") ") ") ") Bulkhead! ! ! ! ! Conspicuous Erosion

BankHigh BankLow BankSwamp

0 10,000 20,0005,000Feet

Source: Riggs, Stanley R., The Soundfront Series, Shoreline Erosion in NC Estuaries, Figure 3.3 "Estuarine Shoreline Types and Erosion in the Albemarle Sound System"

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kend

rick C

reek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot

Cana

l

Western

Canal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Can

al

Bona

rva C

anal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's C

reek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Plymouth

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Storm SurgeCategory 1 or 2Category 3Category 4 or 5

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Kendr

ick Cr

eek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Canal

A

Skinn

ers Ca

nal

Old Cana

l

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roano

ke Riv

er

Canal

B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot Cana

l

Western Canal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasin Canal

Mountain

Canal

Bonar

va Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunton C

reek

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Mackey'

s Cree

k

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

MARTINCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

PERQUIMANSCOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45 ""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards PointBatemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearchStation


Conaby Creek -Swan Bay SwampTNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

PlymouthRoper

Creswell

Plymouth

Plymouth

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

N

Floodplain Floodway 100 Year Floodplain 500 Year Floodplain


Map 8Estuarine Shoreline Types, Floodplain & Storm Surge

July 18, 2007

Floodplain

Storm Surge

Estuarine Shoreline Types & ErosionWithin the WASSP Study Area

NN


considered low banks. Low banks typically consist of unconsolidated sediment on top of a clay bed, which occurs at or slightly below sea level. Low banks erode more quickly than high banks due to minimal sand supplies and lack of wide sand beaches. If wave energy along the estuarine beaches is not too severe, grasses may expand to produce a fringing marsh, decreasing the rate of erosion. Most high-bank and low-bank shorelines are eroding. The rate of erosion varies depending on the location within the estuarine system, wave energy and vegetative cover. The rate of erosion on low-bank shorelines can be as low as a few feet per decade and as high as fifteen feet per year. Organic shorelines are composed of marshes and swamp forests. Marsh shorelines are located in areas that are primarily located in waters that have a slight level of salinity, also known as brackish water. The study area is located far enough inland that there is little saltwater intrusion. Conversely, swamp-forest shorelines occur in only freshwater wetlands associated with riverine floodplains or pocosins. Swamp-forest shorelines make up the largest portion of shoreline in the study area. Swamp-forest shorelines exist within floodplains bordering both trunk and tributary rivers entering the estuary. Within the study area, the largest stretches of swamp-forest shorelines are located from Albemarle Beach west to the Roanoke River and from Newberry Landing east to Bull’s Bay. Swamp-forest shorelines are most recognizable by cypress trees individually standing out over the water. As sea-level rises, vegetation that is least tolerant to flooding dies off leaving the cypress trees. These cypress trees act as a natural bulkhead, dissipating wave energy causing slower erosion rates. A fringe of cypress trees plays a major role in the stability of upland property (Source: The Soundfront Series, NC Coastal Management and NC Sea Grant).

Swamp Forest

Photo Source: NC Division of Coastal Management


Coastal shorelines, including estuarine shorelines, are regulated by the NC Division of Coastal Management. DCM-regulated shorelines are all lands within 75 feet of the normal high water level, including 30 feet from the normal high water level on inland public trust waters. Permits are required wherever a disturbance is being made to these shorelines. Coastal North Carolina’s low-lying area, including the study area, will be highly impacted by sea-level rise due to climate changes. Research has shown that over the last 150 years, sea level has continued to rise at a rate of approximately 1 foot per century. There are concerns about global warming increasing the magnitude of sea level rise up to two or more times the current rate. The majority of the County and the study area are 12 feet above sea level or less (Source: The Soundfront Series, NC Coastal Management and NC Sea Grant). There were been seven hurricanes that directly impacted the coast of North Carolina between 1996 and 1999. These storms caused severe erosion within the upper estuaries, including along the shoreline of the study area. As a result, important stabilizing vegetation along the shoreline was destroyed. Large storm surges of subsequent storms overlapped the sand beaches, increasing the exposure of sediment banks. Waterfront properties have been built upon for centuries. Over time, homes and business have been destroyed by eroding shorelines and storms. As storms continue to impact coastal North Carolina, an increase in shoreline erosion is anticipated. Preventative measures must be taken to limit threats to properties while maintaining the integrity of the shoreline. Methods taken to stabilize the shoreline include bulkheads, rip-rap (stones), vegetation, sills, groins and breakwaters. Many of these can be used in combination with each other to provide for greater shoreline stabilization. The most desirable stabilization method favored by the Division of Coastal Management is proper land planning followed by vegetation controls. Establishing greater setbacks, maintaining vegetation and limiting high density uses along the shoreline will minimize the impact of erosion.

Vegetative Erosion

Source: The Soundfront Series, NC Coastal Management and NC Sea Grant C. Floodplain & Storm Surge The 100-year floodplain is land within a floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Approximately 32.6 percent of the study area is in the 100-year


Photo source: www.floodsmart.gov

floodplain. The majority of areas subject to flooding are located along the creeks and tributaries that feed into the Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound, particularly Deep Creek, Mackeys Creek, and Conaby Creek (see Map 8).

According to the 2004 Washington County Multi-jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, there are 4,214 parcels (1,417 with structures) in the unincorporated portion of the county that are subject to flooding. The dollar value of the structures susceptible to flooding was estimated to total $74.2 million. Within the Town of Roper, there are 74 parcels (18 with structures) located in floodplains; the dollar value of these structures was estimated to total $478,000. Storm surge is an off-shore rise of water resulting from extreme coastal storm events, typically associated with tropical storms. During such storm events, low lying areas along the shorelines are vulnerable to flooding. Areas subject to storm surge often mimic areas that are located within the 100-year floodplain. Severity of a storm surge is based upon the intensity of the storm. Map 8 depicts the possible storm surge in the area based upon storm intensity.

Tropical storms and their inevitable storm surge are part of life in coastal North Carolina. According to Shoreline Erosion in North Carolina Estuaries, global warming trends will generate more frequent and stronger tropical storms and a rise in sea level of 2 feet or more per century. As a result, the impact on low lying coastal property will experience increased flooding and erosion. The monetary loses will only increase over time as more properties are developed in areas susceptible to flooding. Washington County must consider more stringent standards for development within these hazard areas. D. Natural Hazards In 2004, Washington County prepared the Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan identified and analyzed natural hazards, evaluated vulnerability to natural hazards, assessed the county’s and the participating municipalities’ capacity to mitigate the effects of natural hazards, and outlined mitigation strategies and policies. Data concerning the identified hazards and the risk assessment associated with each category of hazard is summarized in Table 11. As part of the hazard mitigation planning process, certain types of critical facilities were identified. These facilities were determined to be necessary to maintain the health, safety, and viability of the community during hazardous events. The identified critical facilities located within the WASSP study area included the following facilities:

• MidCounty Volunteer Fire Station

• Roper Volunteer Fire Station


• Town of Roper Police Department

• Town of Roper water treatment facilities

• Union Middle School in Roper

• Pines Elementary School

• Riverside Airport

Table 11

Identified Hazards and Risk Assessment

Hazard Likelihood of Occurrence

Spatial Extent Potential Impact Hazard Rating

Hurricanes and tropical storms

Highly likely Large Critical 9

Flood Highly likely Moderate Limited 7 Winter storms Likely Large Minor 6

Wildfire Highly likely Small Minor 5 Severe thunderstorms Likely Small Minor 4 Drought/extreme heat Possible Moderate Minor 4

Tornadoes Possible Small Limited 4 Earthquake Unlikely Moderate Minor 3

Erosion Possible Small Minor 3 Sinkholes/landslide Unlikely Small Minor 2

Source: Washington County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004

E. Soils Soils within the study area are extremely limited for many urban type uses due to wetness, low strength, high water table, and restricted permeability. According to the US Department of Agriculture, only two of the 28 soils types found in the county can support septic systems with only slight limitations--Conetoe (CtA) and Wickham (WkB). These soils represent a total of 5,256 acres or 7.3 percent of the total study area. All other soils have severe limitations. Soils with severe limitations are typically wet, have slow percolation rates, and are prone to flooding. The location of the soils classifications for septic tank suitability are depicted on Map 4 and listed in Table 12. Prime farmland soils are soils that are defined by the US Department of Agriculture as soils that have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oil seed crops. Soils that are well suited for crops are typically well suited for urban uses. However, many prime farmland soil classifications that may support urban uses have high water tables or restricted permeability. These soils need to be drained and cannot use on-site septic systems. It is estimated that only 8,561 acres (11.5 percent) of the land within the study area are considered prime farmland. Farmland of statewide importance makes up 34,005 acres (46.9 percent) of the area. An additional 8,561 acres (11.4 percent) can be classified as prime farmland if drained. Property development opportunities are limited within the study area due to poor soils.


Table 12

Soils Characteristics

Map Symbol

Map unit name Farmland classification Septic Suitability

AaA Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland Very Limited BoA Bojac loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland Very Limited DgA Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland Very Limited WkB Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland Slightly Limited Ar Argent silt loam Farmland of statewide importance Very Limited Cf Cape Fear loam Farmland of statewide importance Very Limited Cta Conetoe loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance Moderately

Limited Ds Dragston loamy fine sand Farmland of statewide importance Very Limited Po Ponzer muck Farmland of statewide importance Very Limited Ro Roanoke loam Farmland of statewide importance Very Limited Wa Wahee fine sandy loam Farmland of statewide importance Very Limited Ap Arapahoe fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Very Limited At Augusta fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Very Limited Co Conoby muck Prime farmland if drained Very Limited Fo Fortescue mucky loam Prime farmland if drained Very Limited Hy Hyde silt loam Prime farmland if drained Very Limited Pt Portsmouth fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Very Limited Rp Roper muck Prime farmland if drained Very Limited To Tomotley fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Very Limited Wd Wasda muck Prime farmland if drained Very Limited Ba Belhaven muck Not Prime farmland Very Limited Do Dorovan muck Not Prime farmland Very Limited Dr Dorovan mucky silt loam (Chowan) Not Prime farmland Very Limited Me Muckalee loam Not Prime farmland Very Limited Pe Pettigrew muck Not Prime farmland Very Limited Pu Pungo muck Not Prime farmland Very Limited Se Scuppernog muck Not Prime farmland Very Limited

TaB Tarboro sand, 0 to 3% slope Not Prime farmland Very Limited Source: USDA – Natural Resource Conservation Service


Source: www.arroyoseco.org

F. Land Suitability The suitability of land for development is based upon several factors including natural constraints (i.e. soils, floodplains, and wetlands), existing infrastructure (i.e. roads, water, and sewer), existing development and environmentally protected areas. The Land Suitability Map (see Map 9) is intended to illustrate the degree to which land in the study area is suitable for development. The analysis on land suitability shown on Map 9 is from information provided by the NC Division of Coastal Management. The land suitability map shows that, overall, the study area is extremely limited for development. Most of the highly suitable property is located in areas where sewer is available, including the Town of Roper and the areas where sewer lines have been extended into the study area from the Towns of Plymouth and Creswell. There are only 6,684 acres in the study area that represent high suitability. Property that is classified as medium or low suitability may be able to accommodate development with mitigation of the conditions that impede development. Land classified as least suitable typically has environmentally sensitive features. These areas should remain in a natural state so that their integrity is protected. Additional property will be considered suitable for development as roads are built and utilities are extended. It is important to consider the impacts these improvements will have on the sustainability of the natural features of the study area. G. Water Quality The study area is located within two river basins, the Roanoke and Pasquotank. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality, under the authority of the Environmental Management Commission, assigns all surface waters a water quality classification that designates the best uses within these waters. Listed in Table 13 are all the surface waters in the study area and their classifications. The surface waters within the study area are generally considered to be impaired. The creeks and tributaries within the study area are classified as swamp waters (Sw) with very low velocity and naturally have high acidic levels and lower levels of dissolved oxygen. All of the surface waters in the study area are classified as C or SC which means that they do not support recreational swimming. Best uses of these waters include aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity including fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and other uses except primary recreation or shellfishing for market purposes. The quality of the surface waters are designated by measuring the levels of pollutants and identifying their source. There are several different causes for water pollution, including sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen demanding wastes, and toxic substances. Pollution is divided into two categories, point and non-point source pollutions. Point source pollutions can be identified at a specific source point in the surface water such as a pipe, ditch or other type of discharge into the water surface. Non-point source pollution, unlike point source pollution, cannot be identified at a specific location. Typically, non-point pollution is associated with fecal coliform bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease or any other substance that may be washed off the ground or deposited from the atmosphere into surface waters. Different land uses contribute to non-point source pollution such as crop production, animal feeding, failing septic

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKe

ndric

k Cree

k

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot C

anal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Plymouth

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

Albemarle SoundDWQ Class:

SB

Bull BayDWQ Class:

SB

DWQ Class:C Sw

Batchelor BayDWQ Class:

B Sw

DWQ Class:C Sw

DWQ Cl

ass:

C Sw

DWQ Class:C Sw

DWQ Class:C Sw

DWQ Class:C Sw

DWQ Class:C Sw

DWQ Class:SC

DWQ Class:C Sw

DWQ Class:C Sw

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64 E

astbound

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Alligo

od Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Jones White Rd

Back Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d

Cherry Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Slough Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Spruill Rd

Scuppernong Rd

White Oak Ln

Ward Rd NMt

Plea

sant

Rd

Landfill Rd

River

Rd

Bush St

Coop

er Rd

Downing Rd

Styons Rd

Spruill Lp

White Rd

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd Ferris

Dr

Davis Rd

Nc Hw

y 32 N

1 inch = 7,000 feet

0 8,000 16,0004,000Feet

N

July 27, 2007

Study AreaCorporate LimitETJ

Land SuitabilityLeast SuitableLow SuitabilityMedium SuitabilityHigh Suitability

Hydrography: DWQ ClassB SwB Sw ORWCC SwC Sw ORWSBSC


Map 9Land Suitability

DWQ Class:SC

DWQ Class:C Sw

""32

Cross Rd

Bush St

N Plume St

Newby St

Newland Rd


Us Hwy 64 E

Nc Hwy 3

2 N

Railroad St

Hortontown Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

E Us 64 B

yp

Plume St

Mill Pond RdStati

on St

Bullock St

Us Hw

y 64 E

Roper Inset


systems, forestry and stormwater run-off. Levels of non-point source pollution vary based upon the frequency and intensity of rainfall and land disturbance. If the natural habitat of the study area degrades as a result of land development an increase in urban run-off is imminent. This run-off can potentially provide for a toxic cocktail of oil and grease from the roads and parking lots, street litter and pollutants from the atmosphere. The cumulative impact of land disturbance and urban development can result in additional pollution to the already impaired waters of the study area.

Table 13

Water Quality Classifications

WASSP Study Area

Surface Water Description Classification River Basin Kendrick Creek

(Mackeys Creek) From source to US 64 at Roper C;Sw Pasquotank

Kendrick Creek (Mackeys Creek)

From US 64 at Roper to Albemarle Sound SC Pasquotank

Beaver Dam Branch From source to Kendrick Creek C; Sw Pasquotank Skinners Canal From source to Beaver Dam Branch C; Sw Pasquotank

Main Canal From source to Kendrick Creek C; Sw Pasquotank Canal A From source to Main Canal C; Sw Pasquotank

Lewis Canal From source to Main Canal C; Sw Pasquotank Bakers Swamp From source to Kendrick Creek C; Sw Pasquotank Chapel Swamp From source to Albemarle Sound C; Sw Pasquotank Newberry Ditch From source to Albemarle Sound C; Sw Pasquotank Sleights Creek From source to Albemarle Sound C; Sw Pasquotank

Bull Bay Entire Bull Bay C; Sw Pasquotank Deep Creek From source to Bull Bay C; Sw Pasquotank

Roanoke River From 18 mile marker at Jamesville to Albemarle Sound

C; Sw Roanoke

Conaby Creek From source to Roanoke River C; Sw Roanoke Source: NC Division of Water Quality

Descriptions of water quality classification designations are located in Appendix B.

H. Significant Natural Heritage Areas The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has created a list of Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The list is based on the program’s inventory of natural diversity in the state. Natural areas are evaluated on the basis of the occurrences of rare plant and animal species, rare or high quality natural communities, and geological features. Designation as a Significant Natural Heritage Area does not imply that any protection or public access exists. Within the study area there are two large areas that are on the NHP list: Bull Neck Swamp and Swan Bay Swamp (see Map 7). Bull Neck Swamp, located at the northeastern corner point of the study area, is the larger of the two. Swan Bay Swamp is located north of the Town of Plymouth at the mouth of the Roanoke River. This swamp is known to contain endangered bald eagles.


I. Historic and Archeological Sites Washington County and the Town of Plymouth have an astounding history that dates back to the early 1700’s. The port of Plymouth played a significant role during the Civil War. There are nine sites listed on the National Register of Historic Sites, only two of which are within the study area:

�� Garrett’s Island House (privately owned). Built about 1750 on Garrett’s Island Road; oldest house in Washington County; located in the Plymouth vicinity. First called Oval Island, then Bailies Island, and finally by its present day name.

�� Rehoboth Methodist Church. Located east of Skinnersville on US 64; Colonial Anglican congregation known as Skinners Chapel.

Historic sites located outside the study area include the Davenport Homestead, Somerset Place, and the Civil War Trail. According to the Office of State Archeology of the NC Division of Archives and History, there is a high probability of significant historical and archeological sites throughout the study area. The entire study area has not been specifically surveyed for archeological sites. When land disturbance activities are being conducted in the study area, consultation should be made with the NC Division of Archives and History on an individual basis. J. Threatened and Endangered Species Washington County’s unique natural features support a vast variety of wildlife. The study area is home to many species that are considered threatened or endangered. The NC Natural Heritage Program, in cooperation with US Fish and Wildlife, documents the status of the rarest species of plants and animals. The natural progression of the human population into undeveloped areas will increase the threat of endangerment to plants and animals. Table 14 provides a listing of threatened and endangered plant and animal species that have been identified in Washington County.

ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ANALYSIS

• Preservation of a large percentage of wetlands within the study area is crucial to the sustainability of the fragile ecology of the area.

• Continued erosion of the shorelines within the study area is inevitable. Proper planning techniques and vegetative stabilization is necessary to maintain the natural state of the shoreline as much as possible.

• Intensive and high density development within areas susceptible to flooding should be limited.

• The soil suitability for on-site waste disposal within the study area is extremely limited. There are very few areas that can support development under the current conditions. Growth in the area will remain stagnant unless sewer is available to the county.

• Controlling stormwater run-off by using BMP’s and the preservation of wetlands can minimize additional pollution in the already impaired waters.

• The county should coordinate with the state and federal agencies when a proposed development may negatively impact significant natural features, historical sites or wildlife.


Table 14

Threatened and Endangered Species

Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status

Animal Assemblage Colonial Wading Bird Colony None None None

Invertebrate Animal Anodonta implicata Alewife Floater T None

Invertebrate Animal Callophrys hesseli Hessel's Hairstreak SR None

Invertebrate Animal Callosamia securifera Sweetbay Silkmoth SR None

Invertebrate Animal Dysgonia similis An Owlet Moth SR None

Invertebrate Animal Leptodea ochracea Tidewater Mucket T None

Invertebrate Animal Ligumia nasuta Eastern Pondmussel T None

Invertebrate Animal Metarranthis sp. 1 A New Inchworm Moth SR None

Natural Community Nonriverine wet hardwood forest None None None

Nonvascular Plant Plagiochila ludoviciana A Liverwort SR-P None

Vascular Plant Andropogon mohrii Bog Bluestem SR-P None

Vascular Plant Desmodium fernaldii Fernald's Tick-trefoil SR-P None

Vascular Plant Eleocharis cellulosa Gulfcoast Spikerush SR-P None

Vascular Plant Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins' Spikerush SR-P None

Vascular Plant Elymus virginicus var. halophilus Terrell Grass SR-P None

Vascular Plant Eriocaulon aquaticum Seven-angled Pipewort SR-P None

Vascular Plant Heteranthera multiflora Multiflowered Mud-plantain SR-P None

Vascular Plant Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina Grasswort T None

Vascular Plant Ludwigia sphaerocarpa Globe-fruit Seedbox SR-P None

Vascular Plant Luziola fluitans Southern Water Grass SR-P None

Vascular Plant Myriophyllum tenellum Leafless Water-milfoil SR-P None

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora scirpoides Long-beak Baldsedge SR-O None

Vascular Plant Utricularia resupinata Northeastern Bladderwort E None

Vertebrate Animal Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon E E

Vertebrate Animal Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator T T

Vertebrate Animal Canis rufus Red Wolf SR E

Vertebrate Animal Condylura cristata pop. 1 Star-nosed Mole - Coastal Plain Population SC None


Table 14

Threatened and Endangered Species

Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status

Vertebrate Animal Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis

Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat - Coastal Plain Subspecies T FSC

Vertebrate Animal Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake SC None

Vertebrate Animal Dendroica virens waynei Black-throated Green Warbler - Coastal Plain Population SR FSC

Vertebrate Animal Fundulus cf. diaphanus Lake Phelps Killifish SR FSC

Vertebrate Animal Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T T

Vertebrate Animal Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker E E

Source: NC Natural Heritage Program, May 2007. See Appendix C for definitions of state and federal status.


Photo Source: www.planningwithpwoer.org

2.6 Development Regulations & Plans Washington County administers the following land development regulations and plans to manage growth and maintain a high quality of life for the residents of Washington County.

�� Subdivision Ordinance, adopted 1979, amended 1996 �� Mobile Home & Travel Trailer Ordinance, adopted 1974, amended1987 �� Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, adopted 1985, amended 1994 & 2007 �� Countywide Zoning Ordinance , adopted 2003; amended 2006 �� CAMA Land Use Plan certified 1994; update currently underway �� Growth Opportunities Plan, 2000 �� Washington County Thoroughfare Plan, 2001 �� Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004 �� Economic Development Plan, 1977, updated September 2006

The development regulations and land use plan are administered by the Washington County Planning and Safety Department. The Washington County Planning and Safety Department is also responsible for the county's National Flood Insurance Program, Emergency Response Coordination, Building Inspections, Code Enforcement, and Safety Inspections. Washington County has not experienced a significant amount of development over the last 50 years. The development regulations that the county currently uses provides little protection for the natural features of Washington County. The county primarily relies on outside agencies such as the NC Division of Coastal Management and the NC Division of Water Quality to protect the valuable natural resources in the county. The county needs to be proactive in its environmental protection and incorporate its own higher standards, such as best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater and buffers from wetlands, estuaries and tributaries. In order to protect the natural resources, the development regulations should be designed to allow for creativity for new development, such as cluster developments. Cluster designed developments are intended to establish higher densities on suitable land while leaving sensitive areas as open space. Washington County zoning currently includes only three zoning classifications, Rural-Area (RA), Commercial Corridor (CC), and Commercial Residential Transition (CR). The RA district is intended to allow for rural residential development while maintaining the sensitive environments.


Agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, forestry, and open space are encouraged in this zoning district. The RA district requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. However, the lot size may be reduced to 15,000 square feet where public water and an approved septic system are available. Some non-residential uses may be allowed in the RA district with the issuance of a special use permit issued by the Board of County Commissioners. The CC zoning district is intended to allow for commercial uses along heavily traveled routes where commercial development may occur. The Commercial Residential Transition classification is intended to accommodate properties that are changing from residential to commercial use but no properties are currently zoned for such use. The Town of Roper has eight zoning classifications. Four of the eight zoning classifications are residential, RA, R-6, R-6M, R-MF. The RA district is designed for low density residential uses, the R-6 and R-6M districts are for medium density residential (both allowing mobile and modular homes), and the R-MF district is intended for high density residential development. The Town has two commercial classifications, DC and HC. The DC, Downtown Commercial district is located only in the core commercial area of the Town. The HC, Highway Commercial district is for high impact commercial activities along the major thoroughfares. There are two manufacturing districts in Roper, Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and General Manufacturing (M-2). The M-1 district is designed for low impact manufacturing and wholesale and warehouse businesses. The M-2 district is designed for a wider range of manufacturing, wholesale and related business that may have a high impact.

Only the easternmost section of the Town of Plymouth’s extraterritorial planning area is within the study area. The area south of US 64 is zoned R20, Single Family Residential; the area north of US 64 and west of Ward Road is zoned primarily IH, Heavy Industrial and IL, Light Industrial; and the area north of NC 308 is zoned R20A, Single Family Residential. The town’s industrial zoning classifications accommodate a wide variety of manufacturing, heavy commercial, wholesaling, and warehousing uses. The residential zoning classifications in this area allow residences at a density that ranges from 2.1 to 2.9 dwelling units per acre. Existing zoning patterns within the study area are shown in Map 10.

2.7 Adjacent Area Influences The study area is extremely rural in character and its economy is principally supported by the agricultural industry, woods products industry, and outdoor recreational businesses. Without employment opportunities and higher levels of services and amenities throughout the area, the study area will maintain its existing economically distressed character. This area relies on the outlying communities for services, tourism, employment and industries to maintain its sustainability.

LAND REGULATORY TOOLS ANALYSIS

• County development regulations are in need of updates to promote flexibility and creativity.

• Additional zoning classifications are necessary to allow for a greater range of uses.

• Additional standards for the protection of natural resources are necessary.

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKe

ndric

k Cree

k

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot C

anal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

d

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Alligo

od Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Jones White Rd

Back Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d

Cherry Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

Westo

n Rd

B Can

al Rd

Deep Creek Rd

Thirty

Ft Ca

nal R

d

Holly Neck Rd

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Barber Rd

Slough Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Spruill Rd

Marriner Rd

Scuppernong Rd

White Oak Ln

Ward Rd N

Hortontown Rd

Loop Rd

Mt Pl

easa

nt Rd

Gus Town Rd

Landfill RdBe

nson

Rd

River

Rd

Railroad Bed Rd

Bush St

Downing Rd

Styons Rd

Learys Beach

Cypre

ss S

hores

Rd

Robin Dr

Ida St

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd

Private RdLil

y Ln

Ferris

Dr

Davis RdKing Ln

Plume StUs Hwy 64 E

Nc Hwy 3

2 N

Nc Hw

y 32 N

1 inch = 7,000 feet

0 8,500 17,0004,250Feet

N

November 7, 2008

Study AreaZoning

CI - Commercial / IndustrialRural AgricultureCorporate LimitsMunicipal ETJ


Map 10Existing Zoning Patterns

Lewis

Cana

l

Kendrick Creek

£¤64

""32Cr

oss R

d

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

d

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64 E

Nc Hwy 32 N

Slough Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond

Rd

Hortontown Rd

Backwoods Rd

Bush St

N Plume St

Newby St

Parrish Rd

W Us 64 Byp

Walker St

Davis Rd

Plume St

Oak St

Griffin Rd

Us Hw

y 64 E

Roper Inset


The surrounding counties have experienced varying growth trends. Bertie County has experienced similar closings and layoffs in the manufacturing industry. Martin County has experienced a stable population since 1970. However, Martin County is projected to begin dropping in population. Both Bertie and Martin Counties are rural in nature and still rely on agriculture as the staple of the economy. East of the study area are Tyrrell County and Hyde Counties, both have had a stable growth rate with only a slight increase and decrease respectively. Beaufort County to the south and Chowan County to the north have both experienced growth since 1970 and these counties are forecasted to continue growing for the next 25 years. Just west of the study area lies the Town of Plymouth, the largest municipality in Washington County. Plymouth provides general retail and service amenities to the general area. The closest major retail and employment center is the City of Greenville which is located 50 miles southwest of the study area. The Outer Banks, which is only 60 miles east of the study area, is one of the many nearby tourist destinations. US Highway 64, which traverses the study area, is one of only a few major highways that access the Outer Banks from the western part of the state. Many of the small businesses in the area have relied on the support of tourist traffic to and from the Outer Banks.

Other tourist destinations near the study area include Phelps Lake, Pettigrew State Park and Somerset Place. Somerset Place is a state historic site offering a comprehensive and realistic view of 19th century life on a large North Carolina plantation. The Town of Plymouth, with its civil war history, is a popular tourist destination. The Town of Edenton, across the Albemarle Sound, and the City of Washington, 30 minutes south, are also historic tourist destinations. Over recent years there has been a heated debate over the location of an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) for the US Navy. The US Navy has proposed locating the

OLF south of the study area near the border of Washington and Beaufort Counties. The OLF is proposed to be used to support Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) operations of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) aircraft squadrons stationed at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia and the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, North Carolina. There has been significant opposition to the location of the OLF from the federal, state and local level. The project will require the condemnation and acquisition of approximately 30,000 acres (almost 50 square miles) of property from local property owners and farmers. This area is one of the poorest regions of the state. Use of this property for military purposes makes this property exempt from property taxes resulting in a loss of thousands of dollars in county tax revenue. The location of the proposed OLF is adjacent to the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, where migratory birds nest for the winter. Opponents of the OLF state that this location creates a substantial risk of collisions between jets and the huge flocks of birds that winter in the area. In January 2008, the Navy announced its plans to abandon the proposed OLF site in Washington and Beaufort Counties.

Photo source: www.kayakguide.com


2.8 Summary Analysis There are many factors that impact the future growth and protection of the fragile environment of the study area. Population growth, land development, utilities and the environment must correlate with one another to maintain long term sustainability for the study area. Each must be considered when property is proposed to be developed. Much of the study area cannot be developed without the extension of wastewater service, the absence of which limits population growth and economic sustainability. On the other hand, any development can have adverse impacts on the precious natural features that attract people to the area. Development must be properly planned to prevent the destruction of wetlands, degradation of water quality, erosion of the shoreline, and threats to historic and naturally significant areas within the study area.

ANALYSIS

• Increased tourism within and outside the study area will improve and sustain the economy by establishing small support businesses.

• The proposed Outlying Landing Field could have had a negative impact on the tax base for the county as well as significant environmental impacts.

WASSP – Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections 3-1 Final, November 14, 2008

3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections

3.1 Alternative Development Scenarios

Three land development scenarios for the WASSP study area are described in this section. The scenarios are intended to illustrate options for the general spatial distribution of future land use patterns. The narrative for each scenario describes the projected land use patterns, identifies the acreage within each land use classification, and illustrates the maximum number of dwelling units and population that would result if the land is fully developed as portrayed in the scenario. Maps graphically illustrating each scenario accompany the narrative descriptions. A summary comparison of the three scenarios is also provided. Land Use Classifications for Land Development Scenarios. All three scenarios identify general land use patterns utilizing the following land use classifications:

Rural Agriculture. This category includes primarily farms; other agricultural-related uses; forestry; widely scattered, very low density farm housing; and undeveloped or underdeveloped land. This classification also includes support public and institutional land uses such as schools, churches, community buildings, etc. that are traditionally located in rural areas. Low Density Residential. This category includes residential land uses such as single-family detached residences and mobile homes on individual lots at a density of one dwelling unit or less per acre. This classification also includes public and institutional land uses such as schools, churches, community buildings, etc. that support low density residential development. Medium/High Density Residential. This category includes all types of residential land uses such as single-family detached residences, mobile homes on individual lots, multi-family developments, planned unit developments, etc. at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The higher densities within this range, 6 to 8 dwelling units per acre, are anticipated within planned developments such as shoreline developments that include condominium or townhome dwellings. This classification also includes public and institutional land uses such as schools, churches, community buildings, etc. that support general residential development. Some planned developments within this category are anticipated to include a mixture of residential densities and local commercial land uses such as retail, professional services, and offices.

Nonresidential Activity Centers. This category includes primarily commercial and/or industrial land uses. All three scenarios include commercial and industrial subcategories of this classification. In addition, Scenario Three also includes a commercial/industrial subcategory that is intended to accommodate a wide variety and mixture of commercial and industrial land uses. Developed, Natural Constraints. This classification includes land that is currently developed for residential, commercial, industrial, public, or institutional purposes and land that contains major natural constraints for land development such as wetlands, 100-year floodplains, water bodies, designated conservation lands, and significant natural heritage areas. By consolidating the properties that are already used with the land that possesses major limitations for land development, it is easier to graphically identify land areas that


have the greatest potential to accommodate future land uses. This does not mean, however, that land that is currently used in a particular way can not or will not be used in a different manner in the future. Redevelopment of existing developed areas is another issue that will be addressed later as a preferred future land use map is prepared.

A. Development Scenario One Scenario One assumes that properties in close proximity to the Albemarle Sound, land adjacent to road corridors, and the US 64 interchange areas will be the primary future growth areas within the study area. This anticipated growth would be located outside of the existing developed areas and areas containing major natural constraints (wetlands, 100-year floodplains, water bodies, designated conservation lands, and significant natural heritage areas). Medium and high residential densities of up to four dwelling units per acre would be concentrated along the Albemarle Sound shoreline north of Mackeys Road (NC 308), NC 32 North, and Pea Ridge Road. The average density level for areas designated as medium and high density residential is expected to be 3 dwelling units per acre. Higher densities, approximately 4 units per acre, are anticipated within planned developments, particularly shoreline resort developments, where adequate wastewater facilities and other support infrastructure is available or will be provided. Low density residential development, which would primarily be located adjacent to road corridors, is anticipated at approximately one dwelling unit or less per acre. Nonresidential development would be centered at all of the US 64 interchanges, the NC 32/94 intersection, and east of the existing Washington County Industrial Park between US 64 and Mackeys Road. The majority of commercial land use is expected along the US 64 corridor at the Scuppernong, Roper, and NC 32 interchanges and at the NC 32/94 intersection. Predominantly industrial land use is anticipated at the Tyson Road interchange at US 64 and the area east of the Washington County Industrial Park. The remainder of the study area, Rural Agriculture, is expected to remain rural, consisting largely of agricultural and forestry uses and widely scattered, very low density agricultural-related dwellings. Table 15 illustrates the acreage within each land use category of Scenario One.

Table 15 Land Use Patterns Scenario One

Land Use Acreage % of Total Land Area Medium/High Density Residential 2,901.0 4.0% Low Density Residential 4,550.9 6.3% Nonresidential 1,347.4 1.9% Rural Agriculture 30,575.7 42.2% Developed/Constrained 33,136.7 45.7% Totals 72,511.7 100.0%

Table 16 illustrates the buildout of Scenario One. Buildout illustrates the hypothetical calculation of the maximum number of dwelling units and the total population that would result if all of the residential acreage is developed at the assumed density levels:


Table 16 Residential Buildout Scenario One

Land Use Acreage

Average Units per

acre Total Units

Persons per Household

Buildout Population

Medium/High Density Residential 2,901.0 3.0 8,703 2.52 21,932

Low Density Residential 4,550.9 1.0 4,551 2.52 11,468

Totals 7,452.9 ---- 13,254 ---- 33,400 B. Development Scenario Two Scenario Two assumes that properties in close proximity to the Albemarle Sound; land in and around Roper, Plymouth, and Creswell; and the US 64 interchange areas will be the primary future growth areas within the study area. In this scenario, there is greater emphasis on concentrating residential development closer to the existing built-up communities and less emphasis on residential development along road corridors, particularly along road corridors that currently do not have public water service. In this scenario, the anticipated growth would also be located outside of the existing developed areas and areas with significant natural constraints. Medium and high residential densities of up to four dwelling units per acre would be concentrated primarily in four areas: (i) along the Albemarle Sound shoreline north of Mackeys Road (NC 308), NC 32 North, and Pea Ridge Road, (ii) within the Town of Roper and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, (iii) along the eastern and southeastern periphery of Plymouth, and (iv) along the western and northern edges of Creswell. The average density level for areas designated as medium and high density residential is expected to be 3 dwelling units per acre. Higher densities, approximately 4 units per acre, are anticipated within planned developments, particularly shoreline resort developments, where adequate wastewater facilities and other support infrastructure is available or will be provided. Low density residential development, which would primarily be located adjacent to some of the major road corridors, is anticipated at approximately one dwelling unit or less per acre. Nonresidential development would be similar to Scenario One and would be centered at all of the US 64 interchanges, the NC 32/94 intersection, and east of the existing Washington County Industrial Park between US 64 and Mackeys Road. However in Scenario Two, a small amount of local commercial development is also projected along the Mackeys Road corridor east of the Westover community and in the Pleasant Grove community. The majority of commercial land use is expected along the US 64 corridor at the Scuppernong, Roper, and NC 32 interchanges and at the NC 32/94 intersection. Predominantly industrial land use is anticipated at the Tyson Road interchange at US 64 and the area east of the Washington County Industrial Park. As with Scenario One, the remainder of the study area in Scenario Two is expected to remain rural, consisting largely of agricultural and forestry uses. Table 17 illustrates the acreage within each land use category of Scenario Two.

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKendrickCreek

Deep Creek

Main Canal

CanalA

SkinnersCanal

OldCanal

LewisCanal

Scuppernong R

iver

RoanokeRiver

CanalB

Bull'sBay

Thirty Foot Canal

WesternCanal

Kendrick Creek

MoccasinCanal

MountainCanal

BonarvaCanal

Morgan Swamp

BakersSwamp

BuntonCreek

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Mackey'sCreek

Chapel Swamp

DeepCreek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

UsHwy 64 Eastbound Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys

Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

CrossRd

Pea Ridge Rd

NorthlineRd

E Us Hwy 64

FollyRd

Nc Hwy32 N

Jones White Rd

AmbroseRd

AlligoodRd

BeasleyRd

Mt Tabor Rd

Back Rd

CherryRd

Woodlawn Rd

Backw

oodsRd

WMill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 45 S

NcHwy32

Davenport Forks

Rd

WestonRd

BCanalRd

EMill Pond

Rd

Old Cherry Rd

Deep Creek Rd

ThirtyFtCanal Rd

St DavidRd

Holly NeckRd

Nc Hwy 45N

GarrettIslandRd

Meadow

Ln

White

Oak Rd

Barber Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

ResearchStationRd

SloughRd

MountainCanal Rd

ScuppernongRd

Marriner Rd

Spruill Rd

White Oak LnNcHwy32S

Ward

RdN

Hortontown Rd

MtPleasant RdLoop Rd

Gus Town Rd

Landfill Rd

BensonRd

River Rd

Railroad

BedRd

Mallard Dr

Albemarle

Beach

Rd

Bush St

GageLn

First St

CooperRd

Gourd Neck Rd

Downing

Rd

Styons Rd

LearysBea

ch

CypressShoresRd

Newby St Arnold Hill Rd

Spruill Lp

Robin Dr

ShoreDr

Hazel St

BreezyBanks

Rd

ConabyDr

Ida St

Rabbit CrossRd

White

Rd

Parrish Rd

Nixon Rd

CrystalLn

ArnoldLoopRd

NormanRd

WUs64Byp

Blair ShoresRd

LambRd

Walker St

PrivateRd

BeechBayRd

PhelpsRd

Lindsey Rd

MallardCove

Reeds Rd

LilyLn

LitchfieldRd

Pritchard

s LpRd

FerrisDr

Davis Rd

MackeysFerryRd

HillyCr

Mariners Dr

Woodley Station Rd

King Ln

Plume St

Woods

Lane

NDeerfieldDr

Industrial ParkRd

Griffin Rd

Summerfield Rd

Williams Loop Rd

NRiver Rd

Emerald

Ln

Peanut Circle

WhiteMarshRd

CardinalLn

Faye Ln

AngeRd

Autumn Dr

NcHwy32N

Us Hwy64 E

NcHwy32N

NcHwy45N

Nc Hwy 32 N

NcHwy 45 S

Spruill Rd

0 8,100 16,2004,050Feet

N

November 27, 2007

new_highway

Study Area

Corporate Limit

ETJ

Industrial Park

Development Scenario 1Growth Patterns

Nonresidential Activity Centers

Medium/ High Density

Low Density

Rural Agriculture

Developed, Natural Constraints


Map 11Development Scenario 1

isCanal

Ken

£¤64

""32-±°̄

&3&3

CrossRd

UsHwy 64 Eastbound

UsHwy 64 Westbound

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64 E Nc Hwy 32 N

SloughRd

Woodlawn Rd

WMill Pond Rd

Hortontown Rd

Backwoods Rd

EMill Pond

Rd

Bush St

NPlume St

Newby StBuncombeSt(old Us 64)

Parrish Rd

RailroadSt

Bank St

WUs64Byp

Walker St

EUs64Byp

Davis Rd

ResearchStationRd

Plume St

Oak St

Griffin Rd

Little Clay Ln

Knowles Rd

SecondSt

NcHwy

32N

UsHwy64E

Bank St

Roper Inset

Landfill CorrectionalFacility

NCDOTMaintenance

IndustrialPark

PinesElementary

UnionSchool

NewHighway32Corridor


Table 17 Land Use Patterns

Scenario Two Land Use Acreage % of Total Land Area

Medium/High Density Residential 4,106.8 5.7% Low Density Residential 2,171.2 3.0% Nonresidential 1,393.2 1.9% Rural Agriculture 31,703.8 43.7% Developed/Constrained 31,611.5 45.7% Totals 72,511.6 100.0%

Table 18 illustrates the buildout of Scenario Two. Buildout illustrates the hypothetical calculation of the maximum number of dwelling units and the total population that would result if all of the residential acreage is developed at the assumed density levels.

Table 18 Residential Buildout Scenario Two

Land Use Acreage

Average Units per

acre Total Units


Buildout Population

Medium/High Density Residential 4,106.8 3.0 12,320 2.52 31,047

Low Density Residential 2,171.2 1.0 2,171 2.52 5,471

Totals 6,278.0 ---- 14,492 ---- 36,519 C. Development Scenario Three As with the other two scenarios, Scenario Three assumes that properties in close proximity to the Albemarle Sound; land in and around Roper, Plymouth, and Creswell; and the US 64 interchange areas will be the primary future growth areas within the study area. Scenario Three is a combination of the first two scenarios with concentrations of higher density residential development along the Albemarle Sound shoreline and in proximity to the existing built-up communities as well as lower density residential development along major road corridors. Scenario Three, however, includes higher overall residential densities than the other two scenarios and slightly more nonresidential land uses. As in the previous scenarios, the anticipated growth would also be located outside of the existing developed areas and areas with significant natural constraints.

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay


Deep Creek

Main Canal

CanalA

SkinnersCanal

OldCanal

LewisCanal

Scuppernong R

iver

RoanokeRiver

CanalB

Bull'sBay

Thirty Foot Canal

WesternCanal

Kendrick Creek

MoccasinCanal

MountainCanal

BonarvaCanal

Morgan Swamp

BakersSwamp

BuntonCreek

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Mackey'sCreek

Chapel Swamp

DeepCreek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd


Mackeys

Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

CrossRd

Pea Ridge Rd

NorthlineRd

E Us Hwy 64

FollyRd

Nc Hwy32 N

Jones White Rd

AmbroseRd

AlligoodRd

BeasleyRd

Mt Tabor Rd

Back Rd

CherryRd

Woodlawn Rd

Backw

oodsRd

WMill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 45 S

NcHwy32

Davenport Forks

Rd

WestonRd

BCanalRd

EMill Pond

Rd

Old Cherry Rd

Deep Creek Rd

ThirtyFtCanal Rd

St DavidRd

Holly NeckRd

Nc Hwy 45N

GarrettIslandRd

Meadow

Ln

White

Oak Rd

Barber Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

ResearchStationRd

SloughRd

MountainCanal Rd

ScuppernongRd

Marriner Rd

Spruill Rd


Ward

RdN

Hortontown Rd


Gus Town Rd

Landfill Rd

BensonRd

River Rd

Railroad

BedRd

Mallard Dr

Albemarle

Beach

Rd

Bush St

GageLn

First St

CooperRd

Gourd Neck Rd

Downing

Rd

Styons Rd

LearysBea

ch

CypressShoresRd


Spruill Lp

Robin Dr

ShoreDr

Hazel St

BreezyBanks

Rd

ConabyDr

Ida St

Rabbit CrossRd

White

Rd

Parrish Rd

Nixon Rd

CrystalLn

ArnoldLoopRd

NormanRd

WUs64Byp

Blair ShoresRd

LambRd

Walker St

PrivateRd

BeechBayRd

PhelpsRd

Lindsey Rd

MallardCove

Reeds Rd

LilyLn

LitchfieldRd

Pritchard

s LpRd

FerrisDr

Davis Rd

MackeysFerryRd

HillyCr

Mariners Dr

Woodley Station Rd

King Ln

Plume St

Woods

Lane

NDeerfieldDr

Industrial ParkRd

Griffin Rd

Summerfield Rd

Williams Loop Rd

NRiver Rd

Emerald

Ln

Peanut Circle

WhiteMarshRd

CardinalLn

Faye Ln

AngeRd

Autumn Dr

NcHwy32N

Us Hwy64 E

NcHwy32N

NcHwy45N

Nc Hwy 32 N

NcHwy 45 S

Spruill Rd

0 8,100 16,2004,050Feet

N

November 27, 2007

new_highway

Study Area

Corporate Limit

ETJ

Industrial Park


Nonresidential Activity Centers


Low Density

Rural Agriculture




isCanal

Ken

£¤64

""32-±°̄

&3&3

CrossRd

UsHwy 64 Eastbound

UsHwy 64 Westbound

Newland Rd


SloughRd

Woodlawn Rd

WMill Pond Rd

Hortontown Rd

Backwoods Rd

EMill Pond

Rd

Bush St

NPlume St


Parrish Rd

RailroadSt

Bank St

WUs64Byp

Walker St

EUs64Byp

Davis Rd

ResearchStationRd

Plume St

Oak St

Griffin Rd

Little Clay Ln

Knowles Rd

SecondSt

NcHwy

32N

UsHwy64E

Bank St

Roper Inset


NCDOTMaintenance

IndustrialPark

PinesElementary

UnionSchool



Medium and high residential densities would be concentrated primarily in four areas: (i) along the Albemarle Sound shoreline north of Mackeys Road (NC 308), NC 32 North, and Pea Ridge Road, (ii) within the Town of Roper and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, (iii) along the eastern and southeastern periphery of Plymouth, and (iv) along the western and northern edges of Creswell. Medium density residential is expected at a level of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. High density residential levels are anticipated at 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Higher densities are anticipated within planned developments and mixed used developments, particularly shoreline resort developments, where adequate wastewater facilities and other support infrastructure are available or will be provided. Low density residential development, which would primarily be located adjacent to most of the major road corridors, is anticipated at approximately 1.5 dwelling units or less per acre. Nonresidential development would be similar to Scenario Two and would be centered at all of the US 64 interchanges, the NC 32/94 intersection, and east of the existing Washington County Industrial Park between US 64 and Mackeys Road. As in Scenario Two, a small amount of local commercial development is also projected along the Mackeys Road corridor east of the Westover community and in the Pleasant Grove community. The majority of commercial land use is expected along the US 64 corridor at the Roper, and NC 32 interchanges and at the NC 32/94 intersection. The Scuppernong and Tyson Road interchanges on US 64 are expected to develop with a mixture of commercial and industrial uses. Predominantly industrial land use is anticipated in the area east of the Washington County Industrial Park. With Scenario Three, slightly more commercial development is projected at the Roper interchange on US 64. As with the other scenarios, the remainder of the study area in Scenario Three is expected to remain rural, consisting largely of agricultural and forestry uses. Table 19 illustrates the acreage within each land use category of Scenario Three.

Table 19 Land Use Patterns Scenario Three

Land Use Acreage % of Total Land Area

Medium/High Density Residential Medium Density Residential. 2-4 du/ac 3,094 4.3% High Density Residential. 5-8 du/ac 1,032 1.4% Low Density Residential 3,244 4.5% Nonresidential Commercial 281 0.4% Commercial-Industrial 786 1.1% Industrial 397 0.5% Rural Agriculture 30,541 42.1% Developed/Constrained 33,136.7 45.7% Totals 72,511.6 100.0%

Table 20 illustrates the residential buildout of Scenario Three. Buildout illustrates the hypothetical calculation of the maximum number of dwelling units and the total population that would result if all of the residential acreage is developed at the assumed density levels.


Table 20 Residential Buildout

Scenario Three

Land Use Acreage Average Units per

acre

Total Units


Buildout Population

Medium Density Residential

3,094 3.0 9,282 2.52 23,391

High Density Residential

1,032 6.0 6,192 2.52 15,604

Low Density Residential

3,244 1.5 4,866 2.52 12,262

Totals 7,370 ---- 20,340 ---- 51,257 D. Summary of Development Scenarios Scenario One forecasts higher density residential growth in the vicinity of the Albemarle Sound while Scenario Two projects such growth in close proximity to Roper, Plymouth, and Creswell as well as along the Albemarle Sound. Scenario Three includes the higher density residential pattern of Scenario Two as well as the majority of the low density residential pattern of Scenario One. Scenarios Two and Three reflect a more compact residential development pattern than Scenario One. While Scenarios Two and Three include less total acres used for residential purposes than Scenario One, a higher proportion of the residential acreage is devoted to medium/high density residential use resulting in higher projected buildout populations. Scenario Three includes the highest residential levels and, therefore, the highest projected buildout population. The projected number of residential units and population at buildout for all three scenarios is summarized in Table 21.

Table 21 Buildout Comparison Residential Units and Population

Scenario

Total Residential Acreage

Residential Units at Buildout

Population at Buildout

One 7,452.9 13,254 33,400 Two 6,278.0 14,492 36,519

Three 7,370.0 20,340 51,257 All three scenarios project nonresidential development to be concentrated principally along the US 64 corridor. Scenarios Two and Three, however, also include a small amount of local commercial development in two locations along the Mackeys Road corridor. Table 22 provides a comparison of the distribution of land uses within each scenario.

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay


Deep Creek

Main Canal

CanalA

SkinnersCanal

OldCanal

LewisCanal

Scuppernong R

iver

RoanokeRiver

CanalB

Bull'sBay

Thirty Foot Canal

WesternCanal

Kendrick Creek

MoccasinCanal

MountainCanal

BonarvaCanal

Morgan Swamp

BakersSwamp

BuntonCreek

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Mackey'sCreek

Chapel Swamp

DeepCreek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd


Mackeys

Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

CrossRd

Pea Ridge Rd

NorthlineRd

E Us Hwy 64

FollyRd

Nc Hwy32 N

Jones White Rd

AmbroseRd

AlligoodRd

BeasleyRd

Mt Tabor Rd

Back Rd

CherryRd

Woodlawn Rd

Backw

oodsRd

WMill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 45 S

NcHwy32

Davenport Forks

Rd

WestonRd

BCanalRd

EMill Pond

Rd

Old Cherry Rd

Deep Creek Rd

ThirtyFtCanal Rd

St DavidRd

Holly NeckRd

Nc Hwy 45N

GarrettIslandRd

Meadow

Ln

White

Oak Rd

Barber Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

ResearchStationRd

SloughRd

MountainCanal Rd

ScuppernongRd

Marriner Rd

Spruill Rd


Ward

RdN

Hortontown Rd


Gus Town Rd

Landfill Rd

BensonRd

River Rd

Railroad

BedRd

Mallard Dr

Albemarle

Beach

Rd

Bush St

GageLn

First St

CooperRd

Gourd Neck Rd

Downing

Rd

Styons Rd

LearysBea

ch

CypressShoresRd


Spruill Lp

Robin Dr

ShoreDr

Hazel St

BreezyBanks

Rd

ConabyDr

Ida St

Rabbit CrossRd

White

Rd

Parrish Rd

Nixon Rd

CrystalLn

ArnoldLoopRd

NormanRd

WUs64Byp

Blair ShoresRd

LambRd

Walker St

PrivateRd

BeechBayRd

PhelpsRd

Lindsey Rd

MallardCove

Reeds Rd

LilyLn

LitchfieldRd

Pritchard

s LpRd

FerrisDr

Davis Rd

MackeysFerryRd

HillyCr

Mariners Dr

Woodley Station Rd

King Ln

Plume St

Woods

Lane

NDeerfieldDr

Industrial ParkRd

Griffin Rd

Summerfield Rd

Williams Loop Rd

NRiver Rd

Emerald

Ln

Peanut Circle

WhiteMarshRd

CardinalLn

Faye Ln

AngeRd

Autumn Dr

NcHwy32N

Us Hwy64 E

NcHwy32N

NcHwy45N

Nc Hwy 32 N

NcHwy 45 S

Spruill Rd

0 8,200 16,4004,100Feet

N

November 27, 2007

Study Area

Corporate Limit

ETJ

Industrial Park


Industrial

Commercial/ Industrial

Commercial


Low Density

Rural Agriculture




isCanal

Ken

£¤64

""32-±°̄

&3&3

CrossRd

UsHwy 64 Eastbound

UsHwy 64 Westbound

Newland Rd


SloughRd

Woodlawn Rd

WMill Pond Rd

Hortontown Rd

Backwoods Rd

EMill Pond

Rd

Bush St

NPlume St


Parrish Rd

RailroadSt

Bank St

WUs64Byp

Walker St

EUs64Byp

Davis Rd

ResearchStationRd

Plume St

Oak St

Griffin Rd

Little Clay Ln

Knowles Rd

SecondSt

NcHwy

32N

UsHwy64E

Bank St

Roper Inset


NCDOTMaintenance

IndustrialPark

PinesElementary

UnionSchool



Table 22 Comparison of Land Use Patterns

Percent of Total Land Area

Land Use Scenario One Scenario

Two Scenario

Three

Medium/High Density Residential

4.0%

5.7%

5.7% Low Density Residential 6.3% 3.0% 4.5% Nonresidential 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% Rural Agriculture 42.2% 43.7% 42.1% Developed/Constrained 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.2 Preferred Development Scenario

Scenario Three was selected as the most desirable pattern of future growth for the study area. This preferred development option reflects expectations for increased second home/retirement housing in close proximity to the Albemarle Sound shoreline, medium and high density residential growth on the peripheries of established urban areas, additional low density residential growth adjacent to major county road corridors, new nonresidential development primarily concentrated along the US 64 corridor, and the continued use of the majority of the study area for agricultural and forestry land uses. Map 14, Future Land Use illustrates projected future land use patterns in the study area. This map incorporates the anticipated future growth patterns reflected in the preferred development scenario as well as existing land use patterns. A. Future Land Use Map Classifications Map 14 includes the following generalized classifications to describe anticipated land patterns within the study area –

Agricultural. This classification includes primarily farms; 100-year floodplains; widely scattered, very low density (more than five acres per dwelling unit) farm housing; undeveloped or underdeveloped land; and, widely scattered support public and institutional land uses such as schools, churches, community buildings, etc. that are traditionally located in rural areas. This classification also includes the following subcategories (as shown on Map 14) –

Agricultural Industrial – Existing intensive livestock/poultry feeding operations Mining – Existing mine operations Forestry – Existing forestry operations

The Agricultural classification includes 49,770 acres or 70.9 percent of the total acreage within the study area. Because this classification is intended to promote the continued use of land for agricultural purposes, intensive urban land uses and the extension of public water and sewer utilities should be discouraged in areas designated as Agricultural. Low Density Residential. This classification includes residential land uses such as single-family detached residences and mobile homes on individual lots at a density of one dwelling unit or less per acre. This classification also includes scattered public and institutional land uses such as schools, churches, community buildings, etc. that support low density residential development. The Low Density Residential classification includes


6,070 acres or 8.6 percent of the total acreage within the study area. Generally, public water service is available to residential developments within this classification but central sewer service is not. Medium/High Density Residential. This classification includes all types of residential land uses such as single-family detached residences, mobile homes on individual lots, multi-family developments, planned unit developments, etc. at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The higher densities within this range, 6 to 8 dwelling units per acre, are anticipated within planned developments such as shoreline developments that include condominium or townhome dwellings. This classification also includes scattered public and institutional land uses such as schools, churches, community buildings, etc. that support general residential development. Some planned developments within this classification are anticipated to include a mixture of residential densities and local commercial land uses such as retail, professional services, offices, and public/institutional uses. Public water and a public sewer service or an approved private, central wastewater treatment system is necessary to support the residential development in this classification. The Medium/High Density Residential classification includes 4,126 acres or 5.9 percent of the total acreage within the study area.

Commercial. The Commercial classification includes 734 acres or 1.0 percent of the total acreage within the study area. Land uses typical of this classification include a wide range of retail, wholesale, office, business services, personal services, light industrial, warehousing, and intensive public and institutional uses. Generally, public water service is needed to support the land uses within this classification. Public sewer service or an approved private, central wastewater treatment system is necessary to support the most intensive land uses within this classification. Roads with the capacity to accommodate higher traffic volumes are necessary to support commercial development.

Commercial-Industrial. This classification includes a mixture of commercial and industrial land uses, particularly operations that require large tracts of land area. Public water and a public sewer service or an approved private, central wastewater treatment system is necessary to support the residential development in this classification. Roads with the capacity to accommodate higher traffic volumes are necessary to support commercial and industrial development. The Commercial-Industrial classification includes 786 acres or 1.1 percent of the total acreage within the study area.

Industrial. This classification includes industrial, assembly, and manufacturing land uses. Public water and a public sewer service or an approved private, central wastewater treatment system is necessary to support the land uses within this classification. Roads with the capacity to accommodate higher traffic volumes are necessary to support industrial development. The Industrial classification includes 455 acres or 0.6 percent of the total acreage within the study area.

Public-Institutional. This classification includes the most intensive and largest public and institutional land uses. Generally, public water service is needed to support the land uses within this classification. Public sewer service or an approved private, central wastewater treatment system is necessary to support the most intensive land uses within this classification. The Public-Institutional classification includes 1,488 acres or 2.1 percent of the total acreage within the study area.

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

Conaby CreekKe

ndric

k Cree

k

Deep Creek

Main Canal

Cana

l ASkinn

ers C

anal

Old Ca

nal

Lewi

s Can

al

Scuppernong River

Roan

oke Ri

ver

Cana

l B

Bull'sBay

Thirty

Foot C

anal

Western C

anal

Kendrick Creek

Moccasi

n Cana

l

Mountai

n Cana

l

Bona

rva Ca

nal

Morgan Swamp

Bakers Swamp

Bunto

n Cree

k

Sleights Creek

BatchelorBay

Macke

y's Cr

eek

Chapel Swamp

Deep Creek

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

WASHINGTONCOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

BERTIECOUNTY

CHOWANCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

TYRRELLCOUNTY

""32

""45

""308

""45

£¤64

""94

""94

£¤64

""32

""32

""94

Mackeys

Beasley

Westover

Basnight

Scuppernong

Laurel Point

Leonards Point

Batemen'sBeach

PleasantGrove

Albemarle Beach

DavenportForks

TidewaterResearch

Station



TNC Preserve

Skinnersville

NewberryLanding

PeaRidge

Plymouth

Roper

Creswell

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Us Hwy 64 E

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64 E

astbound

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Mackeys Rd

Nc Hwy 94 N

Cros

s Rd

Pea Ridge Rd

North

line R

dE Us Hwy 64

Folly

Rd

Nc Hwy 32 N

Alligo

od Rd

Ambro

se R

d

Jones White Rd

Back Rd

Beas

ley R

d

Mt Ta

bor R

d

Cherry Rd

Woodlawn Rd

Backwoods Rd

W Mill Pond Rd

Nc Hwy 4

5 S

Nc Hwy 32

B Can

al Rd

Thirty

Ft Ca

nal R

d

Nc Hwy 45 N

Garrett Island Rd

Meadow Ln

Barber Rd

Slough Rd

Tom Pepper Rd

Spruill Rd

Marriner Rd

Scuppernong Rd

White Oak Ln

Ward Rd N

Loop Rd

Mt P

leasa

nt Rd

Landfill Rd

River

Rd

Railroad Bed Rd

Bush St

Coop

er Rd

Downing Rd

Styons Rd

Learys Beach

Spruill Lp

Robin Dr

White Rd

Nixon Rd

Parrish Rd

Norman Rd

Private Rd

Ferris

Dr

Davis Rd

Nc Hwy 3

2 N1 inch = 7,000 feet

0 8,000 16,0004,000Feet

N

November 16, 2008

new_highwayStudy AreaIndustrial ParkCorporate LimitETJ

Future Land UseClassification

MiningAgricultural Industrial

IndustrialCommercial/ IndustrialCommercialPublic InstitutionalMedium/ High Density ResidentialLow Density ResidentialForestryAgricultureConservation


Lewis

Cana

l

Kendrick Creek

""32

£¤64

Cros

s Rd

Us Hwy 64

Eastboun

d

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Newland Rd

Us Hwy 64 E

Nc Hwy 32 N

Slough Rd

Woodlawn Rd

W Mill Pond

Rd

Hortontown Rd

Backwoods Rd

Bush St

N Plume St

Newby St

Parrish Rd

W Us 64 Byp

Walker St

Davis Rd

Plume St

Oak St

Griffin Rd

Us Hw

y 64 E

Roper Inset

IndustrialPark

Map 14Future Land Use

New N

C 32


Conservation. This category includes public and privately-owned properties where traditional land uses are not desirable or expected to develop in the future. However, low intensity buildings and facilities that support conservation, recreation, and environmental and nature education may also be included in this classification. Examples of uses within this classification include the Conaby Creek/Swan Bay Swamp Nature Preserve, the Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest, privately-owned conservation lands, and public parks. Generally, public water or sewer utilities are not necessary to support the types and low intensity of uses characteristic of the Conservation classification. This classification includes 6,772 acres or 9.6 percent of the total acreage within the study area.

B. Redevelopment of Existing, Developed Areas Some existing, developed areas have potential to be redeveloped as land use patterns change from the current predominantly rural and scattered, low density residential uses to more intensive uses of land. One such area, the Mackeys Village area located along the Albemarle Sound shoreline on the west side of Kendrick Creek at the Albemarle Sound, has excellent potential for redevelopment as a mixed use area. The NC 308 corridor is also an area that could be readily redeveloped for higher density residential and local commercial uses as nearby shoreline development occurs. 3.3 Population Projections

Current population projections prepared by the State indicate a declining population for Washington County through the year 2030. This section of the report reviews three different sets of population projections and provides a recommended population forecast for use in the WASSP study area for general land use and utility planning purposes. A. Population Projection 1 Projection 1 reflects the projected population trends prepared by the NC State Data Center. According to the 2000 Census data, the project area contained approximately 5,200 people, which is approximately 38 percent of the countywide population. Based upon current population projections prepared by the State, the study area population will decrease to 4,455 by 2030.

Population Projection 1

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Countywide population 13,723 13,418 13,200 12,879 12,535 12,152 11,759

Study area population (37.89%) 5,200 5,084 5,001 4,880 4,750 4,604 4,455

B. Population Projection 2 Projection 2 assumes a countywide population growth rate similar to that of the region. Variations of this population projection are provided below:



2A. Growth Rate Based on Select Surrounding Counties

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate

Countywide Population 13,418 13,978 14,646

15,151

1,733

12.9%

Study Area Population (37.89%) 5,084 5,296 5,550

5,741

657

12.9%

Includes Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Hyde, Martin, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

2B. Growth Rate Based on Select Albemarle Sound Counties

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate


16,245

2,827

21.1%


6,155

1,071

21.1%

Includes Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

2C. Growth Rate Based on All Albemarle Sound Counties

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate


17,951

4,533

33.8%


6,802

1,718

33.8%

Includes Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

2D. Growth Rate Based on All Counties in the Region

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate


16,587

3,169

23.6%


6,285

1,201

23.6%

Includes Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Martin, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties


2E. Growth Rate Based on Select Regional Counties

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate

Countywide Population 13,418 13,894 14,381 14,699 1,281 9.5%

Study Area Population (37.89%) 5,084 5,265 5,449 5,569 485 9.5%

Includes Beaufort, Bertie, Chowan, Hyde, Martin, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

2F. Growth Rate Based on Select Albemarle Sound Counties

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate

Countywide Population 13,418 14,147 14,945 15,546 2,128 15.9%


Includes Bertie, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

C. Population Projection 3 Projection 3 selects a low, medium, and high growth rate from the various projections made in # 2 above and, additionally, illustrates the impact of a 5% and 10% increase in the study area’s capture rate of the total countywide population gain between 2010 and 2030.


Low Growth (#2, E. Growth Rate Based on Select Regional Counties)

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-

2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate


w/5% increase in capture rate 2010-2030 5,084 5,265 5,808 6,304 1,220 24.0%

w/10% increase in capture rate 5,084 5,265 6,168 7,039 1,955 38.4%


2010-2030

Includes Beaufort, Bertie, Chowan, Hyde, Martin, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

Medium Growth (#2, F. Growth Rate Based on Select Albemarle Sound Counties)

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-

2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate




Includes Bertie, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

High Growth (#2, B. Growth Rate Based on Select Albemarle Sound Counties)

2005 2010 2020

2030

2005-

2030 Gain

2005-2030 Rate

Study Area Population (37.89%) 5,084 5,405 5,816 6,155 1,071 21.1%



Includes Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

D. Summary of Population Projections While State population projections forecast a declining population for Washington County through 2030, the surrounding region is expected to experience positive population growth. Optimistically, Washington County’s future population will be somewhat reflective of the larger region. Growth rates increase significantly when the region is expanded to include Currituck and Dare Counties. However, inclusion of these two counties most likely distorts growth potential for Washington County since Currituck and Dare Counties are heavily influenced by


beach tourism and spillover growth from Tidewater Virginia. Consequently, projections illustrated in Population Projection #3 probably more accurately reflect the range of growth potential in the study area. E. Recommended Population Projections The following is recommended (by the Stakeholders Committee on November 29, 2007) as the population projections to be included in the Washington County-Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan for general land use and utility planning purposes:

Recommended Population Projections WASSP Study Area

2010 2020 2030

Low 5,360 5,663 5,890 High 5,360 6,036 6,668

The ‘low’ forecast represents a growth rate based on the average state projections for select Albemarle Sound counties (including Bertie, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties). The ‘high’ forecast assumes that the study area will increase its proportional share of the total countywide population gain by 5 percent each decade between 2010 and 2030.

WASSP - Section 4.0 Objectives Policies and Recommendations 4-1 Final, November 14, 2008

4.0 Objectives, Policies and Recommendations

4.1 Land Use and Development Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Strategies

Sustainable Land Use and Development

4.1.1 Objective. Ensure that new nonresidential development is compatible with its surrounding environment. Policy LU-1 New nonresidential development shall be sited and designed so as to

mitigate impacts on existing roadways and adjoining residential and agricultural properties.

Policy LU-2 Encourage low intensity commercial development, particularly retail and services, to be integrated with residential development.

Policy LU-3 Allow intensive nonresidential development only in areas which have access to a public road with the design capacity to accommodate the traffic volumes generated by the nonresidential uses.

Policy LU-4 Regulate nonresidential outdoor lighting to reduce light pollution. Revise the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include site and building design standards for nonresidential development. Revise the current zoning ordinance to include a highway corridor overlay district that provides specific appearance and operational standards for new nonresidential development located along major highway corridors.

Implementation

Establish a fee schedule for reviewing site plans for nonresidential developments and major subdivision plats. Such fees could pay for the cost of outside consultation to review major development plans and ensure consistency with technical stormwater, buffering, design, and utility standards.

4.1.2 Objective. Ensure that new residential developments do not detract from the existing rural character. Policy LU-5 Utilize open space residential design techniques to preserve open

space and rural character in new land developments which are proposed to be located outside of identified growth areas.

Policy LU-6 Ensure that new residential developments provide adequate amounts of open space and recreational space.

Policy LU-7 Encourage cluster development. Policy LU-8 Restrict direct vehicular access from new residential lots to major

roads. Require vegetative buffers that screen the back of double-frontage lots that front on major roads.

Policy LU-9 Encourage farmland preservation in portions of the county located outside of identified growth areas.

Policy LU-10 The extension of public water and sewer services into areas designated on the future land use map as agricultural shall be avoided except where there is substantial existing development and/or areas experiencing groundwater problems.

Policy LU-11 Prohibit traditional, small lot subdivision development outside of identified growth areas and growth corridors. Allow only planned developments, conservation subdivisions, traditional neighborhood


developments, cluster developments, and conservation/open space subdivisions outside of identified growth areas and corridors.

Policy LU-12 Proposed land development projects shall tie onto the county’s water system where available. Revise the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include open space and recreational space requirements for new residential land developments. Include a fee in-lieu-of land dedication option that will enable the county to amass monies for community recreational facilities to serve multiple residential areas. Work cooperatively with the municipalities to develop a greenways/pedestrian trails plan, particularly along abandoned railway corridors. Amend the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to specifically require conservation subdivision design for major subdivisions. Amend the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include road access management standards. Collaborate with the local agricultural community to establish voluntary agricultural districts and other farmland preservation programs in portions of the county located outside of identified growth areas. Establish new zoning districts and zoning regulations that encourage the types and intensities of land development desired in identified growth areas and growth corridors as well as outside such areas. Amend the subdivision regulations to require connectivity with new subdivision roads as well as the dedication of stub out roads to adjoining undeveloped properties.

Implementation

Prepare and adopt a mandatory connection policy to ensure that new land development projects tie into the county’s water system.

4.1.3 Objective. Ensure that new land developments do not overburden the county’s ability to provide public services. Policy LU-13 Approve new land developments only if it is determined that the impact

of such developments on the provision of public services can be mitigated.

Implementation Amend the existing zoning ordinance to include Adequate Public Facility Ordinance provisions which link land development approval with the availability and adequacy of essential public services and facilities. Typically with an APFO, new development is not permitted at a particular site unless a defined level of public services is available or will be made available.

4.1.4 Objective. Ensure that the county’s land development regulations implement WASSP objectives and adopted policies. Policy LU-14 The existing land development regulations will be evaluated on a

continuous basis to determine if revisions and updates are necessary to carry out the objectives and policies of the WASSP

Implementation Revise and update the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include requirements and standards to assist with the implementation of the WASSP objectives and policies. Consider consolidating all of the county’s land development regulations (i.e.,


zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, flood damage prevention ordinance, and mobile home and travel trailer ordinance) into a unified land development code.

4.1.5 Objective. Limit intensive development within the 100-year floodplain. Policy LU-15 Prohibit the platting of new building lots within the 100-year floodplain.

Require that proposed developments containing land within the 100-year floodplain preserve the floodplain as common open space.

Policy LU-16 Increase freeboard to two feet above the base flood elevation. Policy LU-17 Prohibit filling within the designated flood hazard area.

Amend the current subdivision regulations to include a specific requirement prohibiting the creation of new building lots within the 100-year floodplain. Amend the current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to change the freeboard from the existing one foot above base flood elevation to two feet above base flood elevation.

Implementation

Amend the current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to prohibit filling within designated flood hazard areas.

Stormwater Management and Water Quality

4.1.6 Objective. Reduce the potential impact of increased stormwater flow from new land development sites. Policy SM-1 Develop minimum stormwater requirements and standards consistent

with the Coastal Stormwater Rules or the Universal Stormwater Program.

Policy SM-2 In residential developments, prevent the strip clearing of lots to create large lawn areas.

Policy SM-3 Require septic tank effluent filters for all new and repaired septic systems.

Policy SM-4 Provide for maximum parking requirements for nonresidential uses. Policy SM-5 Limit impervious surface coverage to assist with stormwater

management and improving water quality. Policy SM-6 Provide for alternative private road design standards for rural

subdivisions; allow alternative pervious paving options in privately-maintained roads, parking lots, and loading areas. Prepare and adopt a stormwater management plan, stormwater management ordinance, and stormwater management design manual. Adopt stormwater management plan review fees. Revise the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include stormwater management requirements consistent with these policies and the adopted stormwater management ordinance.

Implementation

Provide, through the regional health department, an educational program concerning the proper maintenance of septic systems.

4.1.7 Objective. Preserve and maintain the natural hydraulic and ecological functions of drainage systems. Policy SM-7 Stormwater shall be conveyed from a development in an adequately

designed drainage system of natural drainageways, grass swales, storm sewers, culverts, inlets, and channels. Drainage systems shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to encourage natural


infiltration, control velocity, control flooding, and extend the time of concentration of stormwater runoff.

Policy SM-8 New development shall control the peak runoff rate and quantity of discharges to approximate pre-development rates.

Policy SM-9 Drainage easements shall be required for all developments that create public or private drainage facilities. The maintenance of drainage facilities and easements shall be the responsibility of landowner, developer, property owners’ association, or approved alternative entity. Drainage easements and inspection and maintenance agreements shall be recorded. Revise the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include stormwater management requirements consistent with the stormwater management ordinance.

Implementation

Work with the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program to prepare a local watershed plan to identify issues, establish priorities, and develop strategies to implement watershed protection and restoration projects. A local watershed plan can be a useful tool to identify wetland areas, contiguous reaches of stream, and contiguous strips of buffer vegetation that, once restored, will provide significant water quality and other environmental benefits.

4.1.8 Objective. Use site planning techniques to assist with maintaining or enhancing pre-development hydrologic systems. Policy SM-10 Encourage low impact design methods and best management

practices. Implementation Prepare and adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance and

subdivision regulations requiring low impact design methods. 4.1.9 Objective. Protect surface waters from pollution and soil erosion. Policy SM-11 Increase riparian buffer requirements adjacent to streams, lakes,

wetlands, rivers, and other surface water bodies and prevent removal of vegetative cover materials within the buffer.

Policy SM-12 If the required buffer is currently vegetated, existing large trees and shrubs shall be retained and any disturbed area shall be revegetated with grasses and natural vegetation. If the required buffer is unvegetated, it shall be maintained in a natural state and allowed to revegetate. No fill shall be allowed within the required buffer.

Implementation Revise the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include buffer requirements consistent with these policies and the adopted stormwater ordinance.

Infrastructure

4.1.10 Objective. Delineate, in conjunction with the municipalities, service area boundaries to identify areas that will be receiving urban services, particularly water and sewer services.

Policy I-1 Urban services areas will be utilized to identify areas where intensive development will be encouraged.

Policy I-2 Limit the extension of public water and sewer services to areas designated for growth in adopted land use plans.

Implementation Collaborate with the municipal governing officials in Plymouth, Roper,


and Creswell to identify future growth areas and to establish utility service areas.

Work with the municipal officials to investigate a regional approach to providing wastewater treatment and disposal for the WASSP study area.

4.1.11. Objective. Limit utility infrastructure extensions into environmentally fragile areas to discourage urban-type development patterns in such areas.

Policy I-3 The extension of public water and sewer services into designated environmentally fragile areas shall be avoided except in those areas where there is substantial existing development and/or areas experiencing groundwater problems.

Implementation Include this policy as part of the county’s official water and sewer extension policies and use requirements.

4.2 Recommendations for Sustainable Land Development Regulations

4.2.1 Low Impact Development Practices and Standards

Low Impact Development (LID) is an approach to land development that utilizes site planning and design practices and techniques to minimize stormwater runoff, conserve natural resources, and reduce infrastructure costs. The emphasis with the LID approach is sensitive, tailored site planning that uses natural drainage patterns, BMPs, and site landscaping to minimize land disturbances, preserve natural vegetation, and manage stormwater at its source. The LID approach to land development involves a multi-step site planning process that includes:

• Identifying critical natural resources such as wetlands, areas with poor soils, stream buffers, significant stands of natural vegetation, etc.;

• Determining appropriate building envelopes;

• Locating buildings and roads in areas less sensitive to disturbance; and

• Designing a stormwater management system utilizing natural hydrology and on-site small, decentralized best management practices (BMPs) such as grassed swales, rain gardens, filter strips, constructed wetlands, etc.

A. Guiding Principles of Low Impact Development

• Preserve as much natural vegetation and features as possible.

• Limit clear cutting and mass grading.

• Maintain natural drainage patterns.

• Minimize impervious surfaces.

• Cluster buildings

• Use soils with highest permeability for BMPs.

• Use soils with lowest permeability for impervious surfaces.

• Decentralize and manage stormwater at its source with on-site facilities and techniques.

• Maximize the use of native plant materials in landscaping and in stormwater management facilities.


B. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management BMPs

• Infiltration systems o Infiltration trenches o Infiltration basins o Dry wells o Bioretention (rain gardens) o Level spreaders

• Filtering systems o Grass filter strips o Riparian vegetated buffers o Constructed wetlands o Sand filters

• Conveyance systems o Grassed swales

• Other systems o Cisterns o Rain barrels o Permeable pavement materials such as porous concrete, interlocking concrete

pavers, concrete grid pavers, and porous asphalt o Vegetated roof gardens

C. Low Impact Development Roadway, Parking Area, and Lot Design Principles

• Reduce road right-of-way and pavement widths to the extent practicable, particularly for privately-maintained roads.

• Reduce the size and width of intersections and to decrease the volume of stormwater runoff by allowing alternative road intersection designs.

• Decrease pavement surface area and to decrease the volume of stormwater runoff by allowing alternative cul-de-sac road designs and by allowing shared driveways.

• Incorporate stormwater management facilities into parking area design and allow the use permeable pavement materials for parking area surfaces.

• Eliminate excessive parking area by establishing parking maximums for nonresidential land uses.

• Conserve natural areas by allowing alternative lot designs such as flag lots, zero lot lines, and cluster lots.

D. Implementation of Low Impact Development Principles and Standards

• Amend the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include LID standards and practices. Make the LID approach applicable to all nonresidential site plans and all major subdivisions.

• Amend the current subdivision plat and site plan review process to conform to the multi-step LID approach.

4.2.2 Conservation Subdivision Practices and Standards

Conservation Subdivision design is a creative land development technique that allows the county to guide residential development to the most appropriate areas within the tract so that the existing open, rural character of Washington County can be retained. The goal of this type


of subdivision design is to accommodate growth while preserving a large part of the tract as meaningful open space. To accomplish this goal, greater flexibility and creativity in the design of Conservation Subdivisions is allowed. Conservation Subdivision design allows the developer to create the same number of lots as would normally be permitted through conventional subdivision standards. However, individual lot sizes may be reduced and lots clustered to protect important natural and cultural resources. The open space retained through this type of design is preserved in perpetuity for active farming or for natural and cultural resource protection. The Conservation Subdivision review and approval process typically involves a multi-step site planning process that includes:

• Preparing a conceptual yield plan to determine the maximum number of lots that would be allowed on the tract with a conventional subdivision layout.

• Preparing a site evaluation plan which delineates existing conditions on the tract including natural constraints to land development (such as wetlands, floodplains, areas of poor soils, areas of environmental concern, etc.) and significant natural and cultural features (such as historic structures, significant woodlands, wildlife habitat, scenic views, etc.).

• Preparing a sketch plan of the proposed Conservation Subdivision layout utilizing a site planning process that includes: o Identifying open space areas to be conserved utilizing information contained in the

site evaluation plan. o Identifying the potential locations of dwellings and other structures. o Laying out a proposed road system to provide access to structures. o Laying out proposed lot lines.

• Obtaining sketch plan approval (which could be either from the planning board or board of county commissioners).

• Obtaining preliminary plat approval (which could be either from the planning board or board of county commissioners).

• Obtaining final plat approval (which could be from the county staff to assist with expediting the review and approval process).

A. Guiding Principles of Conservation Subdivision Design

• Preserve at least 50 percent of the tract for active farming or natural resource protection. o Primary conservation areas include CAMA wetlands, Section 404 wetlands, and

floodplains. o Secondary conservation areas include soils unsuitable for septic systems; mature

woodlands; prime agricultural farmland; significant wildlife habitat; historic, archeological and cultural features; and scenic views.

• Provide open space in contiguous, large uninterrupted tracts.

• Maintain buffers between open space used for active farming and other land uses.

• Maintain buffers adjacent to surface waters and wetlands utilizing native vegetation.

• Preserve scenic views.

• Locate residential building sites in the areas of the tract that are best suited to accommodate intensive use.

• Avoid individual building sites with direct frontage on existing rural roads.


• Maximize the use of native plant materials in landscaping and in stormwater management facilities.

• Provide off-road trails and paths linking residences and open space areas.

B. Implementation of Conservation Subdivision Design Principles and Standards

• Make the Conservation Subdivision design approach applicable to all major subdivisions over a predetermined number of lots (e.g., subdivisions of 20 or more lots) or, alternatively, within specified zoning districts or a certain overlay zoning district.

• Expedite the Conservation Subdivision review and approval process.

• Allow required open space to (i) be owned fee simple by unit of government or private non-profit land conservancy; (ii) be owned by a homeowners or property owners association; or (iii) be owned by individual private ownership such as a farmer, developer or other private entity legally responsible for maintaining the open space for agricultural, forestry, or horticultural use.

• Amend the existing subdivision regulations to provide incentives that encourage Conservation Subdivision design and that level the playing field if conventional subdivision design is utilized. o Make conventional subdivision approval a more lengthy process involving a special

use permit with planning board and board of county commissioner review at each step in the approval process.

o Require LID standards and practices in all conventional subdivisions. o Require an environmental impact assessment with all conventional subdivisions. o Increase open space and recreational space requirements for all conventional

residential subdivisions so that they are comparable to those of Conservation Subdivisions.

o Provide incentives such as a density bonus for an Conservation Subdivision in a particular desirable zoning district or overlay zoning district, where active farmland is retained as part of the open space, where more than 50 percent of the tract is preserved as open space.

4.2.3 Stormwater Management Master Plan and Stormwater Ordinance

A Stormwater Management Master Plan is a community’s guide for addressing stormwater quantity and quality impacts. The Master Plan utilizes data derived from an inventory of the community’s stormwater drainage system and information from hydrologic and water quality studies to evaluate stormwater control options and to delineate a plan of action for addressing stormwater problems, issues, and needs within each drainage basin in the community. The Stormwater Management Master Plan is coordinated with the community’s other stormwater-related programs including soil erosion and sedimentation programs and flood control programs. A Stormwater Management Ordinance is a regulatory tool to assist with implementation of the county’s Stormwater Management Maser Plan. The purpose of the Stormwater Ordinance is to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, environment, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects of increased post-development stormwater runoff and point source pollution associated with new land development and redevelopment.


A. Guiding Principles of a Stormwater Management Ordinance

• Establish decision-making processes for development that protect the integrity of watersheds and preserve the health of water resources.

• Require that new development and redevelopment maintain the pre-development hydrologic response in their post-development state as nearly as practicable for the applicable design storm to reduce flooding, streambank erosion, nonpoint and point source pollution and increases in stream temperature, and to maintain the integrity of stream channels and aquatic habitats.

• Establish minimum post-development stormwater management standards and design criteria for the regulation and control of stormwater runoff quantity and quality.

• Establish design and review criteria for the construction, function, and use of structural stormwater BMPs that may be used to meet the minimum post-development stormwater management standards.

• Encourage the use of better management and site design practices, such as the use of vegetated conveyances for stormwater and the preservation of greenspace, riparian buffers and other conservation areas to the maximum extent practicable.

• Establish provisions for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance of structural and nonstructural stormwater BMPs to ensure that they continue to function as designed, are maintained appropriately, and pose no threat to public safety.

• Establish administrative procedures for the submission, review, approval and disapproval of stormwater management plans, for the inspection of approved projects, and to assure appropriate long-term maintenance.

• Coordinate site design plans that include open space and natural areas with the local use plans and land development ordinances.

B. Typical Stormwater Management Ordinance Standards Stormwater Management Ordinances include specific standards and requirements to control stormwater runoff by reducing the volume and peak rate of runoff and prevent and control pollutant loadings from the development site. The Universal Stormwater Model Ordinance for North Carolina prepared by Richard Whisnant of the UNC School of Government includes standards that:

• Require the submission and approval of a site specific stormwater management plan.

• Require a minimum 30’ setback of impervious surfaces, except for roads, paths, and water-dependent structures, from perennial and intermittent surface waters.

• Restrict the maximum impervious surface density within 575 feet of shellfishing waters to 36 percent.

• Require the installation of stormwater control measures that: o Control and treat runoff from the first 1.5” of rain. o Provide a minimum runoff volume drawdown time for wet detention ponds of 48

hours but not longer than 120 hours. o Be designed so that structural stormwater treatment systems have a minimum of

85% average annual removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). o Be designed in conformance with general engineering design criteria delineated in

15A NCAC 2H .1008(c). o Discharge the storage volume at a rate equal or less than the pre-development

discharge rate for the 1-year, 24-hour storm.


o Require deed restrictions and protective covenants to ensure maintenance of stormwater control measures.

C. Implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan and Stormwater Ordinance

• Authorize the preparation of a Stormwater Management Master Plan. Adopt the master plan as the official Washington County guide for addressing stormwater quantity and quality impacts.

• Prepare and adopt a Stormwater Management Ordinance that complies with and/or exceeds the minimum standards of mandated state stormwater requirements.

• Amend the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. Revise the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include stormwater management requirements consistent with the policies of the master plan and the adopted stormwater management ordinance.

4.2.4 Highway Corridor Overlay District Standards and Requirements

Highway Corridor Overlay zoning districts are intended to provide specific appearance and operational standards for major highway corridors while accommodating development along the corridors. Major objectives of a Highway Corridor Overlay District include:

• Encourage appropriate land usage.

• Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public.

• Promote the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic by encouraging land development which reduces or eliminates commercial strip development, excessive driveway cuts, visual clutter, and inappropriate site layout.

• Maintain the scenic natural beauty of the area. Highway Corridor Overlay requirements are superimposed over the underlying zoning along the highway and typically include specific additional standards regarding buffering between incompatible land uses, landscaping, unified architectural design, maximum building height, traffic impact analyses, signage, outdoor storage, outdoor lighting, and vehicular access and driveways. A. Typical Highway Corridor Overlay Standards The requirements and standards of a Highway Corridor Overlay District typically include requirements and standards that:

• Prohibit certain land uses such as billboards, outdoor storage areas visible from the highway corridor, outdoor areas used for the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, and outdoor sales and display areas for motor vehicles and manufactured homes.

• Restrict the number, location, spacing, and design of access driveways.

• Limit the amount of lot coverage by impervious surfaces.

• Require a unified signage plan and restrict the heights of signs.

• Require a vegetative buffer or screen between adjoining incompatible land uses.

• Require the landscaping of parking, loading, storage, and service areas.

• Require building design standards for large nonresidential buildings regulating such features as: o Exterior building materials.


o Roofing materials. o Minimum roof pitch. o Building façade articulation and treatment. o Canopies for fuel pump islands.

• Regulate outdoor lighting so as to reduce glare and prevent spillover light to adjoining properties.

B. Implementation of Highway Corridor Overlay District Standards

• Amend the current zoning ordinance to establish a Highway Corridor Overlay zoning district and to delineate the specific requirements and standards applicable to this zoning district.

4.2.5 Minimum Open Space and Recreational Space Requirements

A. Open Space Requirements A requirement that new residential developments provide a minimum amount of open and recreational space can achieve multiple objectives including:

• Ensure adequate active recreational areas and passive open space created by new development.

• Encourage the preservation of existing trees and vegetation.

• Encourage the retention of environmentally fragile areas and historical and archeological resources.

• Assist with the protection of air and water quality.

• Enhance flood control.

• Provide higher quality land development. 1. Typical Open Space Standards

• Privately-owned common open space is typically required for residential developments where higher residential densities occur and/or where lot sizes are smaller than those of the base zoning for the zoning district in which located. Such open space requirements generally apply to: o Multi-family developments. o Condominium and townhome developments. o Patio home developments. o Cluster or conservation subdivisions. o Planned unit developments. o Traditional neighborhood developments.

• Required common open space can be active or passive. Open space is intended to be left in its natural, undisturbed state except for approved recreation structures, paths, trails, etc. Some open space ordinances encourage the retention of active farmland, woodlands, pastures, or horticultural operations as common open space. Open space generally is defined as an area that: o Is not encumbered with any structure unless such structure is intended for

recreational purposes and is accessible to all residents of the development or general public.


o Is not contained within a road right-of-way or otherwise devoted to use as a roadway or parking area not associated with the use of the open space.

o Is left in its natural or undisturbed state, if wooded (except for the cutting of trails for walking or jogging) or, if not wooded at the time of development, is landscaped for ballfields, picnic areas, play areas, or similar recreational facilities, or is properly vegetated and landscaped with the objective of creating a wooded area or other area that is consistent with the community’s open space objectives.

o Is capable of being used and enjoyed for purposes of informal and unstructured recreation and relaxation.

o Is legally and practicably accessible to the residents of the development out of which the required open space is taken, or to the public if dedication of the open space is proposed.

o Is not encumbered by underground private septic lines, any part of a private sewage disposal system, or any above-ground or below-ground structure.

• Ownership and maintenance of the open space is typically retained by a homeowners’ or property owners’ association; an approved private, non-profit organization, such a private land trust; or an alternative private entity with legal responsibility for conservation or management of the open space.

• Common open space is typically not dedicated to the public except upon the written acceptance of the local governing body which has the authority to accept or reject an offer for land dedication.

• The amount of open space required is often determined as a percentage of the total tract being developed (i.e., 30 percent of the tract’s total development area) and is often based on the number and type of dwelling units involved in the development or on the nature of the zoning district in which located.

• Some ordinances specifically require that floodplains, wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds, and other such natural features be contained in common open space. Mandated buffer areas and landscaped stormwater management facilities are typically counted towards meeting open space requirements.

B. Recreational Space Requirements With recreational space requirements, the developer of land for residential purposes is required to dedicate a portion of land or pay a fee in lieu thereof for public recreational development to serve the needs of the residents of the subdivision or development. Generally, the decision to accept a land dedication or an in lieu of fee rests solely with the governing body. Recreational space requirements are usually in addition to any open space requirements. Normally, a threshold is established to exempt subdivisions involving a small number of lots from the recreational space requirements. 1. Typical Recreational Space Standards

• Minimum recreational space requirements are typically required for the following types of land subdivisions: o Traditional detached single-family, attached single-family, two-family, and

manufactured home subdivisions o Residential cluster developments o Townhouse developments o Patio home developments o Condominium developments


o Individual residential components of a Planned Unit Development or a Traditional Neighborhood Development that include the subdivision of property for sale to individual owners.

• In addition to subdivisions, some communities also require that multifamily developments and mobile home parks also provide a minimum amount of recreational space.

• The amount of recreational space is typically determined by a formula which specifies a certain amount of recreational space per dwelling unit. For example, the requirement may be that at least 1/35 acre (1,244.57 square feet) shall be dedicated or reserved for each dwelling unit within a proposed subdivision.

In this example, a proposed 25-lot residential subdivision would be required to provide a

minimum 0.71-acre of public recreational space. Formula Example Total number of proposed dwellings 25 dwellings multiplied by X 0.0285714 acres per dwelling 1,244.57 square feet equals equals Public recreational area required 31,114.25 square feet or 0.71-acre

• Factors that assist with determining the suitability of land for recreational purposes include: o Unity. The dedicated land should be a single parcel except where it is determined

that two or more parcels would be in the public interest. The governing board may require that the parcels be connected and may also require a path in addition to the land requirement.

o Location. The dedicated land should be located so as to serve the recreation needs of the immediate neighborhood within the subdivision.

o Physical Characteristics. The shape, topography and subsoils of the dedicated land should be such as to be suitable for the intended use.

o Accessibility. Public access to the dedicated land should be provided either by an abutting street or public easement.

• Many communities authorize that, in lieu of the reservation of recreational space within the subdivision, the developer may provide funds in the amount of the assessed value of the land required to be dedicated. The assessed value is based upon current value of the land as assessed for property tax purposes. The community may use the funds to purchase recreational land or areas to serve the subdivision or development in the immediate area. This may be done in lieu of providing the land required if such in lieu of payment is formally approved by the governing body.

2. Implementation of Open Space and Recreational Space Standards

• Amend the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include open space and recreational space requirements for new residential land developments. Include a


fee in-lieu-of land dedication option that will enable the county to amass monies for community recreational facilities to serve multiple residential areas.

4.2.6 Adequate Public Facility Ordinance

An Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (APFO) ties the approval of new land development with a community’s availability of essential public services. Typically with an APFO, new development is not permitted at a particular site unless a defined level of public services is available or will be made available. Some counties have utilized the zoning enabling legislation in NCGS 153A-341 to authorize the adoption of an APFO. Prior to implementing an APFO, a community makes several basic determinations including:

• What public services (i.e., roads, water, sewer, schools, parks, etc.) will be governed by the APFO.

• A level of service standard for each public service governed by the APFO.

• An evaluation of the demand placed on public services by existing development. Development proposals are evaluated to determine if the demand placed on public services by the new development can be supported by the existing services at the level of service established by the APFO. If sufficient public service capacity exists, the proposed development project is approved. If inadequate capacity exists, the development project is prohibited. Some APFOs, however, have provisions which allow the approval of the development, if the developer is willing to pay for improvements needed to bring the deficient public service up to a specified level of service standard. APFOs are similar to impact fees (authorization for which require specific approval of the NC General Assembly) but impact fees are a more direct way of tying new growth and development to impacts on public services. Impact fees typically require a cash payment prior to final approval of a development and are based upon a calculation which considers the nature and size of the new development and the cost of the public service. A. Implementation of an Adequate Public Facility Ordinance

• Amend the existing zoning ordinance to include Adequate Public Facility Ordinance provisions which link land development approval with the availability and adequacy of

essential public services and facilities.

4.3 Preliminary Engineering Report Recommendations

The Water and Sewer Preliminary Engineering Report was prepared to identify and plan for water and sewer infrastructure needs in the planning area. Providing a safe and reliable means of water and wastewater service is essential to promote sustainable development. This is accomplished through protection of public health and safety by providing safe drinking water, reducing exposure to partially- and untreated-wastewater, protection of the environment by reducing risks for surface water and groundwater contamination, and job creation/retention by allowing sensible economic development that otherwise would be improbable due to unsuitable soils.

A full copy of the Preliminary Engineering Report is provided in Appendix D. The Report’s major recommendations are delineated below.


4.3.1 Water Supply. Sufficient water supply is available between the four water utilities to meet projected water demands in the WASSP study area in the immediate future. The County should further investigate means of reducing hydrogen sulfide levels in its distribution system. The County has installed hydrogen peroxide feed units at the wellheads which has reduced hydrogen sulfide levels at the Water Treatment Plant, but water customers are still occasionally reporting foul odors.

4.3.2 Regional Management Approach. Washington County should work closely with the Towns of Plymouth, Roper and Creswell to identify the most efficient means of managing wastewater treatment and disposal for the WASSP study area. Implementation of a regional management structure may benefit all participants with regards to staying abreast of regulatory issues, benefiting from economies of scales associated with system operation and maintenance, and contributions to capital reserves for system repairs and overhauls. 4.3.3 Spray Irrigation System. Washington County should not pursue construction of a spray irrigation system for disposal of wastewater in the WASSP study area. Inadequate soil types, high groundwater tables and expansive land area requirements (required due to low hydraulic application rates) would make this an undesirable alternative. 4.3.4 Mackey’s Ferry Area Sewer Service. Washington County should consider working with the Town of Plymouth for treatment of wastewater generated in the Mackey’s Ferry area. After Plymouth completes its sewer rehabilitation project, the Town may be willing to accept wastewater generated in the County. 4.3.5 Pea Ridge Area Sewer Service. Washington County should consider partnering with area developers in regards to construction of a new wastewater treatment system to serve the Pea Ridge and expected Highway 32/64 commercial area. The County may benefit from reduced permitting and funding timeframes, and developers may benefit if the County is willing to dedicate land or partial funds for WWTP construction. This would reduce wastewater transmission costs for pumping wastewater to Plymouth or another system for treatment and disposal. 4.3.6 Phased Implementation. Washington County should evaluate implementation of a wastewater transmission system in four phases. Phase 1 would serve Mackey’s Ferry, Phase 2 would serve Pea Ridge, Phase 3 would serve the proposed Highway 64/32 commercial area and Phase 4 would allow Roper to pump its wastewater to Plymouth. Construction of all four phases is expected to total $8.901 million in 2008 dollars. 4.3.7 Technological Options. Washington County should compare the benefits of available wastewater collection technologies – gravity, low pressure and vacuum - and determine which of the technologies it will allow for private development activities within the WASSP study area. A small diameter variable grade system is not recommended due to insufficient relief in topography. 4.3.8 Financing. Washington County should seek financial assistance from private developers, NC Rural Economic Development Center, NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, NC Construction Grants and Loans and USDA Rural Development to undertake desired capital improvements projects. State and Federal agencies can provide grants and loans to help offset the initial capital expense, but may require Washington County to match with local funds.

Documents

Washington County-Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan