Washington County-Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan by The Wooten Company

Washington CountyAlbemarle 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 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

1.5 1.6

2.0 2.1

2.2 2.3

Introduction and Executive Summary .................................................... 1-1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1-1 Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1-1 Planning Area............................................................................................. 1-1 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 Vision Statement........................................................................................ 1-3 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

Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 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 Population and Housing............................................................................ 2-7 A. Population............................................................................................. 2-7 B. Housing .............................................................................................. 2-12 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

2.4

2.5

2.6 2.7 2.8

3.0

F. Other Community Facilities ................................................................. 2-18 Fire Protection................................................................................ 2-18 Law Enforcement ........................................................................... 2-20 Recreation ..................................................................................... 2-20 Schools .......................................................................................... 2-20 Other.............................................................................................. 2-20 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 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 Development Regulations & Plans ......................................................... 2-42 Adjacent Area Influences ........................................................................ 2-43 Summary Analysis................................................................................... 2-46

Development Scenarios and Population Projections .......................... 3-1

3.1

3.2 3.3

4.0

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

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 Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to provide public services. . .............................................. 4-2

4.1.4 Objective - Ensure that the countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 Mackeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 Map 6 Map 7 Map 8 Map 9 Map 10 Map 11 Map 12 Map 13 Map 14

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

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22

Components of Population Change, Washington County ............... 2-8 Population Density, Adjoining Counties ........................................ 2-10 Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin, 2000 .................................... 2-11 Comparison of Housing by Structural Type, 2000......................... 2-12 Seasonal Housing, Washington County ....................................... 2-13 Washington County Building Permits............................................ 2-13 Commuting Patterns, Washington County, 1970-2000 ................. 2-24 Place of Workâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Workers 16 Years of Age or Older ...................... 2-24 Top 5 Destinations of Workers Commuting Out of Washington County ...................................................................... 2-25 Agricultural Profile ........................................................................ 2-26 Identified Hazards and Risk Assessment...................................... 2-34 Soils Characteristics..................................................................... 2-35 Water Quality Classifications, WASSP Study Area....................... 2-38 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... 2-40 Land Use Patterns, Scenario One .................................................. 3-2 Residential Buildout, Scenario One ................................................ 3-3 Land Use Patterns, Scenario Two .................................................. 3-5 Residential Buildout, Scenario Two ................................................ 3-5 Land Use Patterns, Scenario Three................................................ 3-7 Residential Buildout, Scenario Three.............................................. 3-8 Buildout Comparison, Residential Units and Population ................. 3-8 Comparison of Land Use Patterns, Percent of Total Land Area.... 3-10

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8

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

Tables

Figures

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.

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

1-1

• •

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

1-2

1.5

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 agriindustries.

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.

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.

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.

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

1-3

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

1-4

•

• •

Seasonal housing within the study area is made up largely of low density singlefamily 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

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

1-5

• •

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

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

1-6

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:

Scenario One Two Three

Buildout Comparison Residential Units and Population Total Residential Residential Units at Acreage Buildout 7,452.9 13,254 6,278.0 14,492 7,370.0 20,340

Population at Buildout 33,400 36,519 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:

Land Use

Comparison of Land Use Patterns Percent of Total Land Area Scenario Two Scenario One

Medium/High Density Residential Low Density Residential Nonresidential Rural Agriculture Developed/Constrained Totals

4.0% 6.3% 1.9% 42.2% 45.7% 100.0%

5.7% 3.0% 1.9% 43.7% 45.7% 100.0%

Scenario Three 5.7% 4.5% 2.0% 42.1% 45.7% 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, WASSP - Section 1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary Final, November 14, 2008

1-7

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 5,360 5,663 5,360 6,036

Low High

2030 5,890 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.

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

1-8

• • • • • • • •

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 predevelopment 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.

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

1-9

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.

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

1-10

•

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 1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary Final, November 14, 2008

1-11

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 Bullâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 Garrettâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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, WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-1

d un

" "

Cr eek ton d

2006 Orthophoto

4,125

8,250

l Bon ar va C a n

d Ca

1 inch = 7,000 feet

oot

l un t ai n

na lR

ter We s

Corporate Limits ETJ

Ca na

Ca n

epp er R d

ty F

Tom P

nal

r ive

Ca na

sin

cca

Study Area

pp Scu

on e rn

Th irty

Railro ad Be d Rd

Ambrose Rd

Creswell

Ch er ry

Gus Town Rd

Cana l B

Ne wl an d

Mt Tabor Rd

Me ado w

d un tbo es 4W y6

Thi r

Back Rd

y6 4E

Old

Alli go od R

ne Rd Northli

l Rd

Ca n

B Cana

Skinners Canal

ai n

Po nd

M ill

Lewis C an

e hit W

ek Cre ick

Tidewater Research Station

Cana l A

£ ¤

Mt Pleasant

Scuppernong !

Bu n

Beasley Rd

Lily Ln

son Ben

dr Ken

rick

Kend Cree k key's M ac

Cross Rd

Folly Rd

£ ¤

d un bo t as

y 32 N

Plu Bu me S t sh St

Deep Creek Rd

k ee Cr

ing wn Do

Roper hR ug Slo

Nc Hw

Basnight

Davenport Forks

ver

Beasley ! e De

Parrish Rd

Deep Creek

Jones W hite Rd

Ma rrin er R

n Rd Norma

y3 2

Spruil lR

Gage Ln

ng Scu pperno

Rive r Rd

Bull's Bay

Nixon

5N y4 Rd

ns yo St

idg eR

Woodlawn Rd

wy 6 4

Garrett Islan d Rd

Oa kL

Pe aR

m wa

Davis

Nc rd Wa

E Us H

ne Fairla

r lly D She

Wh ite

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

op Lo

lS pe

sS ker

a Ch

308

Pleasant Grove

Rd Landfill

Roan oke R i

Cree

Lp uill Spr

! Skinnersville

Ferris Dr

Backwoo ds

d ys R cke Ma

Westover !

k ree ts C

! !

Conaby Creek

ch Bea rys Lea

Batemen's Beach

Albemarle Beach Mackeys

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

r Robin D

igh

Albemarle Sound

Newberry Landing

New Lake

Batchelor Bay

Plymouth

Leonards Point Pea Ridge

te Priva

CARTERET

rR rbe Ba

HYDE COUNTY

2 y3

PAMLICO

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Sle

Pamlico River & Pamlico Sound

CRAVEN

Pettigrew State Park

TYRRELL COUNTY

Riv

Ro an

ok e

Ro an W oke et la Riv nd e s r

BEAUFORT

Lantern Acres Gameland

Laurel Point

Pamlico Sound

HYDE

PITT

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refug

Pungo Lake

BEAUFORT COUNTY

" "

Van Swamp Gameland

Phelps Lake

ou nS

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

DARE

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Creswell

Pettigrew State Park

TYRRELL

Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

Wilmington

MARTIN

rCOUNTY gan Sw am p

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

WASHINGTON

MARTIN

a ta

£ ¤

Georgia

C ro

171

£ ¤

WASHINGTON COUNTY

149

Jamesville

Roper

Plymouth

Roanoke River Wetlands

Columbia 32

South Carolina

R iver

Roanoke River Bottomlands

308

Fayetteville Jacksonville

eR iv e

oa n o

shi

Gastonia Charlotte

Ncsu Bull Neck Forest Research

308

CHOWAN

BERTIE

Winston-Salem Greensboro Durham Rocky Mount High Point Raleigh Cary Greenville North Carolina

Tennessee

PERQUIMANS

Albemarle Sound

Map 1 General Location

Virginia

Asheville

PASQUOTANK

Albemarle Sound

Windsor

HERTFORD

d oun ck S

£ ¤

Kentucky

CURRITUCK

CAMDEN

GATES

ritu

308

CHOWAN COUNTY

Edenton

iver nR

BERTIE COUNTY

PERQUIMANS NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

C ur

wa Cho

Askewville

July 24, 2007 Feet 16,500

idg eR

Spr uill

Bull's Bay Rd

y Hw

£ ¤ 64

TYRRELL COUNTY

Cr eek

NCDOT Maintenance

ton

Deep Creek Rd !

Bu n

Beasley Rd

Scuppernong Alli go od R

Industrial Park

Mining

nal Ca oot ty F

d na lR 8,000

l Ca na 4,000

al an nC 1 inch = 7,000 feet

Bon ar va C a n

Industrial

Agricultural Industrial

epp er R d

ETJ

Public Institutional Commercial

r ive

Th irty

Corporate Limit

Residential

un t ai n

Study Area

Forestry

School

ter

Mine, Sand Pit

Agricultural

Fire Station

on e rn

Tom P

Conservation

Ca n

D.O.T. Maintenance

We s

¯ ° ± -

Existing Land Use

sin

& 3 ! H

pp Scu

4N y9

Creswell

Gus Town Rd

w cH

Ca na

Me ado w

ry R Cher

Landmarks Rd

y6 4E

Thi r

Mt Tabor Rd

Back Rd

We sto nR

Ne wl an d

Benson Rd

cca

ne Rd

Ca n

Davenport Forks

Mt Pleasant

Ferris Dr

Correctional Facility

ai n

k ee Cr

Deep Creek

Ambrose Rd

Po nd

Northli

Cana l B

M ill

Pe aR

l Rd

B Cana

Lily Ln

y3 2N Hw

Jones W hite

Beasley

nd ou tb s Ea

Union School W

Cana l A

Cypress Shores Rd

Kend key's M ac

¯ ° ± -

WASHINGTON COUNTY Oa kL

Ma rrin er R

Lewis C an

S 45 y Hw Nc

" Skinners Canal

Rive r Rd

Cree k

Cross Rd

Folly Rd

Tidewater Research Station

& 3

e De

Railro ad Be d Rd

ns yo St

Wh ite

£ ¤

Pines Elementary

64 E

Plu me Bu St sh St

ek Cre ick

Us Hwy

Roper

dr Ken

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

ing wn Do

Garrett Islan d Rd

wn Rd Hortonto hR ug Slo

Ida St

Basnight !

Cree

rick

Rd Po nd M ill W

anal

ver Roan oke R i

5N y4 Rd

Robin Dr

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

d rnong R Scuppe

Hw rd Wa

E Us H

Plymouth

¯ ° ± y 64

Woodlawn Rd

y 32 Nc Hw

Parrish Rd

Rd Davis

Nixon

n Norma

Westover

King Ln

Industrial Park

3 &

m wa

308

s ker

a Sw

Holly Neck

Skinnersville

op Lo

! H

lS pe

ys cke Ma

Pleasant Grove

a Ch

Pea Ridge

k ree ts C

Landfill

Rd Landfill

Conaby Creek

igh

Mackeys !

2 1

ch Bea ys r a Le

Batemen's Beach

Albemarle Beach

Swan Bay Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

Sle

Albemarle Sound

Newberry Landing

ek Cre

BERTIE COUNTY

Leonards Point

rick

Batchelor Bay

WASHINGTON COUNTY

te Priva

d Ken

Roper Inset

rR rbe Ba

nd bou est W 4 y6

Ne wl an d

2 y3

£ ¤ p

y Hw

Laurel Point

d un bo t s Ea

Sw am

" "

¯ ° ± -

rga n

COUNTY

Plu p me By B St N 4 u 6 sh ew s by U St 3W & W St al ke rS t

Us Hwy 6 4E

hR ug Slo

Pl um e

TYRRELL Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

Lewis C

BERTIE COUNTY

G rif fin

Backwoods Rd

y6 4E

ak O

Horto ntown Rd

CHOWAN COUNTY

2N y3

Wood lawn Rd

Map 2 Existing Land Use

Old

Cross Rd

Parrish Rd

Davis

July 26, 2007 Feet 16,000

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 Existing Land Use WASSP Study Area Agricultural Industrial Mining Commercial Public Institutional Residential Conservation Forestry Agricultural

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

2-4

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 stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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

2-5

Table 1 Existing Platted Shoreline Subdivisions WASSP Study Area Subdivision Number Acres Average Lot Size Name of Lots (Acres) Albemarle Beach 72 16.9 0.23 Arnold's Beach 49 31.8 0.65 Beech Bay 39 39.6 1.02 Beech Ridge 13 19.6 1.51 Blair Shores 47 28.3 0.6 Cedar Shores 14 12.4 0.88 Cypress Shores 23 12.5 0.54 Driftwood Estates I 10 5 0.5 Driftwood Estates II 11 5.5 0.5 Learys Beach 12 6.3 0.52 Mackey's Ferry Landing 46 40.2 0.87 Newberry Landing 22 13.9 0.63 Small Estates 22 11.6 0.53 Soundside Place 40 25.6 0.64 Summerby 19 27.7 1.46 Summerfield Farm 37 55.4 1.5 Waterside at the Point 179 50 0.28 Totals 655 402.2 0.61

Map 3 Existing & Proposed Shoreline Development

" "

308

Extent of Existing Shoreline Development

Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

308

£ ¤

" 32

"" ""

M a ck

308

Cross

Summerby Summerfield Farm

Loop Rd Ma r

rin

er R

Skinn e

rsville

Soundside Place

Beasl e

Proposed Unnamed Development

Waterside at the Point

Proposed Sandridge II

Proposed

ds Po

Newb er Landi ry ng

int

Pea Ridge

Sandridge Approved & Recorded

p Spruill L

Batem en Beach 's

Woo dlaw nR

Existing

Learys Beach

Approved & Recorded

Nc Hw Lily y3 Ln 2

Subdivision Status

Lamb Rd Backwood s Rd

Landfill Rd

Pleas an Grove t

Gol den L

Leona r

Newberry Landing

Beech Ridge

Proposed Shadberry Landing Cedar Shores II Approved & Recorded

Blair Shores

Spruill Rd

Beech Bay

Cypress Shores

s Mackey

Cedar Shores

Arnold's Beach

e ys

Small Estates

Westo v

y 32

ach

Driftwood Estates I

Driftwood Estates II

Mackey's Ferry Landing

rle Be

Feet 16,200

8,100

Nc Hw

Albem a

4,050

Proposed & Existing Shoreline Development Within the WASSP Study Area Albemarle Beach

July 24, 2007 0

Sp ru i ll R

NCSU Bu Rese a

Pe a

Ri dg e

Dave npo Forks rt

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 A.

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 and Housing 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 nonincorporated 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.

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

2-7

Table 1 Components of Population Change Washington County 1980 to 2005 Washington County Population Change Births Deaths Natural Increase

-1,383 5,196 3,877 1,319

Net Migration Migration Rate

-2,702 -108/yr

Source: NC State Data Center

Figure 2 Population by Municipality 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

1970

1980

1990

2000

2005

4,774

4,571

4,328

4,107

3,983

Roper

649

795

669

613

629

Creswell

633

426

361

278

261

Plymouth

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.

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

2-8

Figure 3 Adjacent County Population Trends Population

50,000 Beaufort 40,000

Bertie Chowan

30,000

Hyde 20,000

Martin Tyrrell

10,000

Washington 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year

Source: NC State Data Center Figure 4 Forcasted Countywide Population 16,000

Population

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year

Source: NC State Data Center

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

2-9

Figure 5

50.0% 40.0% 30.0%

County Percentage

20.0%

State Percentage

10.0% 0.0%

19 70 19 80 19 90 20 00 20 10

Percentage of 50 years or older

Percentage of Population 50+

Years

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 39.38 County North Carolina 165.20 Source: NC State Data Center WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-10

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 North Carolina County 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 7 0.05% 95,333 1.24% Native 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 countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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

2-11

• • • • • •

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

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 Washington North Structures County % 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, 13 0.21% 0.17% etc.) 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 WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-12

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 208 230 13 30

% of Seasonal Housing

Seasonal dwellings 43.2% Hotel, motel, B&B 47.8% Campsites 2.7% Transient marina 6.3% slips 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.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Totals

New Units 17 9 9 20 10 19 29 113

Table 6 Washington County Building Permits Residential Value Mobile Home Permits $ 2,225,821 72 $ 1,053,650 86 $ 1,213,072 64 $ 2,510000 34 $ 1,088,500 60 $ 2,757,831 56 $ 5,153,700 41 $16,002,574 413

Commercial Units Value 22 $ 7,000,560 38 $11,859,550 17 $ 1,661,448 20 $ 1,013,644 36 $ 1,184,000 23 $ 3,423,091 31 $ 1,733,129 187 $27,875,422

Sources: Washington County Planning and Safety Department; US Census

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

2-13

• •

2.3 A.

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 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.

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

2-14

} }

4''

y3 2N

}

6''

8''

4''

" "

4''

To8'' m

6''

6'' 6''

6''

ton Bu n

6''

R nd wla Ne

4''

6''

T U

6''

8,000

ty F

oot

nal

l 4,000

2''

Ca na

al an nC

1 inch = 7,000 feet

6''

Water Tanks

6''

epp er R d

na lR

Water Pumps

6''

Ca na

6''

ter

Water Wells

2'' 3''

er Riv

Bon ar va C a n

Natural Gas d Lines

Water Towers

( !

Water

ng r no

un t ai n

Electrial Transmission Lines

6''

}

WWTP

7" - 12"

'' Treatment 2'' 6 Water

6' '

Communication Towers

T U

Sewer Discharge

3''

Tom P

Slight

5" - 6"

We s

Landfill

! " Î ;

ppe

Moderate

1" - 4"

Sewer Pumps

Ca n

2 1

Gravity Sewer

sin

Cell Towers

Severe

2''

N 94

Thi r

6''

Scu

Gus Town Rd

(Pipes by diameter)

cca

Force Mains

3''

y Hw

Creswell

ry R Cher

Sewer Infrastructure Water Infrastructure Soil Septic Suitability

4''

Corporate Limit

Cr eek

Mt Pleasant

6'' 2''

Mt Tabor Rd

6''

Me ado w

Study Area ETJ

6''

4''

Ne wl an d

y 4'' Back Rd 64 E

6''

Ambrose Rd

3''

6'' Benson Rd

ne Rd

Northli

Ca n

8''

4''

Cana l B

ai n

Cana l A

Scuppernong !

Old

8''

Alli go od R

£ ¤

8''

Beasley Rd

Lewis C an

Lily Ln

e De

ek re pC

Th irty

6''

Ferris Dr

4''

Cypress Shores Rd

4''

Cree 6'' 6''

8 8' 8'' ' ''

rick

Kend Cree k

6'' 6''

key's M ac

6'' Skinners Canal

Lewis C an

S 3 '

Hw6'' y 3 6'' 2N

2''

6''

Beasley

8'' 6''

Deep Creek Rd

6''

8''

Lo ns 8 6' M ' ay da '' le St S4t' '

Folly Rd

Cross Rd

ver Roan oke R i

Davenport Forks

8''

14''

Deep Creek

6''

Rive r Rd

6''

Spr uill

Bull's Bay

d rnong R Scuppe

Po nd

ek Cre ick

M ill

Jones W hite

6''

nd ou tb s Ea

4''

' 6'

dr Ken

2''

Garrett Islan d Rd

Tidewater Research Station

rR rbe Ba

4''

£ ¤

2'' 6''Rd

64 8''

ing wn Do

4''

P6lu'' '' Bu me S 8 t sh 6'' St

Ma rrin er R

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

4''

8''

Us Hwy

hR ug Slo

4''

6''

8''

2N Hwy 3

Basnight 8''

Roper

idg eR

6''

8''

n Rd Norma

Pe aR

m wa

wn Rd Hortonto

4'' Rd Parrish

Woodlawn Rd

5N y4

wy 6 4

6''

4''

2'' 4'' 6'' 6 ''

Skinnersville

6''

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

Nixon

Rd Holly Neck

6''

2'' Rd

8''

Davis

10'' 6''

6'' 8'' E Us H

4''

Dr Rob' in 3''

Westover

King Ln

Nc rd Wa

8'' 6'' 8'' 2''

Plymouth

Ida St''

308

op Lo

6''

sS ker

Pleasant Grove

lS pe

Rd Landfill

2 1

6''

d 6'k' eys R c Ma

Conaby Creek

3''

6''

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

4''

8''

a Ch

Swan Bay

Mackeys

Albemarle Beach 4''

Pea Ridge

Newberry Landing

4''

( !

24''

ch Bea rys a e L

Batemen's Beach

4'' 2''

te Priva

3'' 3''

Albemarle Sound

4'' 4''

Leonards Point

k ree ts C

2 y3

8'' 2''

igh

6''

10 W al ''6 Ba 2 ke '' ' n rS k ' S 8 t '' t Rd 6'' Pond ll Mi

Sle

Batchelor Bay ( !

Laurel Point

6''

Ne wl an d

By p

} }

6'' St

3''

} }

8'' 6''

8''

Roper Inset

Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

}

4''

o ilr Ra

U!(

8'' 8''

}

et re St

4''

2''

& 6'' 3

8''

W Mill Pond Rd

orcg Hwy83''2 N an Sw am p

}

8''

8''M N

8''

}

'' '' 8 S P ' ' 2 ' ' 8 8 lum6'' 2 1" '' 1 eS 2'' 0'' t Plu 6' 4) me '6 8'' St p 6 Us 6'' y ' ' d B l ' ( ! ( ! $# ' (o 4 ( ! 8 T U ( ! 6 '' t Bu Us 8be S 6'' sh S N W C m o t le ewb Ba 6 m 8 y nc 6 ' u m '' S '' nk '' B 6' on t St 8'' s ad

ss 8'' Cro

8''

Bu llo 8'' ck St 4''

ilro Ra

t en m at re rT te wa

St 2'' ak

2''

} }

te as W

6' '

2''

}

y6 4E

2'' 6'' 1

Pl 6' um e'

4' '

}

y ilro Ra

6'' 2''

8'' Rd 6''rtontown

6''

}

6''

}

6''

wa ive Dr

T U

Map 4 Existing Infrastructure

}

3''

4''

6''

8''

! " Î ;

2''

} } }

July 18, 2007 Feet 16,000

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

2-16

y3 2N

COUNTY 94

Hw Nc

CHOWAN COUNTY

Hw Us

To m

N 32 y Hw

Beasley Rd

£ ¤ 64

TYRRELL COUNTY

Cr eek

32 alt 5

Scuppernong Alli go od R

y6 4E

Creswell d

nal Ca

4,050

d na lR Ca 8,100

" "

Bon ar va C a n

l Ca na

al an "

1 inch = 7,000 feet

ETJ

Th irty

Corporate Limits

un t ai n

Active Railroads

Proposed Roads

epp er R d

ter

Riverside Airstrip

Study Area

Tom P

We s

oot

" "

er Riv

ty F

pp Scu

g non

Ca na

ry R Cher

Gus Town Rd

4N y9

Thi r

Me ado w

w cH

Old

Mt Tabor Rd

Back Rd

Ca n

Ne wl an d

Benson Rd

sin

Ca n

ne Rd

ai n

" Æ ·

k ee Cr

ton

32 alt 6

Bu n

Æ · Æ ·

Deep Creek Rd

Davenport Forks

We sto nR

WASHINGTON COUNTY

cca

Oa kL

Future Newland Road to Millpond Road Connector

Railro ad Be d Rd

ns yo St

Wh ite

To Plymouth Municipal Airport (~ 4 miles)

Po nd

32 alt 1

M ill

Deep Creek

Ambrose Rd

" Garr ett Islan d Rd

Skinners Canal

Northli

Lily Ln

y3 2N Hw

y Hw Nc

ek Cre ick

Tidewater Research Station

dr Ken

Ida St

Cypress Shores Rd

Kend key's Nc

Cana l B

Beasley

nd ou tb s Ea

£ ¤

64 E

Plu me Bu St sh St "

Spr uill

l Rd

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Us Hwy

B Cana

Roper

Cana l A

ing wn Do

Basnight !

Ma rrin er R

Lewis C an

wn Rd Hortonto hR ug Slo

mouth

Rive r Rd

5N y4 Rd

Robin Dr

wy 6 4

Cree k

Folly Rd

rd Wa

E Us H

" Plymouth

M ac

Cross Rd

ver Roan oke R i

Woodlawn Rd

Jones W hite

e De

Parrish Rd

Rd Davis

y 32 Nc Hw

Bull's Bay

d rnong R Scuppe

Riverside Airstrip

Westover

King Ln

idg eR

s ker

a Sw

Nixon

n Norma

Pe aR

m wa

308

Rd Landfill

Rd Holly Neck

Skinnersville

op Lo

ys cke Ma

Conaby Creek

Pleasant Grove

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

Cree

lS pe

rick

a Ch

Swan Bay

32 alt2

Æ ·

Ferris Dr

Mackeys

Albemarle Beach

L ay

Batemen's Beach

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

Mt Pleasant

M ay

BERTIE COUNTY

ch Bea ys r a Le

Newberry Landing

£ ¤

Pea Ridge

te Priva

Albemarle Sound

k ree ts C

2 y3

Leonards Point

Batchelor Bay "

igh

WASHINGTON COUNTY

St at io n

rR rbe Ba

Bu sh Ne wb Ba St y nk St St W al Ba ke r S nk St t

Laurel Point

By p

Sle

Plu me S

" "

tle Lit

Roper Inset

) 64

ld (o

Ne wla nd

64 E

COUNTY

p By

o ilr Ra

Bu llo ck

W Mill Pon d Rd

Us Hwy

TYRRELL Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

be m 4 "6 co n s u U B" W

Sw am

s os Cr

rga n

ak O

BERTIE " " COUNTY

Pl um e

ilro Ra

wn R onto Hort

y6 4E

Map 5 Transportation Systems

July 24, 2007 Feet 16,200

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 BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-18

Map 6 Community Facilities

CHOWAN COUNTY

TYRRELL COUNTY Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

Trestle House Cape Colony Paddle Trail

BERTIE COUNTY

" "

Laurel Point

Sle

y3 2 Leonards Point

4,000

8,000

a Ca n

Bo nar v

We s

ter

Ca na

nC an

er R d

ot C a na

Riv

al an

1 inch = 6,967.507535 feet 0

g no n

Th irty

® Hospital v

u nt

Health Center

as i nC

Rescue Squad

ppe

¯ School ° ± -

Paddle Access Point Paddle Trail Study Area Corporate Limit ETJ

Fire Station

na l

ry Cher

Tom Pep p

y Hw

Creswell

on R

Me ad ow L

Trestle House Cape Colony Paddle Trail

We st

Can al B

Ne wl an d

Scu

Ambrose Rd

Mt Tabor Rd

ne Rd

Ca n

Northli

ai n

Back Rd

T hi rt y

B Cana l Rd

Cr eek Bu n

Scuppernong 4E as tbo un d

Old

TYRRELL COUNTY

od R

£ ¤

an al R

Alli go

Beasley Rd

d gR nin

e De

ek re pC

ton

Davenport Forks

Ft C

Creek

Deep

Mt Pleasan t

N Hw

Cree

rick Ke n d k C ree key's

Jones Wh ite Rd

Lake Phelps Fire District

Can al A

S 45 y Hw Nc

" Skinners Canal

e W

Lew is C a nal

Folly Rd

Cross Rd

ke Ri ver Roan o d er R Riv

Washington County Park

ill Po nd

Railroad Bed Rd

Spruil lR

Mid County Fire District

ó ô õ

Beasley

nd ou b st

ek Cre

Bull's Bay

e hit W

WASHINGTON COUNTY Oa kL

Dow

Union Middle School

rick

d Ken

ns yo St

Wh ite

£ ¤ Tidewater Research Station

Bu sh

h ug Slo

Garrett Island R d

Plymouth Fire District

idg eR

Woodlawn Rd

Pe aR

d rnong R Scuppe

5N N

Pines Elementary School

wy 64

y 32 N

Roper Fire District

Parrish Rd

y4 Rd

E Us H

Nc Hw

Marrin er Rd

Roper Basnight

Hw rd Wa

Robin D

e sB

Health Dept. Resource Center

Davis

op Lo

Conaby Creek NCWRC Boating Access Site

Westover

Mackeys/ Kendrick Creek Paddle Trail

308

Nixon

n Rd Norma

ker Ba

m wa sS

l Lp

R Landfill

Conaby Creek

d ys R cke Ma

uil Spr

Pleasant Grove

s Backwood

Conaby Creek Paddle Trail

Skinnersville

a Ch

Swan Bay Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

Mackeys

Albemarle Beach

M ac

BERTIE COUNTY

Plymouth

ry Lea

Pea Ridge

ain

Batemen's Beach

Batchelor Bay

Mid County VFD ach

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

Albemarle Sound

Roanoke River Paddle Trail

Newberry Landing

Cooper Rd

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Ferris Dr

rR rb e Ba

rga n

k ree ts C

i gh

July 27, 2007 Feet 16,000

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 Leonardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 Sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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

2-20

•

• • • • 2.4

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.

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

2-21

timber to be used for paper. According to the County Economic Development Department, Mackeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

Average Annual Unemployment Rate

Unemployment Rates by County

9.0

7.0

5.0

3.0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year Washington

Bertie

Tyrrell

Beaufort

Martin

State

Source: NC State Data Center Washington Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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

2-22

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 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000

Incom e

$35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 1970

1980

1990

2000

Year Washington County

State of North Carolina

Source: US Census Figure 8 Percent Below Poverty 35%

Pe rc e nta ge

30%

29.2%

25% 21.7% 20%

20.4%

21.8%

20.3%

15% 14.8%

13.0%

10% 1970

1980

1990

12.3% 2000

Year Washington County

State of North Carolina

Source: US Census

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

2-23

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 outcommuting 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 -1,241 179 740 26 Commuting into Washington County 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 countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s percentage of workers employed outside their state of residence is lower than the statewide average. Table 8 Place of Workâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;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 3,577 67.4% 2,826,122 75.1% of Residence Worked outside County 1,697 32.0% 936,047 24.9% of Residence Worked outside State of 34 0.6% 75,604 2.0% Residence 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 WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-24

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.

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

2-25

No. Farms Ac. In Farms Av. Farm Size Market Value of Production Governmen t Payments

Table 10 Agricultural Profile Washington County % 2002 1997 Change 2002 193 236 -18% 53,930

North Carolina 1997 59,120

% Change -9%

114,423

107,741

+6%

9,079,001

9,444,867

-4%

593

457

+30%

168 ac.

160 ac.

+5%

$46,149m

$68,108m

-32%

$6,961.6m

$7,832.4m

-11%

$1,705m

$1,052

+62%

$97.7m

$52.5m

+86%

Source: Census of Agriculture, 2002

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. WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-26

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 A.

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 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. WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-27

PERQUIMANS COUNTY

CHOWAN COUNTY

Wetlands, Closed Shellfish Harvesting Areas, " Gamelands & Riverbasins "

TYRRELL COUNTY

£ ¤

Cr e ek t on Bu n

l Ca na oo t ty F

Old

Thir

na Ca

l in Mo

Bo na

unta

Ca na

nC an

al cc a

te r

si n

Ca n

re ek

Dee p C

re ek

Davenport Forks

e De

k ee Cr

" nC re e k

Beasley

TYRRELL COUNTY

n to

k er

£ ¤ 64

Scuppernong !

Roper

l in C an a unta

r ive

na l

e rn

All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Not prime farmland Water

July 18, 2007

Bona

rv a C

an al

na Ca

T hi n al Ca ain

Old

na Ca rn

rt y F

o ot

Farmland of statewide importance

l na Ca in as

Prime Farmland

WASHINGTON COUNTY

u nt

Sc u

Thir

l na Ca e rn

We st

Ca n s in cc a Mo

Canal B

Canal A

Land Managed for Conservation or Open Space

Ca na l B

Tidewater Research Station

Ca na l A

Skinners Canal

er Riv

ty F

C re

WASHINGTON COUNTY

o er n

oot

pp Scu

POCOSIN LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUG

Old Ca nal Bo narv a C an al

r ick

Lewis Ca na

Ca n

Ca na

d Ke n

Skinners Canal

ai n

ek Cre

r ic k

£ ¤

We s te

d Ke n

Plymouth

£ ¤

Creswell

Plymouth

" Lewi s Ca na

Roper

w sS

Westover

Basnight

Mac

Kend rick C

308

er ke Riv

Pleasant Grove

Bu n

t on

Cr ee k

TYRRELL COUNTY

Roan o

Skinnersville

key's C re ek

Conaby Creek

ick C reek Kend r reek

k ee Cr ep De

Mac key's C

" 45

ke R iver Roa n o

p am Sw

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

s ker Ba

308

Conaby Creek

Mackeys

Albemarle Beach

Swan Bay

lS pe

ROANOKE RIVER - TNC/GP PARTNERSHIP

BERTIE COUNTY

Dee p Creek

Bull's Bay

Batemen's Beach

Pea Ridge

Batchelor Bay Bull's Bay

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

Leonards Point

Swan Bay

WILLIAM/PRISCILLA TARKING WASHINGTON COUNTY RECREATION PARK

Newberry Landing

WASHINGTON COUNTY

a Ch

ROANOKE RIVER WETLANDS

Canal B

wa m

e ek Cr

a Ch

Batchelor Bay BERTIE COUNTY

NCSU BULL NECK FOREST RESEARCH

WILLIAM/PRISCILLA TARKING

Albemarle Sound

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

r iv e

r ga

Albemarle Sound

WASHINGTON COUNTY

ig h

k ree

Sw am

Laurel Point

ts C

rga n

ck C reek

BERTIE COUNTY

ig h Sle

e rn

TYRRELL COUNTY

PRKS PETTIGREW STATE PARK

" "

ENR/CM BOTTOM LANDS OF ALBERMARLE SOUND

PRKS PETTIGREW STATE PAR

CHOWAN COUNTY

Sc u

WASHINGTON COUNTY

AGRIC TIDEWATER RESEARCH STATION

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

PRKS PETTIGREW STATE PARK

Creswell

Sle

BERTIE COUNTY

Station

Ca n

UNC-GEN COLUMBIA TV TRANSMITTER TOWER SITE

Scuppernong

We s

a in

Prime Farmlands

TYRRELL COUNTY

Land Managed for Conservation & Open Space

C re ek

" R oan

ok e R

iver

£ ¤

AGRIC TIDEWATER RESEARCH Tidewater STATION Research

Plymouth !

FR RANGER HEADQUARTERS

Canal A

nal Ca tain

Mo un

Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory)

ep De

e Cr

Davenport Forks

£ ¤

Lew is Ca nal

We st

Mo c

Plymouth

NCSU BULL NECK FOREST RESEARCH

Cree k

FR SCUPPERNONG TOWER

Beasley

Roper

Closed Shellfish Harvesting Areas

Dee p

ek Cre ric k

Gamelands

Plymouth

Bull's Bay

! Skinnersville

MARTIN COUNTY

d Ke n

River Basins

!Westover

Basnight

Lantern Acres Game Land

sin

er n

er R iv

Skinners Canal

308

am Sw

s ke r Ba

Sc u

Scuppernong ong er n Game ppLand

Canal B

Canal A

ek Cre

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Thi rty Old Fo ot C Ca nal ana Bonarv l a C an al

nal Lewis Ca

Skinners Canal

r i ck

Ma in

Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge

Pleasant Grove

Ken d ri

Cr eek Bu n

t on

Bl B ac ac k B he ea l or r S Ba an y ctu ar Ryo

Creswell

" 64

Conaby Creek

Scuppernong WRC SANS SOUCI Game Land ACCESS AREA

£ ¤

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

Roper !

Mac ke y' s

£ ¤

Mackeys

Albemarle Beach

Swan Bay

i ck C re ek Kend r

y's C reek

BERTIE COUNTY

Mac ke

TYRRELL COUNTY

Rive r

NCSU BULL NECK FOREST RESEARCH

Batemen's Beach

Batchelor Bay

Roanoke Riverbasin

Pea Ridge

anok e

e re

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

Leonards Point

Albemarle Sound

reek

re e

Newberry Landing

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Laurel Point

ts C

e De

a Ch

! Pasquotank Riverbasin

" Significant Natural Heritage Areas "

CM BOTTOM LANDS OF ALBERMARLE SOUND

igh

p am Sw

er s

Deep C

d Ken

Plymouth

k Ba

rg a

State Owned Complexes

BERTIE COUNTY

308

Plymouth

MARTIN COUNTY

Federal Ownership Bull's Bay

a Ch

Conaby Creek

TYRRELL COUNTY

Sle

Batchelor Bay

Roanoke River Wetlands Wildlife Refuge Great Island

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Albemarle Sound

Swan Bay

CHOWAN COUNTY

am p

BERTIE COUNTY Roanoke River Wetlands Bachelor Bay Wildlife Refuge Goodman IslandBlack Bear Sanctuary

Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

k ree ts C

" "

Chowan Riverbasin

i gh

TYRRELL COUNTY

Sle

Mo rg

CHOWAN COUNTY

rva Ca na

BERTIE COUNTY

Map 7 Natural Features

Significant Natural Heritage Areas, State & Federally Owned Properties

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 countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-29

Map 8 Estuarine Shoreline Types, " Floodplain & Storm Surge

CHOWAN COUNTY TYRRELL COUNTY 32

BERT IE COUN TY

Laurel Point

Floodplain

Sle igh

M or

Pea Ridge

ke R

arle Be

Leonar

ach

Macke

reek

308

Pl easa nt Grove

p wa m

ppe

r no

Riv

ek Cr e Ca na l

Cresw ell lB

Scu p

l na Ca

M ou

rv a Bo n a

Blair Shor es Rd

N 32 y

ove

rd C Mal la

Ferris Dr

Backwoods

Lily Ln

Cr eek

Rd C

ypres s

r ic

Shore s

ree k

ey' s

Rd Cross

Ma ck

Foll yR

Pe a

id ge

De ep

Cre ek

Erosion )" " )" )" )" ) !!!!!

Bulkhead

Conspicuous Erosion

July 18, 2007

Bank

Bull's Ba High Bank y Low Bank Swamp

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" 0

£ ¤

! !! !!

e De

k ree pC

sW hite R

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

g Rd Downin

Jon e

!!!

Sp ru i ll R

er R

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

rin

Norman Rd

!! !

!! !! ! !! each ! ! ! !! ! arys B

Rd Beasley

Parris hR

Ma r

Holly Neck

Woodla wn

Us Hwy 64 E

p am

Davis Rd

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

R op Lo

on R

e Bak

rs S

Nix

pel

p w am

a Ch

308

!!! !! !!

) )" ! !"

! ! ! !! !

s Rd Mackey

! ! !!!

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

! !

eek ts Cr

"! ! ) !

er Barb

)" " )" )" )

Landfill Rd

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

h Sleig

nt ai n

s We

y 32

B ay

y Cree k

King L

iver o ng R

an a C sin M oc

Nc Hw

S wa n

pern

Ca na

Old

anal

Thir

a na

in C

un ta

ter

cc as in

We s

Skin ners

"" ""

Fo ot

ty F

WASH IN G COUN TON TY

Category 4 or 5

rn ong

n Ca

Ti dew at Rese er arch Statio n

k Creek

Category 3

TYR R E COUN LL TY

n ai M

Plymo u

Sc uppe

Bu nt on

£ ¤ 45

Kend ric

Category 1 or 2

ek Ca nal B

rv a C

C re Ca nal A

Dave nport Forks

Ca n a

Storm SurgePlymouth

Estuarine Shoreline Types & Erosion Within the WASSP Study Area

Cre ek

£ ¤

Rope r

k re e pC

Scu

De ep

Ca n a

Be asle

C an

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Ba snig

o ot

ric k

N "

ai n

Skinners Canal

d Ke n

Tidewater Research Station

Lewis Ca nal

Bull N eck Rese arch Fo Sw am p rest

na l

£ ¤

Plymo u

NC SU

rs vil le

e De

Plymouth

Creswell MART IN COUN TrY

Lew is

Bo na

Basnight

Pe a Ridge

Bull's Ba y

ey's Ma ck

Roper !

Sk inne

New be rry Landin g

in t

Wes to ve

S ers Ba k

ds Po

Ba tem en's Be ach

Po int

m wa

Scuppernong !

Conab yC

Cr ee k

£ ¤

Mac

TYRRELL COUNTY

iv e

Al bem

Laurel

el S

Westover

ek re

to n

C ep De

Beasley

Bu n

ke y's

p am

Bay

ap Ch

C reek

s ke r Ba

308

Swan

Cona by C re Sw an ek Ba TNC y Swamp Preser ve

TYR R E COUN LL TY

WASH IN G COUN TON TY

Cre ek

reek

Davenport Forks

ke R iv er

Ro an o

Albem arle So un

"" ""

500 Year Floodplain

h ts C Sleig

Deep C re

Conaby Creek

Pleasant Grove

BERT IE COUN TY

Skinnersville

a Ch

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

Batc h elor Ba y

ri c k

100 Year Floodplain

Ke nd

Floodway

Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

Mackeys

Albemarle Beach

Swan Bay

Kend rick Cree k

BERTIE COUNTY

Floodplain

Bull's Bay

Batemen's Beach

Batchelor Bay

Sw am p

PERQ UIM COUN ANS TY

Th irt y

Leonards Point

Albemarle Sound

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

ga n

Cr ee

WASHINGTON COUNTY

am p

ano

Newberry Landing

rg a n

ee k Cr

CHOW A COUN N TY

Ca na l

Ol d

" "

BERTIE COUNTY

CHOW A COUN N TY

Ca na

Ca na l

Storm Surge

Batch e l or Bay

Co n a b

CHOWAN COUNTY

5,000

Dee

p Cr

eek

10,000 R d

Feet 20,000

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 Bullâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

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

2-31

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 Carolinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s low-lying area, including the study area, will be highly impacted by sealevel 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 WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-32

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.

Photo source: www.floodsmart.gov

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

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

2-33

• • • • •

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 Spatial Extent Potential Impact Hazard Occurrence Rating Hurricanes and tropical Highly likely Large Critical 9 storms 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

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.

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

2-34

Map Symbol AaA BoA DgA WkB Ar Cf Cta Ds Po Ro Wa Ap At Co Fo Hy Pt Rp To Wd Ba Do Dr Me Pe Pu Se TaB

Map unit name

Table 12 Soils Characteristics Farmland classification

Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Bojac loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes Argent silt loam Cape Fear loam Conetoe loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland All areas are prime farmland All areas are prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of statewide importance

Dragston loamy fine sand Farmland of statewide importance Ponzer muck Farmland of statewide importance Roanoke loam Farmland of statewide importance Wahee fine sandy loam Farmland of statewide importance Arapahoe fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Augusta fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Conoby muck Prime farmland if drained Fortescue mucky loam Prime farmland if drained Hyde silt loam Prime farmland if drained Portsmouth fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Roper muck Prime farmland if drained Tomotley fine sandy loam Prime farmland if drained Wasda muck Prime farmland if drained Belhaven muck Not Prime farmland Dorovan muck Not Prime farmland Dorovan mucky silt loam (Chowan) Not Prime farmland Muckalee loam Not Prime farmland Pettigrew muck Not Prime farmland Pungo muck Not Prime farmland Scuppernog muck Not Prime farmland Tarboro sand, 0 to 3% slope Not Prime farmland Source: USDA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Natural Resource Conservation Service

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

2-35

Septic Suitability Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Slightly Limited Very Limited Very Limited Moderately Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited

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.

Source: www.arroyoseco.org

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

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

2-36

Map 9 Land Suitability

y3 Hw

C Sw ORW SB

nal Ca

l Ca na 4,000

Thi r

al an nC 0

er R d

Tom Pep p

Old

ter

Ca n

1 inch = 7,000 feet

r ive

Bon ar va C a n

High Suitability

C Sw

un t ai n

Medium Suitability

on e rn

oot

ry R d

Low Suitability

B Sw ORW

DWQ Class: C Sw

Creswell

# We s

Least Suitable

B Sw

sin

ETJ

Land Suitability

Hydrography: DWQ Class

cca

Corporate Limit

Cr eek

ty F

Me ad ow L

w sH

d un tbo s e 4W

Ca na

pp Scu

nd R

ton Bu n

Cher

Study Area

Ne wla

Back Rd

Mt Tabor Rd

od R

Mt Pleasan t

Scuppernong

Ca n

DWQ Class: C Sw

Alli go

ne Rd

ai n

Cooper Rd

y3 Hw Nc Ferris Dr

Beasley Rd

Ambrose Rd

Skinners Canal

£ ¤

Northli

Hw Nc

Oa kL

ill Po nd

k ee Cr

e hit W

ns yo St

Wh ite

ek Cre ick

dr Ken

Garrett Island R d

Tidewater Research Station

Cana l B

£ ¤

Cree

rick

Kend key's M ac

Beasley

d un bo t s Ea

Cana l A

Nc Hwy 3 2

y Hw

Lewis C an

er R Riv

Bu sh

gh ou Sl

wy 64

Cree k

Cross Rd

Folly Rd

ver

Roan oke R i

Q C Sw lass: DW

Roper

e De

gR nin Dow

Woodlawn Rd

y4 Rd

E Us H

Plymouth

DWQ Class: SC

Parrish Rd

Davenport Forks d rnong R Scuppe

Basnight

DWQ Class: C Sw

Davis

DWQ Class: C Sw

Bull's Bay

DWQ Class: C Sw

#Westover

Deep Creek

Spruil lR

sS ker

Nixon

Jones Wh ite Rd

Pleasant Grove

n Rd Norma

idg eR

m wa

308

Lp uill Spr

#Skinnersville

lS pe

y cke Ma

DWQ Class: C Sw

rd Wa

mouth

DWQ Class: C Sw R Landfill

Conaby Creek

a Ch

Swan Bay Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

Mackeys

Pe aR

Bull Bay DWQ Class: SB

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

DWQ Class: C Sw

n St at io

Batemen's Beach

Albemarle Beach

Pea Ridge

Albemarle Sound

Batchelor Bay Batchelor Bay DWQ Class: B Sw

Newberry Landing

Leonards Point

k ree ts C

d on ll P Mi

igh

Ne wb

Laurel Point

Sle

Plu me St

Albemarle Sound DWQ Class: SB

nd R

" " Hw

Roper Inset

Ne wla

DWQ Class: C Sw

W Mill Pond Rd

d oa ilr Ra

64 E Us Hwy

old

) 64

be m co n Bu Bu sh

s os

rga 32 nS wa m

( St

E Cr

Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

St Bu llo ck

DWQ Class: SC

Pl um

By p

wn R onto Hort

July 27, 2007 8,000

Feet 16,000

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 Kendrick Creek (Mackeys Creek) Kendrick Creek (Mackeys Creek) Beaver Dam Branch Skinners Canal Main Canal Canal A Lewis Canal Bakers Swamp Chapel Swamp Newberry Ditch Sleights Creek Bull Bay Deep Creek Roanoke River

Description From source to US 64 at Roper From US 64 at Roper to Albemarle Sound

Classification C;Sw

River Basin Pasquotank

Pasquotank

From source to Kendrick Creek C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Beaver Dam Branch C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Kendrick Creek C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Main Canal C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Main Canal C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Kendrick Creek C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Albemarle Sound C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Albemarle Sound C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Albemarle Sound C; Sw Pasquotank Entire Bull Bay C; Sw Pasquotank From source to Bull Bay C; Sw Pasquotank From 18 mile marker at Jamesville to C; Sw Roanoke Albemarle Sound 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.

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 programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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

2-38

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.

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

2-39

Table 14 Threatened and Endangered Species Major Group

Scientific Name

Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vertebrate Animal Vertebrate Animal Vertebrate Animal

Colonial Wading Bird Colony Anodonta implicata Callophrys hesseli Callosamia securifera Dysgonia similis Leptodea ochracea Ligumia nasuta Metarranthis sp. 1 Nonriverine wet hardwood forest Plagiochila ludoviciana Andropogon mohrii Desmodium fernaldii Eleocharis cellulosa Eleocharis robbinsii Elymus virginicus var. halophilus Eriocaulon aquaticum Heteranthera multiflora Lilaeopsis carolinensis Ludwigia sphaerocarpa Luziola fluitans Myriophyllum tenellum Rhynchospora scirpoides Utricularia resupinata Acipenser brevirostrum Alligator mississippiensis Canis rufus

Vertebrate Animal

Condylura cristata pop. 1

Animal Assemblage Invertebrate Animal Invertebrate Animal Invertebrate Animal Invertebrate Animal Invertebrate Animal Invertebrate Animal Invertebrate Animal Natural Community Nonvascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Plant

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

Common Name

State Status

Federal Status

None

Alewife Floater Hessel's Hairstreak Sweetbay Silkmoth An Owlet Moth Tidewater Mucket Eastern Pondmussel A New Inchworm Moth

T SR SR SR T T SR

None None None None None None None

None

A Liverwort Bog Bluestem Fernald's Tick-trefoil Gulfcoast Spikerush Robbins' Spikerush

SR-P SR-P SR-P SR-P SR-P

None None None None None

Terrell Grass

SR-P

None

Seven-angled Pipewort Multiflowered Mud-plantain Carolina Grasswort Globe-fruit Seedbox Southern Water Grass Leafless Water-milfoil Long-beak Baldsedge Northeastern Bladderwort Shortnose Sturgeon American Alligator Red Wolf Star-nosed Mole - Coastal Plain Population

SR-P SR-P T SR-P SR-P SR-P SR-O E E T SR

None None None None None None None None E T E

None

2-40

Table 14 Threatened and Endangered Species Major Group

Scientific Name

Common Name

State Status

Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat - Coastal T Plain Subspecies Vertebrate Animal Timber Rattlesnake SC Black-throated Green Warbler Vertebrate Animal Dendroica virens waynei SR Coastal Plain Population Vertebrate Animal Fundulus cf. diaphanus Lake Phelps Killifish SR Vertebrate Animal Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T Vertebrate Animal Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker E Source: NC Natural Heritage Program, May 2007. See Appendix C for definitions of state and federal status. Vertebrate Animal

Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis Crotalus horridus

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

2-41

Federal Status FSC None FSC FSC T E

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

Photo Source: www.planningwithpwoer.org 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. WASSP - Section 2.0 Existing Conditions Final, November 14, 2008

2-42

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

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

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.

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

2-43

y Hw

Deep Creek Rd

Rd Mt Pleasant

ton

£ ¤

TYRRELL COUNTY

Bu n

Beasley Rd

Scuppernong Alli go od R

y6 4E

Creswell

d na lR Ca Ft 8,500

l Ca na un t ai n 4,250

Th irty

1 inch = 7,000 feet

epp er R d

nal

r ive

an nC

sin

Municipal ETJ

Corporate Limits

ter

Ca n

CI - Commercial / Industrial Rural Agriculture

Tom P

Study Area

Zoning

on e rn

Bon ar va C a n

pp Scu

We s

oot

ry R Cher

ty F

Gus Town Rd

4N y9

Ca na

Me ado w

w cH

Thi r

Mt Tabor Rd

Back Rd

We sto nR

Ne wl an d

Benson Rd

cca

ne Rd

Ca n

Northli

ai n

k ee Cr

Cr eek

Ferris Dr

Davenport Forks

Deep Creek

Ambrose Rd

Po nd

Spr uill

Bull's Bay

Cana l B

Skinners Canal

l Rd

Cana l A

y3 2N Hw

y Hw Nc

M ill

WASHINGTON COUNTY Oa kL

Jones W hite

Beasley

nd ou tb s Ea

Railro ad Be d Rd

ns yo St

Wh ite

B Cana

Lily Ln

key's M ac

ek Cre ick

Ma rrin er R

Plu me Bu St sh St

64 E

e De

ing wn Do

dr Ken

Garrett Islan d Rd

Lewis C an

Folly Rd

Us Hwy

£ ¤ Tidewater Research Station

Cypress Shores Rd

Kend Cree k

Cross Rd

Us Hwy 64 Westbound

Cree

rick

Rd Po nd M ill W

anal

ver Roan oke R i Rive r Rd

Roper

hR ug Slo

Ida St

idg eR

d rnong R Scuppe

5N y4

Basnight !

wn Rd Hortonto

n Norma

Robin Dr

wy 6 4

Pe aR

Woodlawn Rd

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

Parrish Rd

Rd Davis

y 32 Nc Hw

Newberry Landing

m wa

Westover

Nixon

Holly Neck

Skinnersville

op Lo

s ker

a Sw

lS pe

308

King Ln

rd Wa

E Us H

Plymouth

Pleasant Grove

a Ch

ys cke Ma Rd Landfill

Pea Ridge

k ree ts C

Mackeys

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

ch Bea ys r a Le

Batemen's Beach

igh

Albemarle Sound

Albemarle Beach

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

Sle

ek Cre

BERTIE COUNTY

Leonards Point

rick

Batchelor Bay

WASHINGTON COUNTY

te Priva

d Ken

Roper Inset

nd bou est W 4 y6

Ne wl an d

rR rbe Ba

2 y3

£ ¤

y Hw

Laurel Point

d un bo t s Ea

" "

Sw am

rga n

COUNTY

Plu p me By B St N 4 u 6 sh ew s by U St W W St al ke rS t

Us Hwy 6 4E

hR ug Slo

Pl um e

TYRRELL Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

Lewis C

BERTIE COUNTY

G rif fin

Backwoods Rd

y6 4E

ak O

Horto ntown Rd

CHOWAN COUNTY

2N y3

Wood lawn Rd

Map 10 Existing Zoning Patterns

Old

Cross Rd

Parrish Rd

Davis

November 7, 2008 Feet 17,000

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

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

2-45

â&#x20AC;˘

2.8

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.

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.

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

2-46

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 singlefamily 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, multifamily 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 WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-1

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 agriculturalrelated dwellings. Table 15 illustrates the acreage within each land use category of Scenario One. Table 15 Land Use Patterns Scenario One Land Use Acreage Medium/High Density Residential 2,901.0 Low Density Residential 4,550.9 Nonresidential 1,347.4 Rural Agriculture 30,575.7 Developed/Constrained 33,136.7 Totals 72,511.7

% of Total Land Area 4.0% 6.3% 1.9% 42.2% 45.7% 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:

WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-2

Land Use Medium/High Density Residential

Table 16 Residential Buildout Scenario One Average Units per Total Persons per Units Household Acreage acre

Buildout Population

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

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. WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-3

Cross Rd

CHOWAN COUNTY

Hw y3 2N

Rd Backwoods Rd y6

TYRRELL Plan Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability

COUNTY

) 64 Plu Us me p ld St By t (o S B us Ne be U h m wb Ba St W co y n nk St 3 & Bu St W Knowle al s Rd ke Ba r S nk St t

2N y3 Hw Nc

Loop Rd

Jones

Rd Norman

Deep

Creek Deep Creek Rd

4W es tbo

Rd Rabbit Cross

St Firs t

y Rd Cherr d

r ive

Ca nal Tom Pep per Rd

Ca Old

Ca na

kR Oa

d an al R Ft C

Ca na lR

Low Density

Th irty

Medium/ High Density

Rural Agriculture

Thi

Ca n rn

unt

Nonresidential Activity Centers

ry Rd

ain

Growth Patterns

We st e

Development Scenario 1

Old Cher

Industrial Park

Ca n

ETJ

Developed, Natural Constraints

4,050

n al

Corporate Limit

Fo ot

Study Area

8,100

a Can al

pp Scu

Gus Town Rd

on ern

Bonar v

Mt Ta bo rR

ak Ln

We sto nR

Nc Hwy 32

e hit W

ns yo St

Wh ite O

Ca na l

Creswell lR

new_highway

Railroad Bed Rd

WASHINGTON COUNTY

ai n

Hil

id Rd St Dav

Mo cca si n

Skinners Canal

nd R t Isla Garr et

S 45

ill

Neck Rd

R White

r Hazel St

Gourd W

ek Cre

k dric Ken

wy 4

Hilly C

Nc H

Ar no

Ambrose Rd

ond ill P

Pines Elementary

Ida St

Union School

Shore Dr

Cardinal Ln

£ ¤ 64

Northlin e Rd

Robin Dr

Ne wla

Research Station Rd

wy 64

B Cana l Rd

sey Lind

Plu me St Ne wb St yS W t al ke rS t

Park

E Us H

Nc Hw

p By B 4 us h s6

h ug Slo

Cona by D r

45 N

y 64 E

trial

s Indu

rd Wa

Plymouth

Us Hw

y 32 N

Canal B

De er

N d er R Riv

Folly Rd

Nc Hwy

ge An

Industrial Park

Roper

Hortontown Rd

Canal A

Dr fie ld

Back Rd

Lewis C anal

Gage Ln d er R

G ri f fin

Cr eek

4N Us

Bu n

ton Nc

L ow ad Me

Riv

Reeds

un d

Woodlawn Rd

Au tu m

Mt Pleasant

Rd field Litc h

Benson Rd

Woodley Station

Allig ood

gR nin

Cooper Rd

orr wa y3 2C Ne wH

nd ou stb Ea

TYRRELL COUNTY

Dow

NCDOT Maintenance

£ ¤

Beasley Rd

Lily Ln

e De

ek re pC

ork rt F

Parrish Rd

Correctional Facility

igh

2N wy 3 Nc H

o enp

Mac

White

ido r

Beech Bay Rd

Cypress Shores Rd

Cree k

rick

Kend Cree k

King Ln

Dav

key's

Rd Davis

H Nc

ill R

Cross Rd

s ard

is C anal

Spru

rnong Scuppe

White Marsh Rd

Bull's Bay

Arnold

d R nd Po ill M W Rd St at io n ch Re se ar

l ta ys

ill R Spru

iver

oke R

Banks

Roa n

Breezy

William s Loop

h Pritc

Ma rrin er R

s Phelp

" 45

op Lo

Ln Faye

Rd Landfill

308

ck Rd Holly Ne

Nixo n Rd

mp wa sS r e k

l Lp

idg eR

d ys R cke Ma

il Spru

Backwoods

Conaby Creek

Landfill

r lla Ma

a Ch

Lamb Rd

e Beach

s ey ck Ma

rry

wy 32

e an

Pe aR

Circl Peanut

Mariners Dr

Albemarl

Swan Bay

Nc H

n ld L e ra Em

Summerfield

BERTIE COUNTY

ch ea

Ken

sB ary Le

e Privat

Albemarle Sound

d ores R Blair Sh

sL od Wo

rR rb e Ba

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Batchelor Bay

eek Cr

nd R

Roper Inset

ts gh

Ne wla

nd ou tb es W

o ill P

£ ¤

Sw am

ay Cl

h ug

tle Lit

Slo

Mo rga n

¯ ° ± -

Ferris Dr

32 N

Mallard Cove

Nc Hwy

Us Hwy 64 E

d un bo st Ea

Mo un tain

4 s6

i Sle

ad ilro Ra

nd co Se

BERTIE COUNTY

" "

Hortontown Rd

ak O

Pl um

Gr iffin

rty

Wo od law n

Map 11 Development Scenario 1

Parrish Rd

Davis Rd

November 27, 2007 Feet 16,200

Table 17 Land Use Patterns Scenario Two Land Use Acreage Medium/High Density Residential 4,106.8 Low Density Residential 2,171.2 Nonresidential 1,393.2 Rural Agriculture 31,703.8 Developed/Constrained 31,611.5 Totals 72,511.6

% of Total Land Area 5.7% 3.0% 1.9% 43.7% 45.7% 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.

Land Use Medium/High Density Residential

Table 18 Residential Buildout Scenario Two Average Units per Total Persons per acre Units Household Acreage

Buildout Population

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

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.

WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-5

Cross Rd

CHOWAN COUNTY

Hw y3 2N

Rd Backwoods Rd y6

TYRRELL Plan Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability

COUNTY

) 64 Plu Us me p ld St By t (o S B us Ne be U h m wb Ba St W co y n nk St 3 & Bu St W Knowle al s Rd ke Ba r S nk St t

2N Hw Nc

Loop Rd

Arnold

Creek

4W es tbo

Rd Rabbit Cross

St Firs t

y Rd Cherr d

r ive

Ca nal Ca Old

Ca na

d an al R Ft C

Low Density

Th irty

Medium/ High Density

Rural Agriculture

Thi

Ca n rn

unt

Nonresidential Activity Centers

ry Rd

ain

Growth Patterns

We st e

Development Scenario 2

Industrial Park

Old Cher

kR Oa d

Developed, Natural Constraints

4,050

8,100

a Can al

Tom Pep per Rd

Ca n

ETJ

n al

Corporate Limit

Fo ot

Study Area

Bonar v

pp Scu

Gus Town Rd

on ern

Ca na lR

ak Ln

Mt Ta bo rR

Nc Hwy 32

e hit W

ns yo St

Wh ite O

Ca na l

new_highway

Railroad Bed Rd

WASHINGTON COUNTY

ai n

Creswell lR

We sto nR

Skinners Canal

nd R t Isla Garr et

S 45

ill

Hil

id Rd St Dav

Neck Rd

R White

r Hazel St

Gourd W

ek Cre

k dric Ken

wy 4

Hilly C

Nc H

Mo cca si n

ond ill P

Pines Elementary

Ida St

Union School

Ar no

Ambrose Rd

Cardinal Ln

£ ¤ 64

Shore Dr

Robin Dr

Ne wla

Research Station Rd

wy 64

Northlin e Rd

sey Lind

Plu me St Ne wb St yS W t al ke rS t

Park

E Us H

Nc Hw

p By B 4 us h s6

h ug Slo

Cona by D r

45 N

y 64 E

trial

s Indu

rd Wa

Plymouth

Us Hw

y 32 N

B Cana l Rd

De er

N d er R Riv

Folly Rd

Nc Hwy

ge An

Industrial Park

Roper

Hortontown Rd

Canal B

Back Rd

Canal A

Dr fie ld

G ri f fin

Lewis C anal

Gage Ln d er R

Cr eek ton

un d

L ow ad Me

Riv

Reeds

Bu n

Rd field Litc h

Woodley Station

Allig ood

Benson Rd

Woodlawn Rd

Au tu m

Cooper Rd

ido r wa y3 2C Beasley Rd

gR nin

nd ou stb Ea

TYRRELL COUNTY

Dow

NCDOT Maintenance

£ ¤

igh

Lily Ln

e De

ek re pC

ork rt F

Parrish Rd

Correctional Facility

orr

2N wy 3 Nc H

Mt Pleasant

Beech Bay Rd

Cypress Shores Rd

Cree k

rick

Cree k

Deep

o enp

Mac

White

Deep Creek Rd

is C anal

Kend

Jones

Rd Norman

Dav

key's

King Ln

Cross Rd

Ferris Dr

d R nd Po ill M W Rd St at io n Re se ar

Rd Davis

H Nc

ill R

rnong Scuppe

White Marsh Rd

Spru

Bull's Bay

ill R Spru

iver

oke R

Banks

Roa n

Breezy

William s Loop

s ard

Ma rrin er R

l ta ys

s Phelp

" 45

h Pritc

op Lo

Ln Faye

Rd Landfill

308

ck Rd Holly Ne

Nixo n Rd

mp wa sS r e k

l Lp

idg eR

d ys R cke Ma

il Spru

Backwoods

Conaby Creek

Landfill

r lla Ma

a Ch

Lamb Rd

e Beach

s ey ck Ma

rry

wy 32

e an

Pe aR

Circl Peanut

Mariners Dr

Albemarl

Swan Bay

Nc H

n ld L e ra Em

Summerfield

BERTIE COUNTY

ch ea

Ken

sB ary Le

e Privat

Albemarle Sound

d ores R Blair Sh

sL od Wo

rR rb e Ba

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Batchelor Bay

eek Cr

nd R

Roper Inset

ts gh

Ne wla

nd ou tb es W

o ill P

£ ¤

Sw am

ay Cl

h ug

tle Lit

Slo

Mo rga n

¯ ° ± -

Mallard Cove

32 N

Ne wH

Nc Hwy

Us Hwy 64 E

d un bo st Ea

Mo un tain

4 s6

i Sle

ad ilro Ra

nd co Se

BERTIE COUNTY

" "

Hortontown Rd

ak O

Pl um

Gr iffin

rty

Wo od law n

Map 12 Development Scenario 2

Parrish Rd

Davis Rd

November 27, 2007 Feet 16,200

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 Medium/High Density Residential Medium Density Residential. 2-4 du/ac High Density Residential. 5-8 du/ac Low Density Residential Nonresidential Commercial Commercial-Industrial Industrial Rural Agriculture Developed/Constrained Totals

Acreage

% of Total Land Area

3,094 1,032 3,244

4.3% 1.4% 4.5%

281 786 397 30,541 33,136.7 72,511.6

0.4% 1.1% 0.5% 42.1% 45.7% 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.

WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-7

Land Use Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Low Density Residential Totals

Table 20 Residential Buildout Scenario Three Average Total Persons per Acreage Units per Units Household acre

Buildout Population

3,094

3.0

9,282

2.52

23,391

1,032

6.0

6,192

2.52

15,604

3,244

1.5

4,866

2.52

12,262

7,370

----

20,340

----

51,257

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.

Scenario One Two Three

Table 21 Buildout Comparison Residential Units and Population Total Residential Residential Units at Acreage Buildout 7,452.9 13,254 6,278.0 14,492 7,370.0 20,340

Population at Buildout 33,400 36,519 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.

WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-8

Cross Rd

CHOWAN COUNTY

Hw y3 2N

Rd Backwoods Rd y6

TYRRELL Plan Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability

COUNTY

) 64 Plu Us me p ld St By t (o S B us Ne be U h m wb Ba St W co y n nk St 3 & Bu St W Knowle al s Rd ke Ba r S nk St t

2N Hw Nc

Loop Rd

Arnold

4W es tbo

Rd Rabbit Cross

St Firs t

y Rd Cherr d

r ive

Ca nal Old d an al R Ft C

Low Density

Th irty

Medium/ High Density

kR Oa d

Developed, Natural Constraints

4,100

8,200

a Can al

l unt

Commercial

Rural Agriculture

Thi

Ca n

Ca na

Commercial/ Industrial

ry Rd

ain

Industrial

Growth Patterns

Ca n

Development Scenario 3

Old Cher

Fo ot

Tom Pep per Rd

Industrial Park

We st e

ETJ

n al

Corporate Limit

Bonar v

pp Scu

Gus Town Rd

on ern

Ca na lR

ak Ln

Mt Ta bo rR

Nc Hwy 32

e hit W

ns yo St

Wh ite O

Ca na l

Study Area

Railroad Bed Rd

WASHINGTON COUNTY

ai n

Creswell lR

We sto nR

Skinners Canal

nd R t Isla Garr et

S 45

ill

Hil

id Rd St Dav

Neck Rd

R White

r Hazel St

Gourd W

ek Cre

k dric Ken

wy 4

Hilly C

Nc H

Mo cca si n

ond ill P

Pines Elementary

Ida St

Union School

Ar no

Ambrose Rd

Cardinal Ln

£ ¤ 64

Shore Dr

Robin Dr

Ne wla

Research Station Rd

wy 64

Northlin e Rd

sey Lind

Plu me St Ne wb St yS W t al ke rS t

Park

E Us H

Nc Hw

p By B 4 us h s6

h ug Slo

Cona by D r

45 N

y 64 E

trial

s Indu

rd Wa

Plymouth

Us Hw

y 32 N

B Cana l Rd

De er

N d er R Riv

Folly Rd

Nc Hwy

ge An

Industrial Park

Roper

Hortontown Rd

Canal B

Back Rd

Canal A

Dr fie ld

G ri f fin

Lewis C anal

Gage Ln d er R

Cr eek ton

un d

L ow ad Me

Riv

Reeds

Bu n

Rd field Litc h

Woodley Station

Allig ood

Benson Rd

Woodlawn Rd

Au tu m

Cooper Rd

ido r wa y3 2C Beasley Rd

gR nin

nd ou stb Ea

TYRRELL COUNTY

Dow

NCDOT Maintenance

£ ¤

igh

Lily Ln

e De

ek re pC

ork rt F

Parrish Rd

Correctional Facility

orr

2N wy 3 Nc H

Mt Pleasant

Beech Bay Rd

Cypress Shores Rd

Cree k

rick

Cree k

Creek

o enp

key's

Deep

Dav

Mac

White

Deep Creek Rd

is C anal

Kend

Jones

Rd Norman

Cross Rd

Ferris Dr

d R nd Po ill M W Rd St at io n Re se ar

King Ln

ill R

rnong Scuppe

White Marsh Rd

Rd Davis

H Nc

Spru

Bull's Bay

ill R Spru

iver

oke R

Banks

Roa n

Breezy

William s Loop

s ard

Ma rrin er R

l ta ys

s Phelp

" 45

h Pritc

op Lo

Ln Faye

Rd Landfill

308

ck Rd Holly Ne

Nixo n Rd

mp wa sS r e k

l Lp

idg eR

d ys R cke Ma

il Spru

Backwoods

Conaby Creek

Landfill

r lla Ma

a Ch

Lamb Rd

e Beach

s ey ck Ma

rry

wy 32

e an

Pe aR

Circl Peanut

Mariners Dr

Albemarl

Swan Bay

Nc H

n ld L e ra Em

Summerfield

BERTIE COUNTY

ch ea

Ken

sB ary Le

e Privat

Albemarle Sound

d ores R Blair Sh

sL od Wo

rR rb e Ba

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Batchelor Bay

eek Cr

nd R

Roper Inset

ts gh

Ne wla

nd ou tb es W

o ill P

£ ¤

Sw am

ay Cl

h ug

tle Lit

Slo

Mo rga n

¯ ° ± -

Mallard Cove

32 N

Ne wH

Nc Hwy

Us Hwy 64 E

d un bo st Ea

Mo un tain

4 s6

i Sle

ad ilro Ra

nd co Se

BERTIE COUNTY

" "

Hortontown Rd

ak O

Pl um

Gr iffin

rty

Wo od law n

Map 13 Development Scenario 3

Parrish Rd

Davis Rd

November 27, 2007 Feet 16,400

Land Use

Table 22 Comparison of Land Use Patterns Percent of Total Land Area Scenario Scenario One Two

Medium/High Density Residential Low Density Residential Nonresidential Rural Agriculture Developed/Constrained Totals

3.2

4.0% 6.3% 1.9% 42.2% 45.7% 100.0%

5.7% 3.0% 1.9% 43.7% 45.7% 100.0%

Scenario Three 5.7% 4.5% 2.0% 42.1% 45.7% 100.0%

Preferred Development Scenario

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

3-10

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.

WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-11

N 2 y3 Hw

£ ¤ 64

Cr eek ton

d od R

Agricultural Industrial

Forestry

Agriculture

Conservation

1 inch = 7,000 feet 0

nal Ca oot

4,000

8,000

ty F

Thi r

ter

Ca na

al Ca n

Low Density Residential

er R d

Bon ar va C a n

Mining

Medium/ High Density Residential

un t ai n

Classification

Public Institutional

Future Land Use

We s

ETJ

Tom Pep p

Commercial/ Industrial

sin

Corporate Limit

r ive

Commercial

an al R

Industrial Park

on e rn

Ft C

Industrial

Study Area

Ca na

ry R d pp Scu

new_highway

w sH

d un tbo s e 4W

Creswell

Th irty

Mt Tabor Rd

Me ad ow L

cca

Back Rd

Cher

Ambrose Rd

ne Rd Northli

Ne wl an d

Cana l B

Alli go

ill Po nd

Scuppernong !

B Cana l Rd

Ca n

Cana l A

ai n

TYRRELL COUNTY

Bu n

k ee Cr

Mt Pleasan t

e De

C3 2 Ne wN

Beasley

Old

Cooper Rd

Ferris Dr

Davenport Forks

e hit W

Skinners Canal

Lewis C an

Hw Nc

Beasley Rd

Kend key's M ac

Folly Rd

Cree k

Cross Rd

Cree

Rd Po nd M ill W

anal

ver Roan oke R i d er R

Deep Creek

d rnong R Scuppe

Riv

Jones Wh ite Rd

nd ou b st Ea

Railroad Bed Rd

Bull's Bay

ek Cre ick

Tidewater Research Station

n Rd Norma

£ ¤

WASHINGTON COUNTY Oa kL

Spruil lR

dr Ken

ns yo St

Wh ite

gR nin Dow

Nc Hwy 3 2

Bu sh

gh ou Sl

Garrett Island R d

idg eR

Woodlawn Rd

Marrin er Rd

Parrish Rd

y4 Rd

Robin D

Plymouth

Roper !

Pe aR

Davis

Basnight

NCSU Bull Neck Swamp Research Forest

m wa

d Westover

Nc rd Wa

Industrial Park wy 64 E Us H

Nixon

Skinnersville

op Lo

sS ker

Lp uill Spr

lS pe

Pleasant Grove

a Ch

308

s Backwood

y cke Ma R Landfill

h eac sB y r Lea

k ree ts C

Conaby Creek Swan Bay Swamp TNC Preserve

igh

Mackeys !

Sle

Batemen's Beach

Pea Ridge

Newberry Landing

Albemarle Sound

Albemarle Beach

Swan Bay

Conaby Creek

rR rb e Ba

ek Cre

BERTIE COUNTY

Leonards Point

rick

Batchelor Bay

WASHINGTON COUNTY

e Privat

d Ken

Roper Inset

nd bou est W 4 y6

Ne wl an d

£ ¤

p 64

y Hw

Laurel Point

d un bo t s Ea

Sw am

" d

rga n

Plu p me By B St N 4 u 6 sh ew s by U St W W St al ke rS t

hR ug Slo

" "

rick

BERTIE COUNTY

Lewis C

Horto ntown Rd

Pl um e

TYRRELL COUNTY Washington County Albemarle Sound Sustainability Plan

y6 4E

ak O

G rif fin

Backwoods Rd

Us Hwy 64 E

CHOWAN COUNTY

2N y3

Wood lawn Rd

Map 14 Future Land Use

Cross Rd

Parrish Rd

Davis

November 16, 2008 Feet 16,000

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.

2000 Countywide population Study area population (37.89%) B.

Population Projection 1 2005 2010 2015 2020

2025

2030

13,723

13,418

13,200

12,879

12,535

12,152

11,759

5,200

5,084

5,001

4,880

4,750

4,604

4,455

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:

WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-13

Population Projection 2 2A. Growth Rate Based on Select Surrounding Counties 200520052030 2030 2005 2010 2020 2030 Gain Rate Countywide Population 13,418 13,978 14,646 15,151 1,733 12.9% Study Area Population (37.89%) 5,741 657 12.9% 5,084 5,296 5,550 Includes Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Hyde, Martin, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties 2B. Growth Rate Based on Select Albemarle Sound Counties 200520052030 2030 2005 2010 2020 2030 Gain Rate Countywide Population 21.1% 13,418 14,266 15,348 16,245 2,827 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 2C. Growth Rate Based on All Albemarle Sound Counties 200520052030 2030 2005 2010 2020 2030 Gain Rate Countywide Population 13,418 14,369 16,249 17,951 4,533 33.8% Study Area Population (37.89%) 6,802 1,718 33.8% 5,084 5,445 6,157 Includes Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties 2D. Growth Rate Based on All Counties in the Region 200520052030 2030 2005 2010 2020 2030 Gain Rate Countywide Population 23.6% 13,418 14,117 15,434 16,587 3,169 Study Area Population (37.89%) 5,084 5,349 5,848 6,285 1,201 23.6% Includes Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Martin, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-14

2E. Growth Rate Based on Select Regional Counties 20052030 Gain

20052030 Rate

2005 2010 2020 2030 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- 2005-2030 2030 Rate 2005 2010 2020 2030 Gain Countywide Population 13,418 14,147 14,945 15,546 2,128 15.9% Study Area Population (37.89%) 5,084 5,360 5,663 5,890 806 15.9% Includes Bertie, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties

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 areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capture rate of the total countywide population gain between 2010 and 2030. Population Projection 3 Low Growth (#2, E. Growth Rate Based on Select Regional Counties)

Study Area Population (37.89%) w/5% increase in capture rate 2010-2030 w/10% increase in capture rate

2030

20052030 Gain

20052030 Rate

2005

2010

2020

5,084

5,265

5,449

5,569

485

9.5%

5,084

5,265

5,808

6,304

1,220

24.0%

5,084

5,265

6,168

7,039

1,955

38.4%

WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-15

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)

Study Area Population (37.89%) w/5% increase in capture rate 2010-2030 w/10% increase in capture rate 2010-2030

2030

20052030 Gain

20052030 Rate

2005

2010

2020

5,084

5,360

5,663

5,890

806

15.9%

5,084

5,360

6,036

6,668

1,584

31.1%

5,084 5,360 6,410 7,445 2,361 46.4% Includes Bertie, Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties High Growth (#2, B. Growth Rate Based on Select Albemarle Sound Counties)

2030

20052030 Gain

20052030 Rate

2005 2010 2020 Study Area Population (37.89%) 5,084 5,405 5,816 6,155 1,071 21.1% w/5% increase in capture rate 2010-2030 5,084 5,405 6,199 6,968 1,884 37.1% w/10% increase in capture rate 2010-2030 5,084 5,405 6,583 7,780 2,696 53.0% 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 Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 WASSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Section 3.0 Development Scenarios and Population Projections Final, November 14, 2008

3-16

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:

Low High

Recommended Population Projections WASSP Study Area 2010 2020 5,360 5,663 5,360 6,036

2030 5,890 6,668

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

3-17

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. Implementation 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. 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 doublefrontage 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 WASSP - Section 4.0 Objectives Policies and Recommendations Final, November 14, 2008

4-1

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. Implementation 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. 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., WASSP - Section 4.0 Objectives Policies and Recommendations Final, November 14, 2008

4-2

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 100year 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. Implementation Amend the current subdivision regulations to include a specific requirement prohibiting the creation of new building lots within the 100year 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. 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 privatelymaintained roads, parking lots, and loading areas. Implementation 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. 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 WASSP - Section 4.0 Objectives Policies and Recommendations Final, November 14, 2008

4-3

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 ownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; association, or approved alternative entity. Drainage easements and inspection and maintenance agreements shall be recorded. Implementation Revise the current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to include stormwater management requirements consistent with the stormwater management ordinance. 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, WASSP - Section 4.0 Objectives Policies and Recommendations Final, November 14, 2008

4-4

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. 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.

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

4-5

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

• • • • • • D.

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. Implementation of Low Impact Development Principles and Standards

•

• 4.2.2

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 multistep LID approach. 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 WASSP - Section 4.0 Objectives Policies and Recommendations Final, November 14, 2008

4-6

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: • •

•

• • • A.

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). 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.

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

4-7

• • B.

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. Implementation of Conservation Subdivision Design Principles and Standards

•

• •

•

4.2.3

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. 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 stormwaterrelated 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.

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

4-8

Guiding Principles of a Stormwater Management Ordinance • •

• •

•

• B.

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. 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.

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

4-9

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

Implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan and Stormwater Ordinance •

• •

4.2.4

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. 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.

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

4-10

• B.

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. 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

Open Space Requirements

A requirement that new residential developments provide a minimum amount of open and recreational space can achieve multiple objectives including: • • • • • • 1.

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. 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.

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

4-11

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.

•

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

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

4-12

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 multiplied by

25 dwellings X

0.0285714 acres per dwelling equals

1,244.57 square feet equals

Public recreational area required or 0.71-acre

31,114.25 square feet

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. 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

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

4-13

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

•

4.3

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

4-14

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

4-15