City of Plymouth, North Carolina land use plan

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATI0N CENTER

City Of.

PLYMOUTH

Land Use Plan

CAMA
HD 1976
211
.N8
C5
1976

COASTAL ZONE-
INFORMATION CENTER

CITY OF

PLYMOUTH, NORTH CAROLINA

LAND USE PLAN

COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT
ACT OF 1974

1976

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER

2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Plymouth, North Carolina
1976

PLYMOUTH TOWN COUNCIL

William R. Flowers, Mayor - Melvin M. Cordon
George Ayers' J. Wallace Walker
Lyman Mayo II J. W. Foster
Fenner G. Jordan

PLYMOUTH PLANNING BOARD

John Fields Andy J. Johnson
Elizabeth Bennett Dallas Waters
Edison Towe

PROJECT STAFF
George L. Nichols, Project Planner
Mary Noe, Secretary
Debra Inqalls, Secretary
Mike Yount, Draftsman

Town Of Plymouth PLYMOUTH, NORTH CAROLINA 27962

P. 0. Box C06 TELEPHONE (919)793-4181
WILLIAM R. FLOWERS, May 20, 1976
MAYOR

TO; Coastal Resources Comission

FROM: CAMA Plan Submission.

incompliance with the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974, we are forwarding

for your review officially certified copies of our Land Use Plan.

Under provisions set forth in Part one of the State Guidelines, we wish that

you would approve additional historic sites in 0ur Town Plan as proposed Areas

of Environqmental Concern.. A list and brief description of these places nay be

found under cover in our plan's synopsis. These sites do not meet the criteria

now in use for designating historic places.However, we feel these sites have

local significance which merits their inclusion in our Plan.

You will also note that the Roanoke River, Welch's Creek, and Conaby Creek have

been deleted from our Plan as proposed Areas of Environmental Concern. Our

Town Council has not recognized these waters as public trust waters, and con-

sequently approved the Plymouth Plan with their deletion.

William Flowers Mayor
Town of Plymouth

P.S. For your information:

We plan to distribute our synopsis by mail to each
household.

Town Of Plymouth PLYMOUTH. NORTH CAROLINA 27962

P. 0- BOX 006 TELEPHONE (919) 793-4161

WILLIAM R. FLOWERS, May 20, 1976
MAYOR

Coastal Resources Ccmnission'
P. o. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611

Sirs:

The Town of Plymouth hereby transmits one cer-tified copy of the Plymouth

Land Development Plan to the Coastal Resources Conrdssion.

The plan was formally reviewed at a public hearing held at the Washington

County Courthouse on May 7, 1976. The plan was adopted by the Town Council

at their regular meting held on May 10, 1976.

William Flowers, Mayor*
Town of Plymouth

Anita Saw-yer
Town Clerk

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1
Organization ..................................... 1

Management Tools Created ....................... o4 2

DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS ................ 3

General Requirements ............................. 3

Present Population'and Economy I.",- ........................4

Population Findings 4
Seasonal Population 4
Economic Findings 7

Existing Land Use Findings ........................ 12

Significant Land Use Compatibility Problems 13
Problems From Unplanned Development 14
Major Growth Areas 16

Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations .......... 16

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES .... ............. 19

General Requirements ............... ................ 19.

Identification and Analysis of Major Land
Use Issues ..... o................................... 19

Impact of Population and Economic Trends 19
Adequate Housing and'Other Services 20
Conservation of Productive'Natural Resources 22
Important Natural Environments 22
Protecting Cultural and Historic Resources 23

Alternatives Considered in the Development of
Objectives, Policies, and Standards ............... 24

(IV)' CONSTRAINTS ................. o ... o ................. 31

General Requirements ................... o ......... 31

Land Potential ................................... 33

Physical Limitations 33
Fragile Areas 37
Areas With Resource Potential 38

Page

Capacity of Community Facilities ............... 38

Existing Water and Sewer Service Area
Design Capacity and Utilization of
Existing Facilities 39

(V) ESTIMATED DEMAND ..r ............................ 43

General Requirements ........................... 43

Future Population and Economy ................... 44

Future Land Needs ....... - ..................... 49

Community Facilities Demand ... ............... 51

Projected Utilization: Water System 51
Projected Utilization: Sewer System 52
Projected Utilization: Schools 54
Projected Utilization: Streets 56
Cost of New Facilities 56

(VI) PLAN DESCRIPTION .....o .......... o .......... 60

Description of the Land Classification System... 60

Popul ation Allocations to the Transition,
Community, and Rural Land Classifications .., .... 62

Discussion of Allocated Population Densities .... 63.

(VII)- PROPOSED INTERIM AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. 66

General Requirements ................... o ........ 66

Proposed AECs in the Town of Plymouth .......... 67

Historic Places

(VIII) BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................. 69

(IX) PLYMOUTH-WASHINGTON COUNTY PLAN RELATIONSHIP.... 71

(X) APPENDIX ........................................ 72

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1. Comparison of Population Trends 5

2. Age-Aace Characteristics of Plymouth 5

3. Major Area 1@mployers 6

4. Retail Sales Per 1000 Population 7

5. Business Patterns 8

6. occupational Bre#.kdown of Employed Persons in
Plymouth and Washington County 10

7. Rates of Unemployment for.Washington County and
Other Areas 11

8. Median Family Income: Plymouth,and Surrounding
Towns 12

9., Plymouth Zoning Map 15

10. @Drainage Patterns 34

11. Generalized Soils Map 36

12. Waste Loads Allocations 39

13. Average Daily Traffic Count 41

14. Future Population Estimate, 44

15. 50-Year Population Estimate 46

16. Labor Force Characteristics, 1970 47

Present and Proposed Water Service 48

..18.- a & b Future Land Needs 49-50

19. Design Waste Loads and Flows 54

20. Thoroughfare Plan 57

21. Summary of Phase I Project Costs: Proposed Water
System 58

22. Estimated Costs, Proposed Sewer Improvements 59

23. Land Demand Estimates 63

I. INTRODUCTION

from: Coastal Area Management: "A New Look on the Horizon"
NCSU Agricultrural Extension Office

The coastal area of North Carolina is one of the most important regions
in the United States for food production, future expansion of commerce, in-
dustry and recreation. To enable orderly growth and protection of important
natural resources of that area, the 1974 General Assembly passed th Coastal
Area Management Act.

The Coastal Area Management Act is a state law that asks local government
in 20 counties in Coastal North Carolina to prepare a blueprint for their future
growth and development. The county officials are asked to work closely with
local citizens in deciding what their goals are in planning for their best
use.

Organization

State level administration and coordination will be handled by the Depart-
ment of Administration and Department of Natural and Economic Resources. The
Act creates two citizen agencies:

Coastal Resources Commission - The commission is a 15-member body appoint-
ed by the Governor. All members are residents of the coast. Twelve were
chosen from among nominees made by counties and towns in the coastal area.
Three are appointed at the discretion of the Governor. The Commission is re-
sponsible for establishing planning guidelines, approving land use plans and
issuing permits for construction when required.

Coastal Resources Advisory Council - The Council is a 45-member body made
up of locally appointed representatives from each coastal county, plus repre-
sentatives from six state government departments. It includes a broad cross

section of coastal interests. The Council advises the Comission on those

matters before the Commission and assists local goverments.

Management Tools Created

There are,lthree-maj,or,@'land.use,.,management tools.created.by the. bills:
Land use plans, areas,of,enviromental concern and a permit system.

Land Use Plans - Each county will prepare a land use plan. The plans will

be based on the goals of the people in the county, the resources available in

the county, and the most reasonable path for reaching toward those goals with

the resources available. After the plans are adopted, use of the land must

agree with the plans.

Areas of Environmental Concern'- These areas and their boundaries will be

,designated by the Coastal Resources Comission. We know from experience to be

cautious when using these areas. They include marshlands) beaches, sand dunes,

navigable waters, national and state parks,,and areas,of historical importance.

Designation of.an area as one of environmental concern does not prohibit use

of tha.t area. It is a warning.sign:to be careful.

Permit System - Any develdpment.within an area of environmental concerti

must have a permit. The Act does not require permit for development outside

areas of environmental concern. The Act requires the following projects in

areas of envi-romental concern to obtain a permit from the Coastal Resources

Commission, Those projects currently needing state permits: those of greater

than 20 acres in size; those that involve drilling or excavating natural re-

sources on land or underwater; those which involve construction of one or more

structures having an area inexcess of 60,000 square feet will require .a permit

from the Coastal Resources Commission. All other types of developments in

areas of environmental. concern will require permits from local goverment.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS

General Requirements

"A brief analysis of the local population and economy shall be made utilizing
existing information. Particular attention should be given to the impact of
seasonal populations and to economic activities which utilize, are dependent
upon, or which may impair coastal land and water resources.

Existing Land Use

Existing land use shall be mapped and analyzed, with particular attention
given to:

1) Significant land use compatibility problems;

2) Major problems which have resulted from unplanned development, and which
have implications for, future land use;

3) An identification of areas experiencing or likely to experience major
changes in predominant land uses;

4) Areas of Environmental Concern.*

Current Plans, Policies and Regulations

This element shall contain:

1) A listing and summary of existing plans and policies having significant
implications for land use, including at least transportation plans,
community facilities plans,.utilities extension policies, open space
and recreation policies, and prior-land use plans and policies;

2) A listing and brief description of the means for enforcement of all
existing local land use regulations. The following regulations shall
be discussed, where applicable. zoning ordinance (including amendments),
subdivision. regulatlbns, floodway ordinance, building codes, septic tank
regulations, historic districts, nuisance regulations, dune protection,
sedimentation codes, and environmental impact statement ordinances.

3) A listing and summary of relevant State and Federal regulations affecting
coastal land and water resources (to be provided by the Department of
Natural and Economic Resources)."

from CAMA Guidelines pp. 26-31

*Not to be mapped on Existing Land Use Map.

Present Population and Economy

Population Findings

The Town of Plymouth has grown two percent from 1960 to 1970, declining

from.a rate of four percent for the previous decade. This is attributable to

out-migration to the fringe areas and the nearly complete development of exist-

ing land available within the town limits. (See Figure 1)

Large population jumps of 20 percent and more in Williamston, Windsor

and Plymouth are attributable to annexations carried out by the towns. Ply-

mouth's...:82 percent population growth shown in Figure 1 is due to one annexa-

tion carried out in 1946. Wre repres.entative growth rates are the figures

of less than ten percent.

Age distribution in both the Town of Plymouth and the county shows a trend
towards a stable, young adult population in the age group from 15 to 24 that

significantly changes to a pattern of out-migrating families. This out-migra-

tion pattern reverses itself after age 45, indicating a trend towards an older

resident population. All the3e patterns are more pronounced among blacks.

(See Figure 2.)

Seasonal.Population

The Town of Plymouth has no seasonal population to speak of. Three local

motels cater to "pass-through" business traffic during the workweek. Weekend

tourists to the area are p rimarily fishermen in recreational vehicles who leave
their campers in the parking lot of a local shopping center while they put in

their boats,at nearby ramp at the mouth of Welch's Creek.

FIGURE I

COWARISON-OF POPULATION TRENDS

1940 % 1950 % 1960 % 1970

Washington County 12,323 +10% 13J80 2% 13,488 + 4% 14,038

Ply-mouth Township S.1237 +20% 61294 -@10%+ 6JI948 + 8% 7,512
Plymouth 2,461 +82% 4,4@61 + 4% 41666 + 2% 4,774

Williamston' 3,966 +2S% 45-975 +39% 6)924 - S% 6,570

Washington 8,569 +13% 9,698 + 3% 93,939 40% 8,961

Edenton 3,835 +17% 45,468 - 1% 4,498 + 7% 4,766

813 +20% 2,199
Windsor 1,747 + 2% 1,781 + 2% 15,

Columbia 1,090 + 7% 1)161 5% 13,099 -18% 902

FIGURE 2

AGE-RACE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLYMOUTH

Black Pop. Black Pop. White Pop. White Pop.
Age Gro!@2 1960 1970 Change 1960 1970 % Change"

Under 9 32S 255 -22% 277 228 -18%

5-14 S2S S23 + 2% 5so S28 - 4%

15-24 275 367 +33% 393 +lS%

25-44 417 327 -22% 763 7SO 2%

45-64 293, 339 +16% 612 677 +11%

Over 6S 108. M +40% 187 236 +26%

WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

Figi

MAJOR A

Name

I Weyerhaeuser Corp.

2
True Temper Corp.

3 Georgia-Pacific Co
@4
4 Plymouth Garment Co

5 Plymouth Pallet Co.

6 Plymouth Fertilizer

7 Willaims LAmber Co.

8 First Colony Farms

SOURCE: Conwnity

May,

------ -------

C a

Economic Findings

Manufactoring production in apparel and wood products comprises the major

components of the economy in Plymouth. Figures on the value of manufacturing

are -unavailable because-disclosure-rules were applied to census data to with-

hold data on individual firms. (See Figure 5.)

A list and map of local manufacturers and the approximate-nunber of per-

sons they employ are shown in Figure 3. A percentage breakdown of the local

labor forceby type of occupation is shown in Figure 6.

Retail trade in the county is primarily concentrated in the Town of

Plymouth Retail sales in the county suffer due to the county's small popula-

tion and the, proximity, of Washington.,Williamston and Edenton.' An estimate of

gross retail sales per person indicates that Washington County's sales per person

are below the -average,of -the surrounding -six counties. In addition, significant
losses in sales-personnel occurred between 1960 and 1970 in Plymouth and-the.

county, by a decline of 50 percent of total sales personnel employed.

FIGURE 4

RETAIL SALES PER 1000 POP. (ESTIMATE ONLY)

1975 Gross Retail Sales* 1970 Pop.*
Washington Co. $25,017,000 14,038 $1782.09/per person

Martin Co. $50,499,000 24,730 $2042.01/per person

Beaufort Co. $92,615,000 35,980 $2574.06/per person
Bertie Co. $29,620,000 20,528 $1442.90/per,person
Chowan Co. $25,244,000 10,764 $2345. 22/per. person
Hyde Co. $ 5,931,000 5,571 $1064.62/per person

Tyrrell Co. $5,890,000 3,806 $1547.55/per person
average $2049.43/per-person
*from Sales Management

*from U. S. Census

FIGURE 5

BUSINESS PATTERNS

Number of Taxable
Employees Payroll Total
Mid-March Jan.-Mar. Reporting
Industry Pay Period ($4000) Units

Washington County

Total 2,386 42147 183

Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fisheries (D) (D) 1

Contract Construction 54 66 14

Manufacturing 1,463 3,049 22
Apparel and other'textile products (D) (D) 1
Children's outerwear (D) (D) 1
Children's outerwear., N.E.C. (D) (D) 1
Lumber and Wood Products 323 482 is
Logging Camps and!Logging Contractors 85 .76 11
Sawmills and Planing Mills (D) (D) 2'
Sawmills and Planing Mills., General (D) (D) 2

Paper and Allied-Products 987 2,,400- 3
Paper Mills, except Building Paper (D) (D) -2
Paperboard Containers and Boxes (D) (D). I
.Sanitary Food'Containers. (D) (D) 1

Transportation and Other Public Utilities@ 28 52 4

Wholesale Trade 146 242 13

Retail Trade 426 477 75
Food Stores 92 100 16
Grocery Stores (D) (D). is
Automotive Dealers & Service Stations 90 124. 13
Miscellaneous Retail Stores 56 88
Financej Insurance, and Real Estate 60 98 11

Services 169 136 37
Personal Services @37 23 -12

Unclassified Establishments (D) (D) 6

SCURCE: USDC County Business Patterns, 1973

The county and the Town of Plymouth have similar job patterns. The

largest number:of employed persons in the town and the county are blue collar

workers employed as operators. The second largest group are skilled blue col-

lar craftsmen and foremen. From 1960 to 1970 the number of persons with skilled

white collar jobs has increased significant ly (by 150 percent in the Town of

:@'Plymouth and 230 percent in the county for professionals.and technicians). Sig-

,nificant losses in occupations occurred in sales personnel in both the town and

@county, by a decline of 50 percent. In Plymouth, increases have occurred par-

ticularly among women operators; decreases have occurred particularly among

Imale craftsmen.

Labor force estimates for Washington County indicate a total of 460 per-

Isons in ma nufacturing, primarily in Plymouth. This anounts;to sixteen percent

!of the entire labor force in the county. A much larger segment of the manu-

;'facturing labor force lives in the.Plymouth area but works at the Weyerhaeuser

'Corporation's papermill directly across the county line in @hrtin County. (See

Figure 6.)

Unemployment characteristics are only available for the county. "Unemploy-

@ment in the county is slightly higher than the average rate for the surrounding

six counties., both for the most recent year of record--4.9 percent in 1973--and

for the period of nine years from 1965 to 1973, an average of:6.2 percent.
County unemployment has consistently averaged higher than the rate for the state

at any time, but has been about average for this region. (See Figure 7.)

FIGURE 6

OCCUPATIONAL BREAKDOWN OF EMPLOYED PERSONS
-1970
IN PLYMOUTH AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1960

PERCENT OF TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL PERCENT CHANGE
EMPLOYED,1960 EMPLOYED, 1970 1960-1970
PLYMOUTii/COUNTY, PLYMOUTH/COUNTY PLYM0U`IH/ COUNTY

Professionals 8% 3% 12% 7% +150% / +230%

Farmers 1% 13% 1% 6% no change/ - 50%

Managers 8% S% 10% 8% +12S% +160%

Clerical 10% 4% 12% 8% +120% +200%

Sales 8% / -6% 4% 3% 50% - so%

Craftsmen 16% / 12% 13% 18% 20% +lSO%

Operators 21% 20% 24% 25% +115% +125%

Housekeepers 7% 6% 4% 3% - 40% - 50%

Service Workers 7% 4% 9% M +130,% +200%

Farm-Labor 1% 11% 1% / 47% nochange -fi0%
Common Labor 8%. 5% 7%, / 8% - 10% +i60%

Total Employed, Town of Plynputh, 1960: 1673; 1970: 1727.

Total Enoloyed..Nashington Co. Outside Plymouth, 1960: 24115; 1970: 4679.

SOURCE: U. S. Census., -1960 and 1,970@

Note: Percentages shown have been rounded off. To get a close appToximatim,
of the actual count of persons-in a particularlcategory, multiply
the "total employed" figure by the percentage for the given year.
p

FIGLJRE 7

RATES'OF UNEMPWYM]ENT_'FOR WASHINGTON
COUNTY AND OTHER AREAS

Average Rate for 9 Average Rate for Most
Year'Period 1965-1973 Recent Year of Record 1973

Washington Co. 6.2% 4.9%

Wake Co.. 2.3% 1.6%

IvLecklenburg Co. 2.1% 1.8%

Pitt Co. 5.9% 4.1%

Beaufort Co. 3.8% 3.2%

Bertie Co. 6.3% 4.6%

Chowan Co. 4.3% 3.2%

Hyde Co. 6.7% @7.1%

Martin Co. 5.4% 2.1%

Tyrrell Co. 7.8% 6.6%'

North Carolina 3.7%- 3,.5%

SOURCE: North Carolina-Woxk,,FoTce,Estimates, Employment Security Commission
of North Carolina.

Wdian family income from 1960-70 has continued to be higher in Plymouth

conpared to the county, but the difference now is very small--about two percent.

Family median income in the-county -in 1970 was $7,182, slightly behind Ply-
mouth's median family income of.$.7.,313. Both averages are still below the

average median family'incode for the state. (See Figure 8.)

FIGURE 8

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME: PLYMOUTH AND
SURROUNDING TOWNS

1960 Median Income 1970 Median Income % Change
- All Families All Families Over 1960

Plymouth $4665 $7313 +157%

Edenton 3918 7250 +185%

Washington 4410 6563 +149%

Williamston 3448 6510 +1890-0-

SOURCES: 1960, 1970 U. S. CENSUS.

Existing Land Use Findings
Plymouth ii'the largest ur@an area (3 square miles) and its land use
breaks down as follows: 53 Percent developed for buildings,and roads (up 4 per-
-cent from 1964); 10 percent vacant 'in single ownership (Weyerhaeuser); 13 per-

cent is in the floodplain; 11 percent, forest; 8 percent, agriculture; and
5 percent, land cleared. and vacant but not in agriculture. The seven-square

mile extraterritorial area surrounding Plymouth has thefollowing pattern: 52
percent, forest (including the floodplain); 41 percent, agriculture;'S per-

cent buildings and roads (up 12 percent from 1964).

The layout of conmercial, industrial, and residential areas closely follows

the town's history,of development and changing modes of transportation. The

town's conpact central business district and oldest homes and churches can be

found in the twelve-block area beginning at Water Street on the Roanoke River
and extending to@Fourth Street. The short blocks and narrow streets found here
adhere to the town's original survey, circa 1780, when the residents w6re pedes-

trians,and the traffic moved in boats and wagons. The next majorldevelopment

began around 1900 withthe construction of a railroad that eventually had spur

lines looped around the town to sawmills on the outskirts. Businesses were

still mainly clustered downtown, but residential growth and new schools began

to fill the void within the rail loop. The most recent major development is

automobile-oriented since 1940. Businesses,homes and industries in Plymouth

have scattered along its major.thoroughfares except for concentrated residential

subdivisions in the fringe areas. Today this pattern is very much in evidence

in the one-mile extraterritorial area surrounding Plymouth where tracts of woods

and fieids-are giving way to strips of roadside homes. Drive-in businesses and

light industry continue to crowd each-other along U.S. 64 since it has the prin-

cipal drawing.power for through-traffic trade in the county.

Significant Land Use Compatibility Problems

Principal. compatibilit
y problems in Plymouth are the spot zoning of re-

tail businesses in residential areas and the use in some location of streets

as zoning boundaries between residential areas and commercial or industrial

areas (see Plymouth Zoning Map). The problems from businesses facing homes

or being adjacent to them are common in most towns. These problems are typi-

cally the nuisance variety: glare from outdoor lighting or outdoor advertising.

and increased noise and traffic through the neighborhood. The difficulties

from these uses not relating to each other is especially apparent where a his-

toric place is involved. Thus, the-continuity of Grace Episcopal Church (built

1850) and homes along Madison Street are broken-up by businesses, off-street

parking, and a bulk cement plantat the intersection with Water Street. Prob-
lems such as these are likely to continue each time a place is sought for new

business. 'The solutionlies in having new business made attractive to its

neighbors or in finding another location where it would be entirely acceptable.

(See Figure 25.)

Problems From IJnplanned Development

Growth problems in Plymouth include shortages of off-street parking spaces

downtown, increased commuting traffic along Main Street, strip development along

primary arterial's going to town, and increased sedimentation of Conaby Creek.

Parking problems downtown stem from increased business for the merchants
along Water Street. This is particularly 'evident around the lunch hour and
late in the afte!,rnoon when local-residents try to shop before.returning home

from work. The problem is at its worst on paydays.
Traffic along Main Street doubled between 1964 and 1974 (see ADT map in
Part 5). Hourly@p@aks occur in the momings and late in the afternoon as
employees at the@Weyerhaeuser Corporation's . apermill in Martin County commute
p

to and from work@. Although traffic is bad at these times, vehicle counts,have

not reached the proportions where one-way designations would be necessary for
Main Street and Third Street.

Strip land use development is most evident along U.S. 64 and NX. 32,

beginning at points three miles west, south, and east of the town's limits.

A distinctive characteristic of the sprawl in the fringe area is the large

number of mobile'homes set up individually on single lots and together in mobile

hcme parks, The@greatest problems arise from local traffic congesting through
traffic in the commercial areas nearest Plymouth along the U.S. 64 Bypass.

Turning movements to and from the multiple driveways of adjoining businesses

frequently bring@traffic to A halt on this two-lane arterial. This problem

exists at its worst during the summer months when U.S. 64 is heavily traveled.
by tourists enroute to the Outer B@ks.

Conaby Creek, flowing towards' the center of town from the south to the

northeast, w" once a stream that could.be navigated from its mouth to a point

south of Plymouth near the Old Roper Road (S.R. 1106). Now the stream is almost

Leqerid:

CONSERVATION-AGRICULTURAL
A-2 CONSERVATION-AGRICULTURAL

?--ZO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Z-10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
7 MIXED RESIDENTIAL (WITHOUT TRAILER
7A MIXED RESIDENTIAL (WITH TRAILERS)

OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL

CENTRAL BUSINESS
C_ -Z GENERAL BUSINESS
C-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS

INDUSTRIAL-LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL@HEAVY

J-L

undefined below the U.S. 64 bridge crossing. Sedimentation from construction

and clearing activities over the years has silted the bottom of the stream,

making the floodplain to either side of it wider and wider. Past efforts to

get the stream cleared through the formation of a drainage district failed

because the required approval was not met of 60 percent ofthe property owners

in the area. A local objective of the town and the county- has been adopted to

get the stream cleared. If accomplished, this would enable farmers south of

town to secure drainage while assisting the town in its storm drainage.

Maj or Growth Areas

Major growth areas in Plymouth lie in the one-mile surrounding extraterri-

torial area. Growth has occurred faster here due to an ample supply of vacant

land., close access to town, and lower property taxes. The fact that major

growth is likely to occur outside of town rather than within it establishes a

critical need for annexationlin order for growth to occur in the future.

Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations

Plans and Studies Adopted. The following plans or studies have been

adopted by the'Plymoutli Town Council:

1. Development Plan; Plymouth, N. C., NER - 1966

2. Capital Inprovements Budget Plymouth,.N. C., NER - 1971

3. Community Facilities Plan; Plymouth, N. C., NER - 1971

4. Major Thoroughfare Plan; Plymouth, N. C. (sketch plan), DOT 1972

S. Plymouth Water and Sewer Systems Improvements; 1966, L. E. Wooten & Co.

Plans Under Consideration. The Plymouth-Roper 201. Facilities Plan (Facili-

ties Plan: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Improvements - Plymouth-Roper

Facility Planning Area.- L. E. Wooten 1976) is the current published plan

under.consideration.

Other Studies Under Consideration. The Town of Plymouth is considerin

the preparation of an annexation study.

Regulation s Adopted. The Town of Plymouth has adopted the following regu-

lations: Zoning Nuisance Laws (governing septic tanks, dog control, building

safety and general appearance), Junk Car Ordinance, Street Ordinance (includes

minimum right-of-way 50 feet), Fire Prevention Code, Building and Plumbing Code
(an Electrical Code is enforced jointly with the county), Housing Code, Water,
Sewer and sewage.Ordinances (requires utility installations to town specifica-
tions), and a miscellaneous Offense Statute which includes requirements for.a
permit to locate a mobile home within the town limits.. The town h" Applied.
for and receive@ approval for Federal Flood Insurance. When the actuarial maps
are completed, a floodway ordinance will be administered throtgh. the Plymouth

building inspector.

Regulations Under Consideration. The Town of Plymouth is considering the

adoption of Subdivision Regulations and an Airport Zoning Ordinance.
Policies Affecting Land Use. The town's*policies concerning planning are

incorporated into the statement of purpose contained in its zoning ordinance

which is drawn from the General Statutes. The.town has no stated policy con-

cerning recreation and open-space'; however, it has representatives on the

county's Recreation Commission. Policies concerning utility extensions con-

cern the approval of plans and specifications and installation of improvements

by the town under the supervision of the town manager.. These policies are

contained in the town's statutes concerning water, sewers, and sewage. The
town's policies@concerning safe and adequate housing are contained in its

Housing, Building, Plumbing and Fire Prevention Codes whose language is based.'
North Carolina General Statutes.

Regulations Not Under Consideration. The town is not considering sedi-

ment control or environmental impact statement ordinances at this time.

Federal and State Regulations. List is to be supplied by the N. C.

Department of Natural and Economic Resources.

.18

III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

General Requirements

"The local planning unit shall, in cooperation with its citizens and all
relevant public agencies, identify the major land use issues facing the plan-
ning area and formulate a series of objectives to help guide future development.
The major land use issues which will be faced during the following ten year
period should be identified and analyzed. Such issues should include:

1) The impact of population and economic trends;
2) The provision of adequate housing and other services;
3) The conservation of productive natural resources;
4) The protection of important natural environments;
5) The protection of cultural and historic resources.

Alternative approaches for dealing with these issues and their respective
implications should then be considered in the development of land use objectives,
policies and standards. These clearly stated objectives, policies and standards
should serve as a guide to classifying land areas as well as clearly establish-
ing priorities for action during the planning period. While the emphasis is to
be on setting priorities for the ten year period, eventual population projections
for 5, 10, 25 and 50 years in the future shall be defined consistent with the
desires of the people and the capability of the land and adjacent waters to sus-
tain them. Consideration shall be given to the type and cost of services needed
to accommodate those population projections and to the ability of the local
economy to finance such services.

A brief description shall also be given of the process used to determine
objectives, policies and standards, with particular attention given to the
participation of the public and relevant public agencies."

-From: CAMA "Guidelines"

Identification and Analysis of Major Land Use Issues

Impact of Population and Economic Trends

The major land use issues affecting Plymouth and Washington County in the

coming ten years cover a broad range of problems. Both the town and the

county face population losses in the 18 to 25 year old age group despite modest

increases in total population during the period from 1960 to 1970. Consequent-

ly, the best trained and highest earning persons leave to go elsewhere, reducing

the labor pool and the opportunities for new industry.

Plymouthf4ces severe shortages of vacant, developable land at a time
when its extraterritorial area is the fastest growing part of the whole county.

This situation greatly increases.the-need for annexations in the years ahead

or else demands@that the county provide urban services in the areas surround-

ing Plymouth.
-The cost of providing service s ties in directly with the need for develop-

able land in gr9vang areas. At present, both the-town and the county lose

many tax dollars to other counties as local residents take employment and

carry on their shopping and recreation elsewhere. At a time when inflation

increases government costs, this situation creates an unhealthy reliance on
I
the existing p erty tax base.
@p
A number of problems related directly to difficulties with existing
facilities. InIPlymouth the-need for subdivision regulations is apparent

from the lack of adequate street and sidewalks in.various parts of town.

A comon problem between-the town and the county is the lack of an adequate
major highway. @Especially during the sumer, driving Highway 64 between the
@Jartin-Washingtonl County line and Roper is an aggravating experience as is all

the route between Jamesville and the coast.- This problem further detracts from

the area's drawing power for industry. These land use issues are addressed by

the land use objectives contained in the following section, and by the Land
Classification Map outlining which fringe areas of-Plymouth can be economically

served by..'extensions.of services and utilities-from the town.

Adequate Housing@and Other Services
The housing@supply in Plymouth has greatly improved since 1970 when the

census reported a decline in occupied housing to 1,208 units from 1,263 units

reported in 1960.1 The principal changes were a 19 percent increase in the num-
ber of owner-occ4,ied dwell Iings (from 56 to 75 percent of all occupied housing)

and a two percent decline in the nurnber of -rental units (from 4.4 percent to

42 percent of all occupied housing). Since 1970, the rental housing stock

has increased 19 percent with 40 new units of public housing (108 units in

the Housing Authority's '%hite City" development and the other 32 units in

the Authority's "Chigger Hill" development) and 56 FHA units (in duplexes in

the Brinkley Forest Section.of town south of U.S. 64). These additions,besides

other Housing Authority- plans to redevelop deteriorated housing between East

Water Street and the Fourth-Street School,should adequately supply the com-
munity's needs for low and moderate income rental housing in the near future.

Lots for sale in town in.upper :income neighborhoods can be found in the-eastern

part of town on the Riverside Plantation and Creekside Subdivisions. Outside

.of Plymouth. a limited.nunber-of lots in upper income neighborhoods can be found

in the Live-man Heights subdivision south of town, -the Rolling Pines subdivision

approximately two miles west of town, and in'Carl Brown's Subdivision east of

town adjacent to N.C. 4S..

Plymouth suffers the same as the county from a lack of variety in types of

purchase housing, especially for low and moderate income families. 'This is

apparent from the burgeoning of mobilp- homes in trailer, parks and.on single lots

of -record in the fringe areas surrounding Plymouth (mobile homes on individual

lots are now prohibited within the town limits).

Services-in@Plymouth,appear,.to,be.-satisfactory to a majority of' residents.

In an.:.attitude.survey conducted in May, 1975, (see Appendix) the only significant

complaints.concerned streets, sidewalks and garbage collection. Subsequent dis-

cussions and review of written comments revealed that the complaints about.streets

concerned train blocades and frequent patching of potholes at the same locations.

Complaints about sidewalks came from elderly residents who felt tha t -raised sec-

tions of pavement were, a haza:rd to their.,'walkifig and from black -residents in

areas without sidewalks who said they did not want to walk in the street.

Complaints about garbage collection seem to come from the -newly-assessed col-
lection fee and@not the service itself. This was determined through conversa-

tion with the town manager on this topic. Otherwise, Plymouth residents express-

ed satisfactionvith.the services and facilities, in their town, especially the

fire department-,, hospital and library.

Conservation ofiProductive Natural Resources

The Town of Plymouth has only about 1SO acres of cropland within its-town

limits. Most of this acreage is either in transition areas of non-fa-nn land
use or else exists on parcels of land with no significant agricultural produc-
i
tion. ConsequenItly, the conservation of farmland within the town limits is-,not

a local objective.

The snagg' of Conaby Creek, which runs northeastward through the center
Ing

of town,- would reduce street-flooding in town and narrow the wide arealnow a
swamp where only@the stream itself used to run. The same action would also

enable farmers south of-the town to improve drainage off theircroplands by
way of a new chanln'el cleared of the debris which now impedes flow.and widens

the floodplain. The clearing of Conab Creek has been included as a local
y

objective in both the land use plan forTlymouth and the Washington County land

use plan.

Important Natural Environments

The most important and certainly the most impressive natural environment

in Plymouth is its waterfront along the Roanoke River, facing unblemished

stands of timberjn neighboring Bertie County. Since the mid-1960's, the

town has undertaken renovations of the property to the rear of businesses along

Water Street-having bulkheaded and filled a small park and picnic area behind

the municipal building and another small park in the center of the business

district. Future plans are to extend these irprovements along the rearside of

all business property facing the river in ord er to unify and enhance the park

developments already started.

Protecting Cultural and Historic Resources

Plymouth has a number of historic buildings of local:signi.ficance: the

Nichols House (c. 1804), Plymouth Methodist Church (c. 1832), the Washington

County Courthouse (1913), the Ausbon House (c. 1830), the Stubbs House (c. 1830),

the Armistead House (c. 1830), the Latham House (c. .1850), Hamilton Academy

(c. 1900), and Grace Episcopal Church (1837). The greatest significance of.

the majority of these structures is that they are the only remaining exanples

of pre-Civil War architecture which survived the two Battles of Plymouth in

December,1862, and April, 1864. The County Courthouse is noteworthy for itS@

neo-Georgian design and Hamilton Academy, now occupied by the Plymouth Women's

Club, is the earliest school still standing which many local residents attended.

The greatest problem in protecting these cultural resources is finding the

money to maintain them. This is likely to be a continuing problem since most

of these structures are in private hands. A second problem lies in spot zoning

adjacent property for non-residential use. Fortunately, all of the sites de-

scribed adjoin other residential land uses. However, the possible occurrence

of inconpatible development can only be prevented by considerahle attention to

,the Town's Zoning Ordinance. A local objective has been adopted'to amend the

Town's Zoning Ordinance to include a historic preservation district to help

preserve these sites.

2,3-

Alternatives Considered in the Development
of Objectives, Policies, and Standards

Alternatives considered in the preparation of this plan's objectives,

policies and standards were sharply restrained by geographic constraints, the

slow growth of a small population, and a limited amount of community money to

invest in more ambitious proposals. Future population growth is low, not ex-

ceeding five percent for the period 1975-1985. But long-term plant expansions

at the Weyerhaeuser mill near Plymouth are certain to assure additional popula-

tion growth that will require some new services or facilities. Consequently,

the objectives in this plan are scaled-down to the limited scope of programs

needed to support slow growth.

It was determined that a small amount of new industry was needed in the town

to diversify the local economic base from wood products and textile industries.

Limited industrial growth was seen as a way to increase the tax base and vary

employment opportunities without turning Plymouth into a "mill town." In addi-

tion, a limited amount of increased manufacturing employment would help attract

and support new retail business which the area badly needs. Thus, local objec-

ives supporting economic growth call for "attracting a fair share of new in-

dustry in the county to the town that will not overttax the town's water and

sewer systems nor degrade its appearance."

None of these limited growth objectives have known environmental side

effects that would adversely affect the town's land use. In addition to these

stated objectives, there are the Land Classifications (see Chapter VI) which

reflect the limited growth alternative in limited development both in town and

in the one-mile extraterritorial area.

Land Use Objectives For Plymouth

Goal: TO Protect Natural'and::Cultural Resources

L Recommend the development of a commity appearance program and the amend-

ment of the town's zoning ordinance to include a historic preservation district.

2. Conplete plans proposed to develop the rearside of business lots between

Water Street and the Roanoke River for use as a park.

3. Inprove storm drainage in the town and surrounding area by suction-dredging

and snagging Conaby Creek from N. C. Highway 4S to the Old Roper Road.

Goal: To.Provide for the Economic-Needs of Town and County Residents by
Attracting New'Business and'Th-dustry to Plymouth

1. Objective:. Attract a fair share.of new industry in the county to the

town that will not overtax the town's water and sewer systems nor degrade

its appearance.

2. Objective: Create space for a farmer's market in Plymouth.

3. Objective: Work with the Washington County government for the hiring of

a joint.city-county industrial developer.

4. Objective: Plan the development of an airport industrial pa:rk adjoining

the new Plymouth Mmicipal Airport.

Goal: To Improve.Traffic.Circulation,and Safety in and around Plymouth

1. Objective.., Recommend a new bypass around Plymouth in place of four-laning

the existing U. S. Highway 64 bypass.

.2. Objective: Recomend-the separation of the railroad grade crossing where

it crosses U. S. Highway 64 west of town.

3. Make plans to install sidewalks in areas without sidewalks and repair or

repave existing sidewalks that would be a hazard to elderly pedestrians.

Goal: To Provide for the Growth of Plymouth in an Orderly Manner

1. Objective: Complete an annexation study of the fringe areas surrounding

Plymouth.

2. Objective: Adopt subdivision regulations for orderly residential develop-

ment in the town and surrounding extraterritorial area.

Goal: To Improve City-County Cooperation

Objective: Make city plans an integral part of county plans for all future

extensions of public services and facilities from the town to the outlying

areas of the county.

Public Participation Summary

Town of Plymouth

1. Evaluation of your Public Participation Program

A. Does your land use planning depend on the local planner for direction
or does citizen involvement offer direction?

The land use planning effort in Washington County has been a 50 - 50 effort,
with the planner doing the legwork for the Steering Committee and the
Steering Committee making contacts with the public and guiding the planner
towards what they want to see put in the county's plan.

B. Unique features of your public participation program that might be
useful to other communities.

Ever since the Steering Committee began their public meetings, they have
always rotated the place of the meeting to each of the towns in the county--
Creswell, Roper, and Plymouth--in order to make public attendance as conven-
ient as possible. The planner has also spoken to nearly every civic group
and organization about the purpose of CAMA. Posters have been a big help
in advertising meetings.

C., How did you develop your Public Participation Program?

The Steering Committee was created by a resolution from the County Com-
missioners in December, 1974. At their first organizational meeting in
January, this group decided that regular open meetings and speaking engage-
ments were the best way to get public participation. Regular press and
radio features have been added to this besides the use of an attitude
survey that the committee distributed in May to approximately 3200 house-
holds.

D. Do you consider your public involvement a success? Please explain.

Judging by the attendance at Steering Committee meetings, you cannot say
that public participation is a success in Washington County. Committee
members have suggested to people that they come--but time and again they
forget. It seems that there is only so much you can do to get people to
attend, but attendance is picking up since posters have been used to
advertise the meetings. Also word-of-mouth knowledge about CAMA is getting
around as residents from different neighborhoods are showing up for the
first time to learn more about it. Consequently,we feel that public par-
ticipation_is going to show more and more improvement as time goes on.
Residents have also commented after a meeting that they felt as if their
contribution had been listened to, and that they simply had not gone to
a meeting where a decision had already been made and was just being
announced.

E. List some key citizens in your public participation program: names,
phone numbers.

Douglas, Davenport, (797-4395); Cleveland Paylor, (793-3622); Lewis Combs,
(797-4486); Barry Harris, (793-5823); Phil Gurkin,(793-2123); Gerald
Allen, (793-3826); Ted Masters, (793-2771); Ken Sallenger, (797-4314);
Billy Sexton, (794-2218); Dewitt-Darden, (633-3141); T. R. Spruill,
(793-2053); Bill Flowers, (793-4181); Guy Whitford, (793-2223); Ernestine
Hannon, (793-5O15).

2. Steps taken to inform local citizens about the CAMA program..

A. Newspaper

The following is a list of feature articles to date which have appeared in
the local newspaper, The Roanoke Beacon. This list does not include simple
announcements of regularly scheduled Steering Committee meetings. The
readership of the Beacon is approximately 8500.

1. November 20, 1974, "Planner Appointed: Board Approves Land Use Planning"
2. January 22, 1975, "First Meeting Held by Land Use Group"
3. March 5, 1975, "Citizen Input Urged: Sexton Elected Chairman of Land Use
Committee"
4. March 12, 1975, "Land Use Group Sets Roper Meet"
5. April 16, 1975, "Land Use Body Will Meet With Planning Boards."
6. May 7, 1975, "Preliminary Maps, Land Use Plan Eyed by Group"
7. May 14, 1975, "CAMA Meeting Slated for Creswell"
8. June 11, 1975, "Development Favored: Citizen Survey Results Announced
By Planner"
9. June 18, 1975, "Area Management: What It is and Why?"
10. June 18, 1975, "Roanotes, by Phil Gurkin" (editorial)
11. June 25, 1975, "Area Management: Land Use Planning"
12. July 2, 1975, "Area Management: Guarding Resources"
13. July 9, 1975, "Area Management: By We the People"
14. July 9, 1975, "Roanotes by Phil. Gurkin" (editorial)
15. August 27, 1975, (in progress) "Plan of Goals and Objectives Endorsed
by Committee"

B. Radio
Several public service announcements have been aired over WPNC in Plymouth,
which broadcasts over a ten county area, to both announce meetings and
encourage attendance. The Washington County Extension Agent has been very
Cooperative in drafting his own CANA presentations for airing during the
noon-time "Home and Farm Hour" and in conducting a talk show with the
planner, July 7, 197S.

C. Television

Television has not been utilized as a medium because there is no local sta-
tion within the county.

D. Bulletins, Leaflets, Newsletters

Since July, 60 posters have been distributed for every regular meeting of
I
the Steering Committee throughout the areas where the meetings were to be
held. This has resulted in a big boost in attendance at meetings by local
residents.

E. Other Methods

The items above describe the techniques we have used to inform people about
CAMA. What other method people use to get informed chiefly appears to be
word-of-mouth.

3. Opportunities for citizens to provide input into land use planning.

A. Personal interviews

This technique has not been used to the extent of some other methods. One
of the Steering Conmittee members, Cleveland Paylor, took the planner
around to interview and explain the purpose of CAMA to six of the principal
businessmen in the Town of Plymouth during March and April. Another set
of interviews were carried out among local business figures by theWPNC
station manager,Billy Benners, in March to "brainstorm" CAMA's impact on
the business community.

B. Surveys

An attitudinal survey concerning land use goals and objectives was dis-
tributed in May through the schools'to approximately 2900 households.
There were also about 300 surveys distributed among the two senior classes
at the high schools in Creswell and Plymouth. An additional 150 surveys
were distributed to predominantly black, low-income heads of households
by Mrs. Lilly James from the Washington County Economic Development Council.
Finally, the planner used the survey at his club meetings to poll his
audience on land use problem with which they were familiar.

C. Workshops and public meetings

The Steering Committee has had ten regular meetings since January,with an
attendance total of 100. The Plymouth Planning Board has considered CAMA

.issues at eight of their gatherings and the,County Planning Board has
done the same at-six meetings of theirs. By far the greatest number
of meetings have been with clubs and organizations--a total of 569 people
from 30 different groups. Of the 569, 184,or approximately 32%,were
women. About 1SO,.or.about 26%,were over age 65. Other meetings planned
in the future will beprima:rily among blacks, who only comprised about
11%,of the.569..addressed so far. Briefings to elected officials
have also@been done.Tegularly: the county connissionershavereceived a
total of ten reports to.date,..and the Plymouth:.Town Council has received
a total of five. This difference is due to the Commissioners meeting
twice a month-while the Council@meets only once.

D. Other Opportunities

Public @ervice 4mGuncements concerning CAMA have been aired over Radio
Station WPNC in Ply-mouth on at least eight occasions. Four of.these
PSA's were prepared and sponsored on the county agricultural extensionts
"Home and Farm Hour" by their local staff. 'Ihe planner aired the re-
.mainder.

4. Quality and quantity of feedback from the public

A. Approximate percentage of community providing input

Of the 29GO surveys distributed through the schools, to heads, of-house-
holds, 830,or approximately 29%,were returned. Among the 300 surveys
distributed to high school seniors, 177,or about 59%,were retumed. Not
included in theu -returns are the extra polls taken of 150 low-income
blacks and the Club.surveys -that the planner conducted'. Thus in.'terms
of- th7e@ total population, only a small. percentage, or about 12%, is estimated
to have personally.responded to a questionnaire on land use. The figure
would be higher if..you @zonsidered it on. a "per househol4l' basis.

B. A@re all ethnic groups and social strata involved?

Yes, we would-say that there has been a cross-section of both -races and
sexes respondingto meetings and -the survey--not just one group. While
there have.,not been great,numbers.of people involved on a percentage
.basis, the'proportion of whites involved has been no greater than the
proportion of blacks throughout the county.

C. Are non-residents.and non-voters involved?

Non-voters were polled through the attitude survey of graduating,high
school seniors from the county's two high schools. Their attitudes
conceming'land use were much the same as their elderst, with somewhat
more emphasis on recreati.nnal needs. Non-resident property owners
represent.ahnost.neglig0le percentage of the total population because
most owners of second-homes. -were identified as residents of Plymouth.
Consequently, a separate su-rvey was not made.

D. Future participation activities planned

Future activities are being planned in about the same number as they
have in the past. There are now more suggestions from people attending
our meetings on how to get better involvement. One of these has been
to utilize po11ing places throughout the county for the location of
neighborhood meetings on CAMA.

E. How are you reflecting the responses you are receiving into the land
use plans?

The Steering Committee and residents have made their feelings known to
the planner on proposa1s he had made that they did not agree with.
Examples of this dealt with map changes on areas of environmental con-
cern and policies concerning trailer regulations. These changes have
all been incorporated into the county's plan to reflect what the people
want.

This report was prepared by the Washington County Steering Committee and
Planner John McGarrity,and approved by Mayor William Flowers of Plymouth
and County Manager Barry Harris, for the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners, August 29, 1975.

W.. CONSTRAINTS

General Requirements

a. Land Suitability

@I'An analysis shall.be made of the general suitability of the undeveloped

lands within the planning area for development, with consideration given to

the following factors:

1) Physical Limitations for Development;

2) Fragile Areas;

.3)@ Areas with. Resource Potential.

@"Ihese factors shall be analyzed, and where possible mapped, based upon

the best information available.

"The major purpose of this analysis is to assist in-preparing the.land

classification map, It is recogni zed, however, that some of the areas identi-

fied as a result of the land suitability analysis.may be designated Areas of
Environmental Concern. Any areas so designated, as AhCs shall be subject 'to the

detailed reqi4kremerits of Section III of these Guidelines in addition to the

analysis carried out -Lmder this subsection.

1) Physical Limitations for Development

An identification shall be made of areas likely to have conditions
making-development:. costly or caLxsing undesirable -corLs'eq@uences if developed.

The following areas shall be identified..-

(a) Hazard Areas,.in,cluding the following:

(1) Man-made (for example, airports, tank farms for the storage of
flammable liquids, nuclear power plants);

(2) Natural., including:

erodible areas

31--

(b) !Estuarine erodible areas

(c) Flood hazard areas
:-Riverine (floodplains and-floodways)
I-Coastal floodplains
I
g the following:
(b) Areas wl th Soil.Limitations, includin

(1) Areas presenting hazards for foundations;
I
(2) Shallow soils;

(3) Poor@y drained-soils;
(4) Areas with,limitations for septic tanks including both:

(a) 'areas-that are gene-rally characterized by soil
@imitations, but within which small pockets of
favorable soils do exist; and

(b) areas. where-s-oil limitations are* coimon to most of
,the soils present.

(c) Sources of Water Supply, including:
(1) Groun&ater, rech .arge areas (bedrock and surficial),;
(2) Public water supply watersheds;

(3) Wellfields.---

(d) Areas where the predominant slope exceeds twelve percent.

2) Fragile Areas

An identification shall be made of those areas which could easily be

damaged or destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned development.

''The following shall be considered:

(a) Coastal Wetlands
(b) @and Dunes along the Outer Banks
(c) Ocean Beaches and Shorelines

(d) Estuarine Waters

(e) Public Trust Waters.

Cf) @omplex Natural Areas

(g) Areas that Sustain Remnant Species

(h) Areas Containing Unique Geologic Formations

(i) Registered Natural Landmarks

(j) Others not defined in Part II such as wooded swamps,,
prim wildlife habitats, scenic and prominent high
points,etc.
(k) Archeologic and Historic Sites.

(3) Areas with Resource Potential, including:
(a) Productive and unique agricultural lands,
including:

-Prime agricultural soils
-Potentially valuable agricultural lands with
moderate conservation efforts
-Other productive or unique agricultural lands.

(b) Potentially valuable mineral sites;

(d) Privately owned wildlife sanctuaries.

b. Capacity of Community Facilities

An identification shall be made of:

1) Existing water and sewer service areas:

2) The design capacity of the existing water treatment plant, sewage
treatment plan, schools, and primary roads;

3) The percent at which the existing water treatmentplant, sewage
treatment plant, schools, and primary roads are currently
utilized."

From: CAMA "Guidelines"

Physical Limitations

Hazard Areas. There are three principal hazard areas in Plymouth. The

first is the wide floodplain of Conaby Creek which runs from the south,to the

northeast of town through its center (see existing land use map and drainage

Figure 10

Legend:

welch s creek

Conaby Creek

Bateman's Rqmp

zmt) and.-.-".
Txmer Conaby Swc

Roanoke River Iow Grounds

- ------------- ;@

A IL

patterns map). This floodplain has continued to spread slowly over the years

due to the gradual siltation of the main stream course. It constitutes a

physical barrier to the outward expansion of the town and inpedes storm

drainage due to its sluggish flow. (See Figure 10.)

The second hazard area is the two railroad lines which converge and

branch off to industrial areas east and west of the downtown*business district

(see existing land use map). Slow train movements have impeded vehicular

traffic,and the rights-of-way form a costly barrier for-water and sewer ex-

tensions (see soils map).

The third hazard area is the U.S. 64,Bypass which skirts the southern

fringe of town. This two-lane thoroughfare is at times very heavily congested

with local traffic attempting to enter the thru movement of vehicles from

numerous driveways-to small businesses. The lack of limited access, along

the town's principal arterial hinders ingress and egress.to the adjoining

residential.and commercial areas and greatly increases the incidence of

traffic accidents.

.Soil Limitations. Soil associations in town pose moderate to severe

limitations for operating individual septic tanks; however, many problem

are averted by the requirement for residents to use the town's sewer system.

Consequently, soils limitations are not a significant limitation to develop-

ment in this area. (See Figure 11.)

Water Supply Areas. The following description is taken'from Plymouth's

"20111 Facilities Plan prepared by L. E. Wooten and Company.

"Abundant groundwater supplies are available in the planning area. All

public and private water supplies are obtained from wells. 'Ihe chloride con-
tent of the water varies from 10 mg/L to 7'50 mg/L. The chloride@content of

water from wells less than 250 feet in depth, in general, is within the accept-

able limits of domestic uses. Those beyond this depth become increasingly

Legend-

CRAVEN-DUNBAR-AYCOCK

LAKELAND-WAGRAM-OCILLA

BLADEN-MYATT-LENOIR

DARE-DOROVAN-PLINGO

D <A

o7.o
91

brackish. There are no known records of groundwater contamination." Nowater.

quality problems with Plymouth's water system were noted in a water systems

feasibility study for the county prepared byMoore Gardner Associates.

Steep Slopes. There are no, land areas in Plymouth 'having slopes exceed-

ing 12 percent. The town is virtually flat with little topographic relief

except near Bateman's Swapp where itadjoins the Country Club Estates sub-

division.

Fragile Areas

In gene-rdl, few fra '10 areas exist in Plymouth that would be subject to
91

damage or-destfu.clion- The. only areas having such 'sensitivity are certain

S-1
surface waters and a"few.-histordc@` ites of local significance.

In Plymouth, surface waters are the Roanoke River, Welch's Creek, and

Conaby Creek. All of these waters are classified as I'C Swamp" by the water

quality classification system ofthe North Carolina Department of Natural

and Economic Resources, Environmental Management Division. One exception-is

a short stretch of Welch's Creek from the main line of the.Se'aboard Coastiine

Railroad Bridge north to the Roan.oke River. The classification at this loca-
tion is I'D Swamp.." "C" waters are suitable for fishing and fish propagdtildbn,

but not outdoor bathing or drinking. I'D" waters are suitable for irrigation

or industrial cooling but noneof the higher uses.. 'The "swamp" designation

describes the areas drained by these waters. The principal detriments to the

water quality of these waters are point. sources of waste discharge from munici-

pal and industrial users. Prevailing goverment standards for wastewater dis-

charge axe the principal controls to improve future.emissions.

Historic Sites of-Local Significance. The Town-of Pl@,mouth has nohis-

toric sites that are listed by the North Carolina Historical,Commission. How-

.ever, thereare several sites of local significance that were elaborated upon

in the previous chapter under "Protecting Cultural and Historic Resources

.37

These buildings are the Nichols House, Plymouth Methodist Church, the Washing-

ton County Courthouse, the Ausbon House, the Stubbs House, the Armstead House,

the Latham House, Hamilton Academy, and Grace Episcopal Church. The principal

detriments to their continued existence are lack of money for maintenance and

spot zoning of ad acent properties for non-residential land use. A partial

solution to these problems is an active historic/preservation/community appear-

ance, program and@the amendment of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance to designate

a historic district.

Areas with Resource Potential

Plymouth has only a limited amount of farming activity at several scatter-

ed locations and does not allow the extraction of mineral rights within the

town limits. Consequently, neither agriculture nor mining have any bearing

on resource potential within the town itself. There are no wildlife sanctu-

aries as such within the town except the natural vegetation in b(Atween the

built-up areas. The public and private recreation lands in town are intensive
recreation areasiexcept for a small corner park at Main and Washington Streets,

a nature trail behind Plymouth High.School, and the town's waterfront picnic

area behind the municipal building. This waterfront park is the principal

area with. resource potential in Plymouth and local objectives are to extend
its improvement through the downiown.shopping area.as funds become available.

Capacity of Community Facilities

Existing Water and Sewer Service Area
The Town ofPlymouth has water and sewer service throughout all of its
incorporated limiJts (see existing land use maps for location of limits) with
short extensions [email protected]. Highway 64 to-the Plymouth Garment Companyand
the Washington Co Iu
nty Hospital.'

Design Capacity and Utilization of Existing Facilities

The following water and sewer system data is based upon engineering reports

prepared by L. E. Wooten and Company andMoore-Gardner Associates. School

facility information is based upon the 1972-73 School Survey for Washington

'County, prepared by theNorth.Carolina Department of Public Instruction,, Divi-

sion of School Planning. Traffic count data is supplied by the N. C. Depart-

ment of Transportation, Thoroughfare Planning Section.

Water Facilities. "The present population of Plymouth with per capita

denmds of 80 GPD requires approximately 400,000 gallons of water daily.

This usage is half of the town's 800,000 gallon storage capacity. (Source:

Moore-GaTdner Water Feasibility Study, 1575.)

Sewer Facilities. "The Town of Plymouth lies in a sub-basin of the

Roanoke River Basin-. The Division of Environmental @bnagement has established.

the waste loads allocation for the discharge of treated effluents into the

Roanoke River from Plymouth.'s wastewater treatment facilities, and these are

summarized in Figure 12.

FIGURE 12

WASTE LOADS ALLOCATIONS

Design BOD TSS TM Fecal
@-apacity 5 Coliform
ReceivingStream _MGD __pH mg/L mg/L Mg/L 1#/100ml

Roanoke River 0.8 6-9 30 30 2S 200
.1.0. 6-9 30 30 2S 200

(1) "Water' Quality Management Plans Roanoke and Chowan River Basins," Divi-
sion of Environmental Management, St.ate of North Carolina.

IrIhe operating date of the existing sewer plant indicates that at present

the plant is receiving 4.4 MGD flow (half the waste load allocation for the

Roanoke River) and the influent wastewater characteristics are of typical

domestic type. Jhere are no known sources of significant industrial waste

discharges thatImay upset the treatment processes. The plant is well main-

tained and is producing an effluent BODs of 10 mg/L and suspended solids of
14 mg/L." (SOURCE: L. E. Wooten Study, 1976.)
School Facilities. The facility problem of Washington County Schools
in Plymouth are@easily identified. The major problems are listed below.

(SOURCE: 1973-74 School Survey)

Plymouth High School

0 capacity Ifor 790, but membership of 877
0 eleven mobile units
0 11Pcated in a highly congested area
0 site inadequate in size and lacks development
0 surrounding terrain and developments make expansion of the
site.difficult
0 S@adium further crowds the site
0 located within three miles of the c@ounty line (but located
Icentrally for 52% of the Camty population)
0 facilities generally adequate, but the site not suitable
Ifor expansion

Fourth Street Elementary

o a@nonfire-resistive building constructed in 1930 with asix-
i,classroom, fire-resistive addition in 1955
0 site of 3.6 acres inadequate in size
0 @maximum capacity for 400 students with 318 assigned
0 should be phased out of service as soon as possible:
iinadequate administrative and library space
Washington Street

0 nonfire-resistive building.constructed in 1930 with minimum
Iquality additions in 1948 and 19S2
0 maximum capacity for 72S students with 690 assigned"
0 Site of 9.1 acres; however, part of site located across a
street- site inadequate
three-story building constructed to serve as a highlschool
should,be phased out of service as soon as feasible: inade-
iquate administrative, library and.cafeteria,

Figure 13

ADIC Legend:

1964 Volumes

1974 Volumes

5
T-3750 --4100
1800 2400

-t 001

111300

8
6
050,

9150o a
7

0'4

Traffic Facilities. Figure 13 compares the average Daily Traffic ADT

for 1964 and 1974 along-major thoroughfares in Plymouth. The most dramatic

(nearly 200%) traffic increases in town have occurred along Main Street to

Mackey's Road (S.R. 1300) due to commuting traffic to and from the Weyer-

haeuser mill in.Martin County. Near Ply-mouth on U.S. Highway 64, other in-

.creases have been -recorded. 'Traffic along the section of U.S. 64 between

Trowbridge Road (S.R. 1341) and the Wilson Street Extension (S.R. 1335)

quadrupled between 1964 and 1974. The ADP counts at this location ju-nped

from 1800 vehicles per day to 8000 vehicles per day. The higher figure of

8000 is only 800 vehicles short of the theoretical design capacity of 8800

vehicles per day for a two lane roadway having a 24 foot-wide pavement.

(SOURCE: N. C. D.O.T., Thoroughfare Planning Office)

V. ESTIMATED DEMAND

General Requirements

a. Population and Economic Estimates

"Population: A population estimate for the following ten years shall be
made and utilized as the basis for determining land and facilities demand and
for classifying land areas. Ten year population projections will be pro-
vided by the Department of Administration for use in making population esti-
mates. Projections will be provided forcounties and cities and towns having
a population greater than 2500. Accurate projections for, those areas with a
population of less than 2SOO are not available and must be developed by the
local planning unit.

"The projections provided by the Department of Administration are based
on prior trends with annual updates. The local goverment may wish to use
these trend projections as their population estimates or to modify them to
include additional factors such as:

1) Seasonal population;

2) Local objectives concerning growth;

3) Foreseeable social and economic change.

"The Department of Administration population model is capable of taking
into account some of these considerations and should be used where possible
when such further -refinement is desired. If such refinement causes a signifi-
cant difference between the Department'of Administration population projections
and the local population estimate,-the Coastal Resources Commission or its
designee should review the estimate prior to the local goverment using it in
their land use plan.

"Economy-44aj.or identifiable trends or factors in the economy which might
have impact on future land use shall be set forth.

b. Future Land Needs

The steps to be followed in determining future land needs are:

1) To make an allocation of the estimated.population growth to the
Transition, Community, and Rural land classes of the.Land Classifica-
tion System, based on local objectives. The Transition class is to be
used to accommodate all the estimated moderate to high density growth.
That is not to say, however, that growth cannot occur in the Developed
class.' The gr6at majority of the low density growth which is estimated
should be clustered in the Community class, though a small amount can
be accommodated at very low densities in the Rural class.

2) To determl ine, for the Transition and Community c-lasses, the land
area -required to accommodate the estimated growth based upon the
following gross population densities.
I
Transition: a minimum of 2000 people per square mile
Communi as a 'rule of thumb, 640 people per square mile
(one person per acre)

c. Connunity Facilities Demand

Consideration@lshould be given to new facilities which will be required
by the estimated population.growth.11 - From: CAMA "Guidelinesir

Future Population and Economy

Ten Year Population Projections. Ten Year (1985) population estimates

for the Town of Plymouth were interpolated from information provided by.the

North Carolina Department of Administration's Office of State Planning for
Plymouth Townshipland Washington County. Preliminary estimates were review-
ed and modified by', the Plymouth Planning Board andare described below.

FIGURE 14

R=E POPULATION ESTIMATE

19702 % 1975 % 1980 % 1985

Washington County 14,038 0% 145,060 0% 14,100 +3% 14,500
Plymouth Townshipl', 7,512 +4% 7,800 +4% 8,109 +6% 8,S50

Plymouth. 4,774 +3% 4,900 +4% 5,120 +3% 5,2SO

Notes (1)
Township,Population includes town's population.
(2) Source: U.S. census

Considerations Made in 1985 Population Estimate. Future population pro-

jections reflect nationwide trends towards smaller families, lower fertility

rates, and out-migration from rural areas. County,population for 1980 has been
estimated at 14,,10@O only slightly more than the population in 1970. The

Town of Plymouth's population has consistently been about 3S percent of the

county's total population for over twenty yea:rs This pattern is likely to

continue in the future,- and consequently the town will share in the county's

leveling of population growth.

Future growth in Plymouth is sharply limited by it&past history- of

annexation. Only four percent of the present incorporated area, or about

77 acres, has been annexed since 1947. Of the estimated developable land,

within the town limits (about 413 acres) only 30 percent (124 acres) is with-

in a few hundred feet of existing streets and utilities. Consequently, the

inventory of available,,',vacant land that can be developed economically is in

considerably short supply' o meet future economic needs. Annexation and the

start of a redevelopment program are both local objectives designed to

ameliorate 'this situation.

25 and SO Year Population Estimates. The following figures are based

upon N. C. Department of Administration's OBERs Series-E population estimates

and were extrapolated by DNER. They are shown,here only to indicate how

present conditions might appear in the distant future, not taking into account

future events. Cautionary foresight is essential when evaluating -these

statistics. Residents living in the-county SO years ago could hardly have

foreseen the amount and kind of change which took place from 1926 to 1976. The

only valid.-conclusion from this information is that the county is certainly to

remain-an agricultural comamity having only a small population no greater

than the present population of three counties surroufiding it. Population growth
can be expected to occur fastest along the paved roads in the fringe areas of

Plymouth especially along the U.S. 64-N.C. 32 corridor and in the beach areas.

Figure 15 50-Year Population Estimate
1985 % 2000 % 2025
Washington County 14,500 7% 15,500 + 8% 16,800

Plymouth Township 8,550 +lS% 9,810 +10% 10,800

Plymouth 5,250 + 5% S,310 + 8% 5,960

SOURCE NBR

Long Term Population Estimates and Local Desires. Figures used to esti-

mate population growth for the years 2000 and 2025 were based upon informa-

tion furnished by the Department of Administration. However, these popula-

tion estimates advocate local attitudes about growth expressed by residents

and officials at numerous meetings held during the Plan's preparation. Simply

stated, these attitudes advocate slow growth for the town so as to not demean

its appearance nor over tax its water and sewer plant facilities and schools.

These desires were thus carried out with restraint in the preparation of

objectives, future population estimates, and land classification.

Land and Water Carrying Capacity. Land and water constraints are con-

siderably limited in Plymouth due to the town's water and sewer systems which

are currently operating at half of their design capacity. However, wastewater

discharges into the Roanoke River from the town's sewer system do not meet

existing water quality standards of the N.C. Department of Natural & Economic

Resources, Division of Environmental Management. Improvements to the sewer

plant facility have been proposed by the town's consulting engineering firm

to correct this condition and are a part of the Plymouth-Roper 201 Facilities

Plan (see following "Community Facilities" section).

Seasonal Population Impacts. Seasonal population is the "pass-through"

variety and does not represent a significant factor in the local economy.

Historic structures which might draw people to the area are of local signifi-

cance and do not cnstitute tourist attractions as such. The town's small

population and income level further limit the feasibility for tourist-oriented

activities. For all these reasons, seasonal population was not considered in

the town's overall growth.

Future Economy

Employment characteristics for the Plymouth labor force are similar to

those for the county. County labor force patterns show a higher level of

employment for men compared to women in 1970, compared to five of the sur-

rounding six counties. Opportunities for male employment, both among blacks

and whites, continue to be ahead of opportunities for women. Further study

of industries that are best suited for women and the attraction of such in-

dustries to the county can change this pattern.

Figure 16/ Labor Force Characteristics, 1970

Male and Female Percentages of Total Employed

Black and White Total Black Only

Washington County 73.3%, Male 35.4%, Female 63.2%, Male 36.3%, Female

Martin County 70.7%, Male 40.0%, Female 64.8%, Male 42.6%, Female

Beaufort County 72.9%, Male 40.3%, Female 60.9%, Male 42.0%, Female

Bertie County 64.9%, Male 33.0%, Female 94.9%, Male 30.3%, Female

Chowan County 75.1%, Male 39.4%, Female 69.6%, Male 37.6%, Female
Tyrrell County 65.3%, Male 35.1%, Female 63.7% Male 39.3%, Female

Hyde County 68.3%, Male 34.8%, Female 61.0%, Male 44.5%, Female

Source: 70 Census, Tables 121 and 126.

Plymouth has been, and is likely to continue, a local center for agricul-

tural trade in Washington County. The possible expansion of operations at the

Weyerhaeuser papermill would create the most impact on local housing demand and

?RESENT & PROPOSED WATER SERVICE

Existing Systems

Proposed System by 1980

Proposed System by 1985
Proposed system by 199o

Proposed System After 1990

I; /*

Mi i

retail trade in the foreseeable future. Secondary impacts from the expansion

of First Colony Farms in Creswell are possible, but too little is known at this

time about subsidiary agri-industry that might be attracted to thearea. Agri-

cultural production at the farm will first have to expand in order to justify

costly plant investments for food processing. Water system extensions to the

east, south, and west of Plymouth are the first increments of a county water

system. These facilities are only in the preliminary planning stage at this

time; however, their construction will greatly extend and improve the number

of industrial sites available for development in the Plymouth area. Also, the

new municipal airport south of the town limits (on S.R. 1106 next to the

Southern Railway) has potential for air and rail-oriented industry within ten

minutes driving time of the town's principal through-access road, U.S. Highway

64. (See Figure 17)

Future Land Needs

Land demands for the town's estimated population in 1985 are based upon

its ten-year population projections These acreage demands are only for resi-

dential housing.

Figure 18a, Future Land Demnands
Number Number 1
1975: 1985 of People of-Households

Washington. Co. 14,060 14,500 +440 +138
Plymouth Twp. 7,800 3,550 +750 +234

Plymouth 4,900 5,250 +350 +109

Note: one household is estimated to equal 3.2 people.

Figure ME).,
New.Households Density Maximum
Ffer Acre Land Demand

Plymouth Twp. +234, 1 household/3.acres 702 acres

Plymouth +109 1 household/l acre 109 acres

Note: Standards@for density are based upon the North Carolina Land Classifica-
tion Syst6mls standards of 2000 people per square mile for "developed"
and I't@ansitionll land classifications and 640 people per square mile
for the "Conmunity" land classification.

Actual development could occur on much less land than the amounts shown,

but the maximum acreage indicates the land that ought to be available throughout
the jurisdiction for development. Thus, for example, 109 new households in

Plymouth could be housed together by 198S on a 2S acre subdivision having

10,000 square foot lots-with public water and sewer. However, these-109 fami-

lies represent mixed income levels and housing needs, creating needs-for dif-

ferent priced housing located in different areas. Also, vacant land.available

1 rmly.suited for development: some of it has poor soils or
in town is not unIfo

would require economicallyunfeasible utility extensions. Thus, the amomt of

land demanded in.any area..is conputed for vacant land demands over the entire

area and not altogether in one location.
Maximum'landidemands shown for the three towns and Plymouth Township can
be adequately satisfied from the supply of vacant land in each jurisdiction;

however, in the case of Plymouth and.Creswell, very.little land would be left

for other purposes beyond 198S unless these two towns take steps between now

and then to extend their town limits.

Future growth in Plymouth is sharply limited by its past history of

annexation. Onlyifour percent of the present incorporated area, or about 77

acres, has been afinexed-since 194% Of-the estimated developable land within

the town limits (about 413 acres) only 30 percent (124 acres) is-withina few,

hundred feet of existing streets and utilities. Consequently, the inventory

of available, vacant,.land that can be developed economically is in considerably

short supply to meet@future economic needs. However,-the 124 acres would be

an adequate inventory for the maximum land demand of 109 acres by 1985.

In Plymouth Township, the seven-square mile extraterritorial area sur-

rounding Plymouth has the following pattern: 52 percent, forest (including

the floodplain); 41 percent, agriculture; `7 percent, buildings and-roads-

(up 12 percent from 1964). It is presumed that agricultural lands have the

highest potential for conversion to urban land use because they are already

cleared and drained.*,Even:if no other housing were to locate outside.the

extraterritorial limits of'Plymouth, the 41 percent-of land devoted to agricul-
ture in this..zone (about 1837 acres) would more than Adequately satisfy -the

maximum land demand for 702. acres.

Community Facilities Demand

Projected Utilization: Water System

@'The present population of Plymouth with per capita water demands-of 80

GPD requires approximately 400,000.,gallons of water daily. It is expected that

per capita usage will.increase to 100 GPD by year 2000., The projected popula-

tion of Plymouth by theyear 2000 will be 6,000, which should resultin-an

average day demand of 600,000 gallons. The maximum day demand At 1.75 times

average day demand should be I.OS0,000 gallons.

"'Plymouth's existing system of wells and elevated storage is. sufficient to

meet the projected water demands of the municipality beyond the year 2000, at

which time Plymouth should.be a_blb to fu-mish.an average of 1SO,000 gallons per

day to Opunty.users without exceeding 12 hours pumping time. - When this rate is

reached., Plymouth should expand its-water production capacity so that normal daily

operations do not@exceed 12 hours. It is anticipated that Plymouth will have

the capacity to fulfill area water needsi Those areas served by Plymouth out-

side the corporate limits would be eligible for county participation in finan-

cing where feasibility is demonstrated as outlined in this report. (Source:

Moore-Gardner Assbcs., Water Feasibility Study, 197S.)

'Projected Utiliza,iion: Sewer System
"The Town of!Plymouth operates an 0.8 MGD extended aeration type waste-
water treatment tacility that discharges the final effluent to the Roanoke

River,, a class "C@Swampl' stream. The facility is well maintained and is
producing an effluent BODS and suspended solids of secondary quality. How-
ever, because the@treatment facility does not have disinfection facilities,

the assigned water quality standards of the Roanoke River are not protected.

Also, the treatment facility does not have adequate sludge treatment and dis--
posal facilities Iand other fail-safe measures such as provision of multiple

units for major components of the treatment processes as required-by the

State, standby power facilities at the treatment plant and at the main pump
stations, etc. @,ccordingly, the Town of Plymouth will be required to upgrade

its wastewater tt dtment facilities to achieve the current and future water

quality goals of the Planning Area.
"In order tolcomply with the effluent limitations established for the

discharge to the R anoke River, only upgrading of the existing facility is

considered for Plymouth. This would provide an optimum solution to achieve

water quality goals by making maximum use of the existing facilities. The

upgrading of the treatment facility would incorporate preliminary treatment

facilities, an additional clarifier, chlorination facilities,.a sludge diges-
tion tank., sludge@drying beds and standby power. An additional clarifier is

considered for two reasons: (1) to ensure solids separation in the event that the

existing clarifier is teEporarily taken out of service for repairs, and (2) to

ensure at least primary treatment of wastewater if the aeration basin is tem-

porarily taken out of service for repairs. The chlorination facilities would

be designed to provide adequate disinfection of wastewater prior to discharge

into the Roanoke River. Provision of an additional sludge digestion tank and

sludge drying beds would ensure adequate sludge handling facilities. The

dried sludge from the drying beds will be transported to the existing sanitary

landfill for ultimate disposal. The residual wastes from the water supply
facilities are not a problem at Plymouth since water is supplied from wells

and no treatment other than "softening" and disinfection is required.

"The domestic wastewater loadings for the Town of Plymouth is based on

20-year population projectiDns, the operating date of the existing wastewater

treatment facility and the data assembled from the existing reports. The

selected design period of 20 years (1978 to 1998) was chosen as a reflection

of reasonable life expectancy of the equipment associated with the treatment

facilities and of a reasonable time period for payment of bonds required to

build the facilities. The design waste loacls and flows are summarized in

Figure 19.

"A volume of 805.000 gpd is being.incorporated into treatment plant design

to provide for industrial growth. Such a volume is considered minimal in view

of industrial development activities -in the Planning Area in recent years".

(Source: 201 Facilities Plan, L. E. Wooten & Co., 1976)

F r
@3 Design Waste Loads and Flows

Present (1975) Future .(1998)
Plymouth Plymouth

Population 4,9SO 6,500
Flow 1

Average,Daily Flow, MGD .0* 410
Maxim= Daily. Flow, MGD_ 1.157 0.800
Peak Daily Flow, MGD 1.400 1.775

BODS, lbs/day 1000 1510

TSS, lbs/day 850

Basis of Average.Design Flow:
Existing ...verage O.S66 MGD
A Daily High.Groundwater Tlow.,.
Future Domestic-(1500 P.E. @ 100 gpcd) 0.150 MGD
Sub-Total 0..716 MGD
10% IndustriallAllowance 0.072 MGD
Inflow Volume 0.100,MGD
Total 0.888 MGD

Source: 201 Facilities Plan, L. E. Wooten & Co.., 1976'@

Projected Utilization,: Schqels

School Facilities

� Washington County needs now facilities for approximately 2,000 of
the 3,765 students;

� The Wdshington Street, Fourth Street, Roper Elementary, and
Creswell Elementary buildings and sites.are. not judged suitable
for lonig-range, use.

� ThePl
.@Iouthffigh.,School site is inadequate in size and the school
shoul ,not be expanded beyond its-,,@'present capacity for 790 students.
The following summarizes the facility data.

Facility Djta for Washington County

School and Grades

Fourth Street Elem. (1-2)
Acres ' 3i6
Year-Built, 1930
Additions, 1955
Membership , 318@
Professional Personnel, 14
Classrooms-or Teaching Stations, 16
Mobile Units" 1
Capacity, 400

Adequacy of Special Facilities

Fourth Street Elem. (1-2)
Administrative space:, -inadequate
Media or'Library, inadequate
Gymnasium, Adequate
Cafeteria, Adequate

School and Grades

Plymouth High (9-12)
Acres, 21.,.5
Year Built, 1958.
Additions, 196.0,,68., 70
Membership, 877
Professional Personnel, 48
Classrooms..or 'Teaching Stations, 35
Mobile Units, 11
Capacity, 790

Adequacy of Special Facilities

Plymouth High (9-12),@
Admirdnistrative,space, Adequate
Media or Library, Adequate
,Music, Adequate
Gymtorium, Adequate
Cafeteria, Inadequate

School and Grades

Washington Street Elem. (3-6)
Acres, 9.1 -
Year Built, 1930
Additions, 1943, 48,@52
Membership,. 690
Professional._Personnel,. 32
Class-rooms or Teaching Stations, 29
Mobile- Units, 1,
Capacity, 725
75

Adequacy of Special Facilities

Washington Street Elem. (3-6)
Administrative space., Inadequate
Media or tibrary, 'Inadequate
Auditorium, Adequate
Cafeteria! Inadequate
The capacity-for@elementary pupils was conputed on the basis of 25 pupils per
classroom and the capacity for secondary pupils was computed on the basis of
25 pupils and 90Tercent utilization.
Source: 1973-74@Washington County School Survey

In terms ofJong-range planning, it appears. that@only Plymouth-High.
School, Washington Union, and Creswell High School sites.should be' Iconsidered.
Phasing out the Fourth.Street, Washington Street, Roper, and Creswell.Elemen-

tary buildings and sites will be.conducive to a major chan'ge,,in the grade

organization.

Projected Utilization: Streets

Plymouth has only a Sketch Thoroughfare Plan prepared in 1972 by the

Thoroughfare Planning Section of the N. C. Department of-Transportation,

Division of Highways. (see Fig. 'Ihe development of 'any of the proposed

improvements would have to be preceded by detailed origin-destination (OD)-
studies which arenot ut@der consideration at the present time. Primary features

of the sketch plan include a new bypass south of the town limits and desig-

ftating Main Street and Third Street for one-way traffic..

Cost of New Faciiities
Water systemlextensions described earlier are.a part of a five-phase
county-wide wateriplan which was prepared -for the Washington Coun*ty'.Board of

Commissioners by Moore-Gardner Associates in 1975. The following construction

costs repretent the costs to thelcounty for Phase I of the.system from Plymouth,

Figure 20

Legend:

Major Route; existing alignuent

Major Route; new alignment

Minor Route; existing alignuient

Minor Route; new alignment
7.1 7,

10@ 'i
LL

9 13(y
fflayba - -- -- -- -------

to Roper. Construction costs to the Town of Plymouth.for water service to

Transition areas shown on the Land Classification Maphave not been determined.

Such costs would be estimated in a separate annexation study. The following

costs are presented for information only for the existing proposed i
mprove-

ments closest to town. (Source: Moore-Gardner Study)

FIGURE 21

SUMqARY OF PHASE I PROJECT COSTS, PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM

Construction Costs $1,406,010.00

Engineering @ S.1% 71.%706.50

Inspection @ 2.0% 28,120.20

Legal & Administration 2S5-000.00

Interest During Construction 40,000.00

Contingencies .94,163.30

TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,665,000.00

Funds for construction of the proposed waterimprovements may be derived

from the sale of revenue bonds, federal and state grants, and tap-on fees.

-Revenue 1.oT operation and debt service may be derived from monthly water sales,

front foot assessments and tap-on fees.

The Moore-Gardner feasibility study should be referred to for a detailed

explanation of the estimated construction costs, operating costs, and sources

of funding.

Costs of sewer system improvements for the Town's existing plant are

derived from the L. E. Wooten and Company study prepared in 1976. Proposed

improvements are eligible for funding from PL 92-500 and StateMatching

Grants. This facility plan should be consulted for detailed cost estimates:

FIGURE 22

ESTIMATED COSTS, PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

Sewer System Evaluation Rehabilitation
Evaluation Survey $40,000
94,000

$134,000

Treatment Plant Improvements
Construction Costs $527,000

Engineering 55,000

Legal & Administrative 2,000
0 & M Manual 10,000

Contingencies 52,000

646,000

Total Estimated Const. Costs $780,000

SOURCE: L. E. Wooten Study

VI. PLAN DESCRIPTION

Description of the Land Classification System

A land classification map shall be prepared according to the specifica-
tions set forth in this section. The following codes shall be used:

Class Color Code- Letter Code

Developed Solid rust D

Transition Hatched rust T

Community Cross-hatched rust C

Rural White R

Conservation Dot Green P

Land Classification shall be represented at least with boundary
lines around each category mapped, and with a single letter code to in-
dicate which category is intended. However, the map(s) may optionally
be submitted using color patterns to differentiate between categories.

The North Carolina Land Classification System contains five classes of
land:

a. Developed--Lands where existing population density is moderate to
high and where there are a variety of land uses which have the necessary
public services.

b. Transition--Lands where local government plans to accommodate moderate
high density development during the following ten year period and where
necessary public services will be provided to accommodate that growth.

c. Community--Lands where low density development is grouped in existing
settlements or will occur in such settlements during the following ten
year period and which will not require extensive public services now or
in the future.

d. Rural,--Lands whose highest use is for agriculture, forestry mining,
water supply, etc., based on their natural resources potential. Also
lands for future needs not currently recognized.

e. Conservation--Fragile, hazaard, and other lands necessary to maintain
a healthy natural environment and necessary to provide for the public
health, safety, or welfare.

These five classes provide a framework to be used by local governments to
identify the general use of all lands in each county. Such system presents
an opportunity for the local government to provide for its needs as well as
to consider those the whole state. Also, they can make a statement of
policy on where and to what density they want growth to occur, and where they
want to conserve the county's natural resources by guiding growth.
As a statement of local policy consistent with statewide needs and goals,
the county land classification map will serve as a basic tool for coordinating
numerous policies, standards, regulations, and other governmental activities
at the local, state and federal leve. Such coordination may be described by
five applications:

a. The Land Classification System encourages coordination and consistency
between local land use policies and those of state government. Lands are
classified by the local governments. The Coastal Resources Commission then
reviews those classifications to ensure conformance with minimum guidelines
for the system. The coastal county maps taken together will be the princi-
pal policy guide for governmental decisions and activities which affect land
uses in the coastal area.
b. The System provides a guide for public investment in land. For ex-
ample, state and local agencies can anticipate the need for early acqui-
sition of lands and easements in the Transition class for schools, recre-
ation, transportation,and other public facilities.

C. The System can also provide a useful-framework for budgeting and plan-
ning for the construction of community facilities such as water and sewer
systems, schools, and roads. The resources of many state and federal
agencies, as well as those of the local government which are used for such
facilities, can then be more efficiently allocated.
d. In additiion, such a,System will aid in better coordination of regulatory
policies and decisions. Conservation and Rural Production lands will help
to focus the attention of state and local agencies interests concerned
with the valuable natural resources of the state. On the other hand, lands
in the Transition and Comminity classes will be of special concern to those
agencies and interests who work for high quality develpment through local
land use controls such as zoning and subdivision regulations.

C. Finally, the System can help to provide guidance for a more equitable.
distribution of the land tax burden.

Private lands which are in the Rural and Conservation classes should have
low taxes to reflect the policy that few, if any, public-services will be
provided to these lands. In contrast, lands in the Transition class should
be taxed to pay for the large cost of new public services which will be
required to support the density of growth anticipated.

The local land classifications maps must be updated every-five years.
Each class is designed to be broad enough so that frequent changes in maps are
not necessary. In extreme cases, such as when a large key facility, causing
major repercussions, is unexpectedly placed in,a county, the Coastal Resources

Commission can allow a.county to revise its-classification map before the five
year period is over.

'Tn addition, the Land.Classification Systemallows a variety of detailed
land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, etc.. to
occur w.ithin.these classes. There is.flexibility-under existing..zoning
enabling statutes to change these detailed land uses whenever necessary.

..Policies, rules, and actions concerning Ardas of F4ivironmental Concern;
shall take precedence over policies, rules, and actions.concerning the Lajid
Class ifications in the event of any conflicts."
'A s
FT

Population Allocations to Transition, Community and Rural.Land Classifications

Population allocations to the transition, community and rural-land classi-

fication in.North Carolina are based upon the 1975-85.population estimates.

and gross land demands established in Part III. The following table summiarizes

these allocations.

6.2

FIg-are 123 LAND DEMAND ESTIMATES

Estimate -Pop. Growth
of 197S-85 Assigned Assigned
Known Vacant Pop. Pop. Density. Vacant
Acreage Acreage Growth, Per Sq. Ifi. Land

Plymouth Twp. +750

Transition Areas 250 120 2000.. @.375
Conuamity Areas -;F@
@O 340 640 340
Rural Areas 35

Plymouth +350

Develsp@d Areas 1920 20 2000 62.5
Transition Areas 60 60, 2000 187.5
Comnunity Areas so so 640 5.0.

Discussion of Allocated Population Densities

In Plymouth Township, the Transition areas consist of the Liverman-.Heights
subdivision (approximately 90 acres) and a 160 acre tract fronting U.S. 6.4 where
it is intetsected1by Rankin Lane in Plymouth, extending the length-of.a..branch

of Conaby Creek. Bothmareas-arq-built upon at present. 'Approximately SO: acres
of LivermanHeighis are now occupied.by single-family dwellings,.housing,approxi-

mately 160 people@' The Rankin@Lane - U.S. 64 area is.a comercial. and1ight in-
-dustriail strip adjoining the,existing.town limits of Plymouth andlis now,approxi-

mately 50 percent'developed with the Washington County Hospital, the Plymouth
Garment Company, @jie East Carolina Supply Company, and. other smaller.businesses.

-The- Liverman Heights area.. is seen as an expanding-residential'area:@- The. -area

adjoining U.S. 64 is seen'as@an-expanding conmrcial and industrial a:r-ea..-.Both

of these areas are within.thecapability of the Town of Plymouth to.extend water
and sewer servicelby 1985 according to -the town manager. Consequently, these

areas were assigned population densities of 2000 people per square mile as

Transition areas.

The Community Land Classification Areas in Plymouth Township consist

of the extension of Riverside Plantation subdivision (approximately 120 acres);

the residential strip development beginning at Trowbridge Road and extending

west along U.S. 64 to the Rolling Pines Subdivision two miles from Plymouth

(approximately 320 acres); the residential area fronting the Wilson Street

Extension north of U.S. 64 (approximately 30 acres); the residential area

fronting N.C. 32 South one mile from Plymouth (approximately- SO acres along a

500 foot wide strip divided by N.C.32); and a portion of the U.S. 64 East

N.C. 32 North Corridor also in a 500 foot wide strip divided by the roadway

centerline beginning at the East Main Street - U.S. 64 intersection and

extending east approximately 3.3 miles to the township boundary just west

of Basnight.Crossroad (approximately 130 acres). The existing land use of

all-these areas, except the Riverside Plantation area, consists ofmixed
residen&al and commercial development, interspersed with small tracts of

fields and woods. The extension of Riverside Plantation now covers open

fields, but this area i Is anticipated for platting for residential lot sales

in the foreseeable future. The existing population of.these"Community" desig-

nated a:reas is approximately 640 people per square mile. Vacant land.conver-

sion to urban land uses are expected to occur in each,of these areas since all

the areas except Riverside Plantation front primary arterials (U.S. 64 N.C. 32)

in the fastest growing part.of the county the urban fringe surrounding Plymouth.

Furthermore, each of these areas can be feasibly served by the Plymouth water

system. Thus, because these areas are expected to continue theirlow-density

growth, they have been designated as "Conmmity"areas.

The Town of Plymouth has approximately 1,020 acres (1.6 squaremiles)
"developed" by definition of the Developed Land Classification. All of this

land is built-upon except for approximately 20 acres of Vacant lots scattered
I
throughout the town. In Plymouth there are approximately 60 acres of Transi-

tion land which are adjacent to the Riverside Plantation subdivision, north

of East Main Street,. -This area has been platted for a numberof years.and

has slowly been developed for singlefamily homes on half acre'lots. This

development is expected to.be conpletely filled by 1985 with all utilities

from the town. The only Community areas in Plymouthare in the westernpart

of town, known locally as the "Sandhills" community. About 45 acres of.this

neighborhood is barren at present occupied 6nly.by a few scattered homes.totaling

approximately five additional acres (total: 50 acres),, This area is expected
to develop as a lower middle income community having water service from the

town by 1985. It@should be noted that Plymouth's projected population is 50
persons more than@ the amount- of "Developed," "Transition" and "Community"

lands available, using the.population densities incorporated in.these defini-

tions. However, because.all these figures are estimates only, the general

pattern is more significantthan the theoretical valuies. In Plymouth's case,

this population could be allotted to "Rural" Land Classification areas in

Plymouth. Farm lands presently comprise about-eight.percent@ or approximately
154 acres,,of the total area.inside the town limits.- These lands have not been

projected tor conyersion to non-farm use in the next ten years, however, they

could be developed if market conditions warranted a greater return from lot
sales instead of harvested.cropland. The more significant fact from these

patterns is that the Town.of Plymouth has a very limited supply of land avail-

able for development beyond 1985. Consequently, a local objective has been
adopted to conduct an annexation study of the fringe areas surrounding the town.

65.

VII. PROPOSED INTERIM AREAS OF
ENVIRONENTAL CONCERN

General Requirements

The 1974 Legislature found that the coastal area, and in particular the
estuaries, are among the most biologically productive regions of this State
and of the nation' but in recent years the area has been subjected to in-
creasing pressures which are the result of the often conflicting needs of a
society expanding in industrial development, in population, and in the recre-
ational aspirations of its citizens."'

"Unless these pressures are controlled by coordinated management," the
Act states., "the very features of the coast which make it economically,
aesthetically, and ecologically rich will be destroyed."

"To prevent this destruction the Act charges the Coastal Resources Com-
mission with the responsibility for identifying types of areas, and designating
specific areas -- water as well as land -- in which uncontrolled or incompatible
development might result in irreparable damage. It further instructs the Com-
mission to determine what types of use or development are appropriate within
such areas, and it calls on local governments to give special attention to these
environmentally fragile and important areas in developing their land use plans.

The identification and delineation by local governments will not serve as
a designation of AECs for the purposes of permit letting. The designation of
AECs for purposes of the permit program shall be by a written description
adopted by the Commission, and such designations will be equally applicable to
all local governments in the coastal area. At the present time the Commission
will not attempt to map AECs with sufficient detail to enable a permit letting
agency in all cases to, determine solely on the basis of such a map whether a
particular area falls within an Area of Environmental Concern. The determina-
tion as to whether a particular area is within an AEC will be based on the
written description of the Area of Environmental Concern which will be adopted
by the Commision. The Commission will continue to study the possibility of
mapping AECs with sufficient detail to serve in this permit program and may
base the permit program on mapsif the capability exists to do so.

These amended Guidelines specifically require that the preliminary local
plans should include identification of each proposed AEC. The plan must also
include written statements of specific land uses which may be allowed in each
of the proposed classes of AECs. These allowable land uses must be consistent
with the policy objectives and appropriate land uses found in this chapter.
In addition, local governments may submit maps delineating proposed AECs with
the preliminary Land Use Plan. Such maps are not a part of the land use plan
but should be submitted concurrently with it.

Local planners should note that there are a few instances where one cate -
gory of Areas of Environmental Concern may overlap with another. Where this
is found to occur; the policy of the Commission is to require the local plan
to adopt allowable land uses within the area of overlap consistent with the
more restrictive land use standard.

"No development should be allowed in any AEC which would result in a con-
I
travention or violation of any rules, regulations, or laws.of the State of
North Carolina orl of local goverment in which the development takes place.

"No development should be allowed in any AEC which would have a substantial
likelihood of causing pollution of the-waters of the State to the extent that
such waters would be closed to the taking of shellfish under standards set by
I
,the Conmission for Health.Services pursuant to G.S. 130-169.0l."

From: CAMA "Guidelines"

Proposed AECs in the Town of Plymouth
The following category of environmentally sensitive areas has been pro-
posed by the Plymouth Town Council as interim areas of environmental concern:

historic places.@

Fragile Historic or Natural Resource Areas - Historic Places

a. Description.1 Defined as historic places that are listed, or have been

approved for listing by the North Carolina Historical Commission in the Nation-

al Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Prese-rvation
Act of 1966; historical., archaeological, and other places and properties owned,

managed, or assisted by the State of North Carolina pursuant to G.S. 121; and

properties or areas that are designated by the Secretary of the Interior as

National Historic, Landmarks.
In the Town1of Plymouth the following historic places have been proposed
for this designation: Nichols House, Plymouth Methodist Church, the Washington
County Courthouse', Ausbon. House, Stubbs House, Armstead House, Latham House,

Hamilton Academy-and Grace Episcopal Church..

b.. Significance.! Historic resources are both.non-renewable and fragile. They
owe their signifi Icance to their association with American history, architecture,
archaeology, and culture. Properties in or approved for the NationalRegister

of Historic Places may be of national, state, or local significance.

c. Policy Objective. To protect and/or preservethe integrity of districts,

sites, buildings, and objects in the above categories.

d. Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those consistent

with the above stated policy objective. Land use which will result in sub-

stantial irreversible damage to the historic value of the area is inappropriate.

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Part I - Introduction

(Pamphlet) "Coastal Area Management: A New Look on the. Horizon,"
North.Carolina State University Agricultural Extension Office,
1974.

Part II - Description of Present Conditions

U.S. Census, Depaitment.of Commef-ce, 1960.
U.S. Census., Department of'Commerce, 1970.
Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. (Map), 1968.
DeVelopment Plan: Plymouth, N. C.,.DNER, October, 1966..
NoTth Carolifia Labor Force Estimates, Bureau of Employment
Security, Research, N.C. Employment Security Commission, Nov. 17S.
Community Audits, Division of Community Assistance; Northeastern Field
, Office., N. C. Dept. of Nat. & Economic Resources, 197S.
County Business Patterns, Dept. of Commerce, 1973.
Gross 'Retail Sales, Sales Management 1974.
Land Use Analysis,, Washington County, N. C., DNER,
Division of Comnunity Assistance, 1974.

Part III - Public Participation Activities

Historic Washington County, Washington County Historical Society
Plymouth, N. C., 2nd Ed.
Norfolk Southern Railroad, Old Dominion Line and Connections
,(Chapter 6: John L. Roper Lumber Company) by Richard Prince,
Wheelwright Litographing Company, Salt Lake City, Ut. 1972.
Ed Craft, Soil Conservation District, Plymouth.
Guy Whitford, Agricultural Extension Office, Plymouth.
Housing Survey and Work Program: Washington County, N.C. DNER, 1973.-
Watershed Map: Washington County, N. C., SCS, Raleigh (1973).
Topographic Maps, U.iS-Geological Survey, 1951.
Orthophotographic Aerial Maps, USGS, 1974@

.Part TV Constraints

General Soil Map, Plymouth, 201 Facilities.Plan, L. E. Wooten Co., 1976.
Carrell Windslow, District Sanitarian, Washington Co. Health Dept.
Plymoutho
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Roanoke River Basin, DNER - Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section, Feb. 176..
Geology and Ground Water Resources of the Swanquarter Area, N. C. Dept..
of W@Lter Resources (DNER), Division of Ground Water, 1964.
Washington County Overall Economic Development Plan, Econ. Dev. Committee,
T. R. Spruill, Chairman, 1971.
Outdoor Recreation Potential for Washington County, N. C.,,.USDA-SCS, 1973.

Water Feasibility Study for Washington County, Moore-Gardner Associates,
Greensboro, August 1975.
201 Facilities Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Improvements,
Plymouth-Roper Facility Planning Area, Washington Co., N.C.
L. E. Wooten and Co., Raleigh, Feb. 1976.
Community Audits, DNER - Division of Community Assistance, Development
Section, 1976.
Washington County School Survey, 1972-73, Dept. of Public Instruction --
Division of School Planning, 1973.
Office of Business-Economic Research Service COBERS).
Series "E" population projections, 1980-2000,,,Dept, of Admin. SOP, 1975.
North Carolina Leisure Industries Manual-DNER-,Division of Commerce and
Industry (now Div. of Economic Development) 172.
CAMA Guidelines, Jan. 1.73,
S. D. O'Niell, Washington Co. School Superintendent., 1975.
1974 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts, Washington County, N. C.,
DOT-Division of Highways, Planning and Research Branch, 197S.
Moody's Bond Rating Service,

ix. PLymourH-wAsHrNGTcN COUNTY PLAN RELATIONSHIP

Both land use plans for the Town of Plymouth and Washington County (which

includes the towns of Roper and Creswell) were prepared by the same staff and

cizizensl Steering Committee to insure the greatest amount of agreement between

local objectives for the town and the county. This Committee consisted of

seven local residents from the.incorporated and unincorporated areas of the

county and met throughout 197S. Both the Planrlin Board for the Town of Ply-
r 9
mouth andthe Planning Board for the county met jointly to review the draft

plan and land classification maps prior to the first submission of the draft

plans in Novenber, 1975. The final plans for Plymouthand the county were

reviewed in a joint public hearing on May 7, 1976,by members of the Board of

County Comd.ssioners; and Plymouth Town Council.

X. APPENDIX

RESULTS OF ATTITUDE SURVEY IN PLYMOUITI

TAKEN MY, 1975

1. Where do you live? (check one)

237 "Town of Plymouth Skinnersville Township

Plymouth Township Town of Creswell

Town of Roper Scuppernong Township

Lee Mills Township

2. What is your occupation? (check one that best describes yourself)

Famer (24%)S8 White collar job (19%)45 Housewife

(22%)Sl Student (27%)63 Blue collar job (1@) 3 Retired

(5%)12 Unemployed Other (write in)

3. Is your home located on a lot larger than 20,000 square feet?
(apprQximately 1-, acre)

(28%) 67 Yes. (66%) 156 No

4. Do you have your own well?

30 Yes 167 No 50 1 am on city water

S. Do you have your own -individual septic tank?

Yes 170 No 4S I am on city sewer

6. Are you satisfied with the quality of water?

(80%) 189 Yes (19%) 44-No

7. Have you had any problems with your septic tank?

16 Yes 61 No 164 Not applicable - I am on city sewer

8. Do you feel that different. types of land uses such as residential,
comerical, and industrial should be . . .(check -one)

(63%) 150 A. Separated as much as possible,-or

(24%) 56 B. Allowed to-develop unrestricted.

72'

9. Do you feel that your neighborhood has adequate recreational facilities?

(24%) 56 Yes (76%) 179 No

If not, what type would you like to see developed? (fill in)

144 comments (61%)

10. Do you want additional residential growth in your community?

(56%)133 Yes (15%) 36 No (28%) 66 Not sure

11. Do you want additional industrial growth in your community?

(70%) 167 Yes (10%) 24 No (18%) 43 Not sure

12. Do you want additional commeercial growth in your community?

(70%) 167 Yes (7%) 16 No (21%) 50 Not sure

13. Are the roads and streets adequate in your neighborhood?

(46%) 109 Yes (48%) 114 No

if not, what are the major problem? (fill in)
98 comments (41%).

Do you feel that the county should strive to increase the health programs
and services?

(64%) 151 Yes (25%) 59 No
if yes, what types of programs and services? (fill in)

63 comments (27%)

15. Do you feel that the county should strive to increase educational programs
and services?

(85%) 202 Yes (10%) 23 No

16. Do you like your county and neighborhood as it is now?

(55%) 130 Yes (39%) 92 No

What do you want chaged? (fill in.)

100 comments
What should be protected or maintained? (42%)

17. Do you feel that air pollution is a problem in the area?
(50%) 119 Yes (39%) 92 No

18. Do you feel that water pollution or poor fishing is a problem in the area?

(41%) 96 Yes (50%) 118 No

19. Would you rather (19%)46 A. limit growth, or 58% 138 B. promote the
development of additional services such as public water and sewer systems
in areas where development could not take place without such services?

20. Would you be willing to pay for such water and sewer improvements?

(21%) 5O Yes- (27%) 63 No (42%) 99 Not sure

21. Below is a list of some services and functions provided by local government.
Please check or fill in those services or functions which need improvement:

(44%) 104 police (21%)49 hospital (50%) 118 garbage pick-up

(23%) 54 fire (6%) 14 library (23%) 54 historic preservation

(58%) 138 dog control (25%)60 public housing (27%) 65 building inspection

other (specify)

22. Additional comments. (attach separate sheet if necessar
44 comments (19%)
74

This re port was.financed in part by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the State of
North Carolina, and meets the requirements
of the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act of 1.974.

DATE DUE

GAY@LOD No. 2333 PRINTED 1N U.S.A.

3 6668 14108 3198