Many small coastal communities face the challenge of accommodating growth without pushing its high costs on residents. The Town of Bath, North Carolina is addressing its growth problems using the CAMA guidelines, state and federal funds and active citizen participation

Alford, Terry W.

Dowries, Dale

Woodworth, Sarah

Carolina Digital Repository

44 Carolina planningSuccessful Land Use Planning for Small Towns:A Case Study of Bath, North CarolinaTerry W. Alford Dale Dowries Sarah WoodworthPiiMany small coastal communities face the challenge of accommodating growth without pushing its high costs uon residents. The Town of Bath, North Carolina is addressing its growth problems using the CAMA guide- silines, state and federal funds and active citizen participation.Terry Alford is president ofPlanning and Design Asso-ciates in Raleigh, NorthCarolina. Dale Downes is agraduate student in Econom-ics at Georgia Tech Universityand a consultant with Plan-ning and Design Associatesin Atlanta. Sarah Wood-worth is a Master's candidatein the Department of Cityand Regional Planning atUNC-Chapel Hill, majoringin Housing and Real EstateDevelopment.IntroductionThroughout the Southeastern Atlantic Seaboard,thousands of small towns with aging populations,stagnant economies and limited financial resourcesare encountering increased pressure for recreationaldevelopment.The Town of Bath, North Carolina is one suchplace, and its experience with land use planning —prompted by a state land management act— providesa model for other towns in similar straits. Bath's ex-perience also demonstrates the benefits that canresult from partnerships among local, state andfederal governments and the private sector.North Carolina's Coastal Area Management ActIn 1974, concern about the negative impacts ofunconstrained development along the NorthCarolina coastline prompted the North CarolinaGeneral Assembly to pass the Coastal Area Manage-ment Act (CAMA). CAMA established a compre-hensive regional management program for 20 NorthCarolina counties. The Coastal Area ManagementAct is designed to accommodate both public andprivate interests concerning the coast. The act isintended to strike a balance between the use andpreservation of coastal resources.To insure "balanced" development, the CAMAprocess includes state designation and regulation ofenvironmental areas, as well as specific guidelinesfor the creation and maintenance of coastal arealand use plans. The Coastal Area Management Actprovides a structure that guarantees particular issuesare addressed in planning for future land use.The act requires a partnership between the stateand local government. Beyond the structuralguidelines, a local government is responsible forestablishing and maintaining a balanced growthpolicy. Each town must consider the opportunitiesand constraints associated with development.Therefore, CAMA affords local governments a greatdeal of autonomy in planning for future land use.,;The partnership results in a tailored land use planthat fulfills the needs of the local government andthe greater coastal area.Larger towns and cities of the coastal area havebeen able to muster resources to minimize thenegative externalities associated with increasedcoastal development. However, smaller towns, whilefacing similar development pressures, have fewerresources available to fund mitigative measures.Without creative planning and professional support,small towns are often unable to expand their eco-nomic base without compromising the environment.The director of the North Carolina Departmentof Coastal Area Management in the North CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources and CommunityDevelopment highlighted the future problems in1985:la-Winter, 1986, vol. 12, no. 2 45This program's greatest challenge in its next10 years will be addressing these more dif-ficult, but perhaps more important problemswhere the management needs are less clearand the solutions considerably more complex.One such topic is the protection of the coastalwater quality. . .It will require better treatmentof increasing levels of wastewater in areaswhere septic tanks are marginally suitable andlarge public treatment systems are financiallybeyond reach.The CAMA structure forces local governments toaddress these important issues, as it dictates that aparticular process be followed in creating a land useplan. This paper illustrates how vital the processitself is to accomplishing a creative and effective landuse plan. To demonstrate, the experience of onesmall coastal town facing development pressures willbe analyzed.The Town of Bath has been successful in turningidentified needs and objectives into action andresults. Since the early 1980s, town leaders haveworked with CAMA officials to devise ways tostretch their resources to help the municipality dealwith development pressures. CAMA guidelines gaveBath a place to start in the evaluation of present andfuture land use. The process revealed to the Townparticular needs, and the identification of the needsbecame objectives. Public participation, CAMAsupervision, and professional assistance moved ob-jectives to accomplishment.Bath's land use planning does not simply lay outgeneral land use guidelines. The Town has taken anactive role in preparing for future coordinateddevelopment. With the assistance of consultants, theTown created a land use policy that regulates andaccommodates inevitable development. The BathLand Use Plan and its 1986 update set policies thatregulate development. For example, the develop-ment of an alternative wastewater treatment systemaccommodates development yet controls negativeexternalities.Bath's success demonstrates: 1) how a small townwith very limited resources can devise a way toachieve something if it has vision, desire, and somehelp; and 2) how a local government that takes theplanning process seriously can decide to implementit and make it work. The local government must bewilling to the effort.Bath's experience reveals a variety of lessons aboutplanning for small coastal towns. The most elemen-tary (yet often forgotten) is that the land use processHistoric Bathserves as a vehicle for action. The extent to whicha small town can take action to mitigate excessdevelopment depends mainly on the resolve of thetown. With local participation, CAMA guidanceand professional assistance a small coastal town caninitiate measures that have a profound impact onfuture development.The Town of BathThe Town of Bath played an important role in theearly history of the state. Located at the confluenceof Bath Creek and Back Creek on Pamlico Sound,the town's harbor served as a port of entry to mostof the state in the 1700s. It was the site of severalhistoric events, including the state's first GeneralAssembly and visits by the pirate Blackbeard.Blackbeard's visits are commemorated in an outdoordrama performed for tourists every summer.The town has an estimated population of 267.After several decades of population decline, thetown has been growing at an estimated 3.75 percentannually since 1980. Significantly, between 1970 and1980 the elderly population of the town doubledfrom 21 percent of the total population to 42.8 per-cent. Tourism is the largest contributor to theeconomy of the town and the local high school isthe single largest employer (70 employees).40 Carolina planningCAMA-mandatedland use planI tt&m'--•**-.».Wastewater Treatment PlantRecent growth, coupled with environmentallimitations such as flood prone areas, points ofexcessive erosion, and limitations of soil for septictank use, have made careful land use planning andimplementation critical.The first CAMA-mandated land use plan for theTown of Bath was completed in 1977 in conjunctionwith the Beaufort County Land Use Plan. The Townof Bath Planning Board adpoted a Land Develop-ment Plan in 1977 and a companion Zoning Or-dinance in 1979, which included an Historic DistrictOrdinance. In 1980, the town decided to do its ownland use plan, and in 1981 the town adopted its firstlocally drafted CAMA Land Use Plan. Bath is nowcompleting its mandated 5-year update of that plan.The Town Board of Commisssioners has identifiedseveral concerns that are typical of many of its sistercities in the Southeast Atlantic Seaboard:• how to promote farming, attract light industry,and stimulate business and local employment;• how to continue improving the water systemand treat wastewater to provide better service totownspeople and allow for future development;• how to guide and encourage development ofpermanent second homes and other recreationalprojects in the area without harming the town'snatural and historic qualities;• how to maximize citizen involvement in theplanning process.WastewaterOf those concerns, wastewater treatment was con-sidered one of the most pressing. The town hashistorically relied solely on septic tanks. But soildrainage makes septic tanks impractical on a broadbasis. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the townwas already detecting increased coliform bacterialevels in its groundwater. Although the actual sourceof the bacteria was unknown, the problemhighlighted the limitation imposed by wastewatertreatment on the town's potential for development.In 1982, CAMA established a demonstrationgrant fund. Because of Bath's strongly stated com-mitment to protect its water, and because the towntypified many small coastal towns, CAMA provid-ed the town with demonstration project funds to hireconsultants to develop an alternative wastewatertreatment system.The Town of Bath enlisted the assistance of a plan-ning consultant to propose alternatives and to ex-amine the potential for additional funds beyond thetown's revenues. Bath had already concluded thata conventional centralized wastewater treatmentplant would be too expensive (an estimated $1.2million). So the consultant embarked on a study todevelop a plan for a small, alternative wastewatersystem that would be easily adaptable to othercoastal area communities.Since increasing development of the town was animportant issue with its citizens, and since any treat-ment system would entail increased taxes, the TownBoard of Commissioners and the consultant agreedfrom the start that any planning should involvemaximum communication with the public.First, a survey was conducted. That survey in-dicated that half of the town's 186 septic tanks werein marginal or inadequate condition. Bath HighSchool had occasionally been forced to close earlyto avoid overloading the septic tanks.To the consultants surveying the situation, theproblem required taking a larger view of Bath'sfuture:The challenge of Bath, as with many smallcoastal communities, is to accommodate thediscrepancy between individuals' inability topay and community goals of growth and im-proved quality of life. The challenge for thePlanning Board and its consultant is, there-fore, to identify commercial developmentopportunities within the target area thatwould reduce individual residential hook-upWinter, 1986, vol. 12, no. 2 47charges, while achieving community growthgoals. That is, can new income-generating pro-jects be developed as a means of financing asignificant proportion of the total hook-upcosts?Working towards that end, in the fall of 1982 theTown and the consultants organized a public meet-ing to discuss growth and development possibilities.All property owners, town officials, and other keyindividuals were mailed invitations and the meetingwas publicized in the local newspapers. Over 30community residents attended. The consensus fromthe meeting was that the cost of implementing a cen-tralized wastewater treatment system would beborne by new businesses or development, ratherthan by existing businesses or homeowners.Consultants studied a variety of funding sources:Fanners Home Administration (FmHA) CommunityFacilities Program; federal Community Develop-ment Block Grants (CDBG); the North CarolinaClean Water Bond Act of 1977; and the CAMA Im-plementation Demonstration program. The con-sultants concluded that the most feasible optionswere some combination of funding from FmHA, theClean Water Bond Act, and Town of Bath GeneralObligation bonds.Since the town had a median income below thenational poverty level, and since the existing treat-ment system was a health hazard, the town waseligible for both loans and grants from FmHA forup to 75 percent of the total project costs, excludingmaintenance and hook-up costs.During this period, engineering studies wereunderway to determine the most feasible treatmentsystem. Since the FmHA required that its funds beused for a community-wide system, the engineer-ing consultant was able to rule out the possibilityof a treatment system for a selected area of the town,one of the options considered at the start of thestudy. Several areas were identified as being suitablefor a community-wide septic field. The engineerthen prepared cost analyses for several possibletreatment systems.During the course of 1983-84, the town securedseveral funding commitments: from the FmHA fora $217,000 loan and a $419,000 grant; from theNorth Carolina Division of Environmental Manage-ment for a $90,641 grant from the 1977 Clean WaterBond Act; and from the North Carolina GeneralAssembly for a $70,000 grant. The grants and loan,1 however, were contingent on Bath's citizens' approv-ing a $228,000 bond referendum scheduled forDecember 4, 1984.For the bond referendum, the town officials andconsultants focused on explaining to the citizenswhat the wastewater treatment system entailed, andthe costs involved. The consultants analyzedhousehold water usage in developing a sliding costscale that minimized cost impact to low-incomehouseholds.Under that scale, the typical family could expectto pay about $20 per month for both water (whichthe Town was already providing to residents) andsewage services. A brochure detailing the system andits costs was mailed to all property owners and keyindividuals.On election day, 71 percent of Bath voters turnedout to pass the referendum by a 102 to 21 margin.Construction of the system started in the spring of1986 and is to be completed in early 1987. Thesystem is designed to accommodate the Town'sdoubling in size, or handle 1995 projected growth.Coastal Bath48 Carolina planningenvironmental andcultural protectionmaintaining a balanceLessons from BathSeveral important political and technical lessonswere learned from this project:1. Bath's success demonstrates that small townscan elicit monies from several sources to fund criticalcapital improvements.2. Maximum citizen participation in the planningprocess can be successfully completed and imple-mented, and indeed probably offers better hope forsuccess than planning conducted by technocratsbehind closed doors. In Bath, citizens were provid-ed with numerous opportunities to participate in theplanning process.Aggressive efforts to obtain citizen input areprobably even more important in small towns thanin large ones. Residents of small towns are more like-ly to be aware of what is happening in their townand to vocalize their concerns. Planners shouldtherefore provide opportunities for open dialogueand attempt to channel citizens' suggestions towardsresolving planning problems.3. Bath's success shows the potential for joint stategovernment/local government /federal government/private sector ventures, where all have a stake in theoutcome.4. Local governments covered by CAMA learn animportant lesson in land use planning. For Bath,much of the information that was inherent in mak-ing a decision about wastewater treatment hadalready been collected and digested by citizens, sothe town was comfortable going through the processof determining its direction on wastewater. Othercoastal towns that have also gone through theCAMA planning process should find the experienceeasier each time around.5. From a technical standpoint, the consultantsexamined the legal constraints of developing awastewater system before focusing on technicalissues. This expedited the process. Occasionally,there is too much of a tendency to focus on technicalissues, only to find out that legal constraints makethem irrelevant.6. During the public discussion of the project, theconsultants focused on both the need and demandfor the system. This is an important distinction.Need was defined as existing and potential septictank system failure. Demand was defined as the will-ingness of economic forces in the marketplace toallocate money for improved wastewater treatment.Drawing this distinction defines the most feasibleavenues to pursue financing.7. Finally, the experience pointed out the impor-tance of studying the restrictions of financingsources early in the process. In the case of Bath, anearlier examination of FmHA regulations wouldhave eliminated the necessity of consideringwastewater treatment systems for limited areas ofthe town since the FmHA finances only community-wide programs.Bath Land Use UpdateThe 5-year update of the Town's Land Use Planis based on a household survey conducted by thePlanning Board and consultants in 1986. It reflectsthe high priority the Town placed on public input.The citizens of Bath and its planning jurisdictionconsidered five issues to be of primary concern:pollution of creeks and rivers from farmland waterrun-off; phosphate mining operation along andwithin the Pamlico River; pollution of creeks andrivers by industry; protection of cultural andhistorical areas; and protection of commercialfishing.The Planning Board is adapting these goals to itsstatement of policy objectives:1. Encourage residential and small business devel-opment within town boundaries;2. Promote the agriculture and fishing industries;3. Where development requires the expansion ofcommunity services, discourage (a) private marinas,(b) water access for sailboats only, and (c) subdivi-sion development wherein the town provides all thefacilities, and require the developer to assume thefinancial responsibility.In many ways, the development of a community-wide wastewater treatment system represented theculmination of citizens' concerns over the future oftheir town. However, continued and widespread in-terest in land use planning indicates that maintain-ing a balance between environmental and culturalprotection and economic development will requirefine-tuning.The success of Bath offers hope for similar townsin North Carolina and throughout the nation. Bath'ssuccess provides inspiration to planners that athoughtful planning process can produce effectiveresults.

Successful Land Use Planning for Small Towns: A Case Study of Bath, North Carolina

http://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/2v23vw10b

Successful Land Use Planning for Small Towns: A Case Study of Bath, North Carolina

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Carolina Digital Repository