44successfullanduse.pdf

A

Case Study

of Bath,

North

Carolina

Terry

W.

Alford

Dale

Dowries

Sarah

Woodworth

P

ii

Many

smallcoastalcommunitiesface the challenge of

accommodating growth

withoutpushingitshighcosts u

on

residents.

The

Town

ofBath,

North

Carolina isaddressingits

growth

problemsusing the

CAMA

guide- si

lines, state

and

federal funds

and

active citizen participation.

TerryAlfordispresident of Planningand Design

Asso-ciates in Raleigh, North

Carolina.DaleDownesisa graduate studentin

Econom-icsatGeorgiaTech University

anda consultantwith Plan-ning andDesignAssociates

in Atlanta. Sarah

Wood-worthisaMaster's candidate

in the Department of City

and Regional Planning at

UNC-ChapelHill,majoring

in HousingandReal Estate

Development.

Introduction

Throughout

theSoutheasternAtlanticSeaboard,

thousandsofsmall

towns

with agingpopulations,

stagnant

economies and

limited financial resources areencounteringincreased pressure for recreational

development.

The

Town

of Bath,

North

Carolina is

one

such

place,

and

itsexperiencewith land use planning

—

prompted by

astateland

management

act

—

provides

a

model

forother

towns

insimilarstraits. Bath's

ex-perience also demonstrates the benefits that can

result

from

partnerships

among

local, state

and

federal

governments

and

the private sector.

North

Carolina's Coastal

Area

Management

Act

In 1974, concern about the negative impacts of

unconstrained

development

along the

North

Carolina coastline

prompted

the

North

Carolina

General

Assembly

topasstheCoastal

Area

Manage-ment

Act

(CAMA).

CAMA

established a

compre-hensive regional

management

program

for20

North

Carolina counties.

The

Coastal

Area

Management

Act is designed to

accommodate

both public

and

private interests concerning the coast.

The

act is intended to strike a balance

between

the use

and

preservation of coastal resources.

To

insure "balanced" development, the

CAMA

process includesstatedesignation

and

regulation of

environmental areas, as well as specific guidelines

for the creation

and

maintenance of coastal area

landuse plans.

The

Coastal

Area

Management

Act provides astructure thatguaranteesparticularissues

are addressed in planning for future land use.

The

actrequires a partnership

between

thestate

and

local government.

Beyond

the structural guidelines, a local

government

is responsible for

establishing

and

maintaining a balanced growth

policy.

Each

town must

consider the opportunities

and

constraints associated with development.

Therefore,

CAMA

affordslocalgovernmentsagreat

deal of

autonomy

in planningfor future landuse.,;

The

partnership results ina tailored landuse plan

that fulfillsthe needs of thelocal

government

and

the greater coastal area.

Larger

towns

and

cities of the coastal area have

been able to muster resources to minimize the

negative externalities associated with increased coastaldevelopment. However,smaller towns, while

facing similar

development

pressures, have fewer resources available to fund mitigative measures.

Without

creativeplanning

and

professionalsupport,

small

towns

are often unable to

expand

their

eco-nomic

basewithout

compromising

the environment.

The

directorofthe

North

Carolina Department

ofCoastal

Area

Management

inthe

North

Carolina

Department

ofNatural Resources

and

Community

Development

highlighted the future problems in

1985:

la-This program'sgreatestchallengeinitsnext

10 years will be addressing these

more

dif-ficult, butperhaps

more

important problems

where

the

management

needs are less clear

and

thesolutions considerably

more

complex.

One

suchtopicistheprotection of thecoastal

waterquality. . .Itwillrequirebettertreatment

of increasing levels of wastewater in areas

where

septictanks aremarginallysuitable

and

largepublictreatmentsystemsare financially

beyond

reach.

The

CAMA

structure forces localgovernmentsto

address theseimportantissues, asitdictatesthat a

particularprocessbe followedincreating a land use plan. This paper illustrates

how

vital the process

itself istoaccomplishing acreative

and

effectiveland

use plan.

To

demonstrate, the experience of

one

smallcoastal

town

facingdevelopmentpressureswill

be analyzed.

The

Town

of Bath has beensuccessful in turning

identified needs

and

objectives into action

and

results. Since the early 1980s,

town

leaders have

worked

with

CAMA

officials to devise

ways

to

stretch theirresourcestohelp themunicipality deal

withdevelopmentpressures.

CAMA

guidelinesgave Batha placeto start inthe evaluation of present

and

futureland use.

The

process revealed to the

Town

particularneeds,

and

the identificationof theneeds

became

objectives. Public participation,

CAMA

supervision,

and

professional assistance

moved

ob-jectives to accomplishment.

Bath'slanduse planning does not simplylayout

generalland useguidelines.

The

Town

has takenan

active role in preparing for future coordinated development.

With

the assistance of consultants, the

Town

created a landuse policy that regulates

and

accommodates

inevitable development.

The

Bath

Land Use

Plan

and

its1986 updatesetpolicies that

regulate development. For example, the

develop-ment

ofanalternativewastewatertreatmentsystem

accommodates development

yet controls negative

externalities.

Bath'ssuccessdemonstrates: 1)

how

asmall

town

with very limited resources can devise a

way

to

achievesomethingif ithasvision, desire,

and

some

help;

and

2)

how

alocal

government

thattakes the

planningprocess seriouslycandecideto implement

it

and

make

itwork.

The

local

government

must

be

willing to the effort.

Bath'sexperiencerevealsavariety of lessonsabout planningforsmallcoastaltowns.

The most

elemen-tary(yetoften forgotten)isthattheland use process

HistoricBath

serves as a vehicle foraction.

The

extent to

which

a small

town

can take action to mitigate excess

development depends

mainly

on

the resolveof the

town.

With

local participation,

CAMA

guidance

and

professionalassistancea smallcoastal

town

can

initiatemeasures that have a

profound

impact

on

future development.

The

Town

of Bath

The

Town

ofBath played an importantrole inthe

early history ofthestate.Locatedattheconfluence

ofBath

Creek

and Back Creek on

PamlicoSound,

thetown'sharbor servedasa port of entryto

most

of the state in the 1700s. It

was

the site of several historic events, including the state's first General

Assembly

and

visits

by

the pirate Blackbeard.

Blackbeard'svisitsare

commemorated

inan outdoor

drama

performed

for tourists every

summer.

The

town

has an estimated population of 267. After several decades of population decline, the

town

hasbeen

growing

at

an

estimated 3.75 percent

annuallysince1980. Significantly,between 1970

and

1980 the elderly population of the

town

doubled

from

21percent of thetotalpopulationto42.8

per-cent.

Tourism

is the largest contributor to the

economy

of the

town and

the local high school is

CAMA-mandated

land use plan

I _tt&m

'-- •**-.»

Wastewater TreatmentPlant

Recent growth, coupled with environmental

limitations such as flood

prone

areas, points of excessive erosion,

and

limitations ofsoil for septic

tankuse, have

made

careful land use planning

and

implementation critical.

The

first

CAMA-mandated

landuseplanforthe

Town

ofBath

was

completedin1977inconjunction withtheBeaufort

County Land Use

Plan.

The

Town

of BathPlanning

Board

adpoted a

Land

Develop-ment

Plan in 1977

and

a

companion Zoning

Or-dinancein1979,

which

includedanHistoricDistrict

Ordinance. In1980, the

town

decidedto

do

its

own

landuse plan,

and

in1981the

town

adopteditsfirst

locallydrafted

CAM

A

Land

Use

Plan.Bathis

now

completingits

mandated

5-yearupdateofthatplan.

The

Town

Board

of

Commisssioners

hasidentified

severalconcernsthat are typicalof

many

ofitssister cities in the Southeast Atlantic Seaboard:

•

how

to

promote

farming, attractlightindustry,

and

stimulate business

and

local

employment;

•

_how

to continue improving the water system

and

treat wastewater to provide better service to

townspeople

and

allow for future development;

•

how

to guide

and

encourage

development

of

permanent

second

homes

and

other recreational

projects in the area without

harming

the town's natural

and

historic qualities;

•

_how

to

maximize

citizen involvement in the

planning process.

Wastewater

Of

those concerns, wastewatertreatment

was

con-sidered

one

of the

most

pressing.

The

town

has

historically relied solely

on

septic tanks. But soil drainage

makes

septictanksimpractical

on

abroad

basis.

By

the late1970s

and

early 1980s, the town

was

already detecting increased coliform bacteria levelsinitsgroundwater.

Although

theactual source

of the bacteria

was

unknown,

the problem

highlighted the limitation

imposed

by

wastewater treatment

on

thetown's potential fordevelopment.

In 1982,

CAMA

established a demonstration

grant fund. BecauseofBath's strongly stated

com-mitment

toprotectitswater,

and

becausethetown

typified

many

small coastaltowns,

CAMA

provid-edthe

town

with demonstrationprojectfundstohire

consultants to develop

an

alternative wastewater treatment system.

The

Town

ofBathenlistedtheassistanceofa

plan-ning consultant to propose alternatives

and

to

ex-amine

thepotential foradditionalfunds

beyond

the

town's revenues. Bath

had

already concluded that

a conventional centralized wastewater treatment plant

would

be too expensive (an estimated $1.2 million).

So

theconsultant

embarked on

astudyto

develop a plan for a small, alternativewastewater system that

would

be easily adaptable to other coastal area communities.

Since increasing

development

of the

town was

an

importantissuewithitscitizens,

and

sinceany

treat-ment

system

would

entailincreasedtaxes, the

Town

Board

of

Commissioners

and

the consultant agreed

from

the start that

any

planning should involve

maximum

communication

with the public.

First, a survey

was

conducted.

That

survey

in-dicatedthathalfof thetown's186septictankswere

in marginal or inadequate condition. Bath High School

had

occasionallybeen forcedtocloseearly to avoid overloading the septic tanks.

To

the consultants surveying the situation, the

problem

required taking a larger

view

of Bath's

future:

The

challenge of Bath, as with

many

small coastal communities, is to

accommodate

the

discrepancy

between

individuals'inability to

pay and

community

goals of

growth

and

im-proved quality of life.

The

challengefor the

Planning

Board and

its consultant is, there-fore, to identify commercial development

opportunities within the target area that

charges, while achieving

community

growth

goals. That is,can

new

income-generating

pro-jectsbe developedas a

means

of financing a

significant proportion of the total

hook-up

costs?

Working

towardsthatend, inthefallof1982the

Town

and

the consultantsorganized apublic

meet-ingtodiscuss

growth

and

development possibilities.

Allproperty owners,

town

officials,

and

otherkey

individualswere mailedinvitations

and

themeeting

was

publicized in the local newspapers.

Over

30

community

residentsattended.

The

consensus

from

themeeting

was

thatthecostofimplementinga cen-tralized wastewater treatment system

would

be

borne

by

new

businesses or development, rather

than

by

existing businesses or

homeowners.

Consultantsstudieda variety offundingsources:

Fanners

Home

Administration

(FmHA) Community

Facilities Program; federal

Community

Develop-ment

Block Grants

(CDBG);

the

North

Carolina CleanWater

Bond

Actof1977;

and

the

CAMA

Im-plementation

Demonstration

program.

The

con-sultants concluded that the

most

feasible options were

some

combinationoffunding

from

FmHA,

the

Clean

Water

Bond

Act,

and

Town

ofBath General Obligation bonds.

Since the

town had

a

median income below

the nationalpoverty level,

and

sincethe existing

treat-ment

system

was

a health hazard, the

town

was

eligibleforboth loans

and

grants

from

FmHA

for

up

to75 percent of thetotalprojectcosts, excluding

maintenance

and hook-up

costs.

During

this period, engineering studies

were

underway

todeterminethe

most

feasibletreatment

system. Since the

FmHA

required that itsfundsbe used for a

community-wide

system, the engineer-ing consultant

was

able to ruleout the possibility ofa treatmentsystemforaselectedarea ofthetown,

one

of the options considered at the start of the

study. Severalareaswereidentifiedasbeingsuitable

for a

community-wide

septic field.

The

engineer

then prepared cost analyses for several possible

treatment systems.

During

thecourse of 1983-84, the

town

secured

severalfunding

commitments:

from

the

FmHA

for

a $217,000 loan

and

a $419,000 grant;

from

the

North

Carolina DivisionofEnvironmental

Manage-ment

fora$90,641 grant

from

the1977 Clean

Water

Bond

Act;

and from

the

North

Carolina General

Assembly

fora$70,000grant.

The

grants

and

loan,

1however, werecontingent

on

Bath'scitizens'

approv-ing a $228,000

bond

referendum scheduled for

December

4, 1984.

For the

bond

referendum, the

town

officials

and

consultants focused

on

explaining to the citizens

what

thewastewatertreatment systementailed,

and

the costs involved.

The

consultants analyzed household water usageindevelopinga sliding cost scale that

minimized

cost impact to

low-income

households.

Under

thatscale, thetypical familycouldexpect

to

pay

about$20per

month

forboth water (which

the

Town

was

already providing to residents)

and

sewageservices.

A

brochuredetailingthesystem

and

itscosts

was

mailedtoall property

owners

and

key

individuals.

On

election day, 71 percent ofBathvotersturned out to pass thereferendum

by

a 102to 21 margin. Construction ofthesystemstarted inthe spring of

1986

and

is to be completed in early 1987.

The

system is designed to

accommodate

the Town's doublinginsize, orhandle1995projectedgrowth.

environmental

and

cultural protection

maintaining a balance

Lessons

from

Bath

Several importantpolitical

and

technical lessons

were

learned

from

this project:

1. Bath's successdemonstrates that small

towns

canelicitmonies

from

severalsourcestofundcritical capital improvements.

2.

Maximum

citizenparticipationintheplanning

process can be successfully completed

and

imple-mented,

and

indeedprobablyoffersbetter

hope

for success than planning conducted

by

technocrats

behindclosed doors. InBath,citizens

were

provid-ed with

numerous

opportunitiestoparticipate inthe

planning process.

Aggressive efforts to obtain citizen input are

probably even

more

importantinsmall

towns

than

inlargeones.Residents of smalltownsare

more

like-ly tobe

aware

of

what

is

happening

in their

town

and

to vocalize their concerns. Planners should

thereforeprovide opportunities for

open

dialogue

and

attempt tochannelcitizens'suggestionstowards

resolving planning problems.

3. Bath'ssuccess

shows

thepotential for joint state

government/local

government

/federal

government/

privatesectorventures,

where

allhaveastakeinthe

outcome.

4.Localgovernments covered

by

CAMA

learnan important lesson in land use planning. For Bath,

much

oftheinformationthat

was

inherent in

mak-ing a decision about wastewater treatment

had

alreadybeen collected

and

digested

by

citizens, so

the

town was

comfortable going throughtheprocess

of determining its direction

on

wastewater.

Other

coastal

towns

that have also

gone

through the

CAMA

planningprocessshouldfind theexperience

easier each time around.

5.

From

a technical standpoint, the consultants

examined

the legal constraints of developing a

wastewater system before focusing

on

technical issues. This expedited the process. Occasionally, thereistoo

much

of atendencytofocus

on

technical issues, onlyto find outthat legal constraints

make

them

irrelevant.

6.

During

the public discussion of theproject, the

consultantsfocused

on

boththeneed

and

demand

for the system. This is an important distinction.

Need

was

defined as existing

and

potential septic

tanksystemfailure.

Demand

was

definedasthe

will-ingness of

economic

forces in the marketplace to allocate

money

for

improved

wastewatertreatment.

Drawing

this distinctiondefines the

most

feasible

avenues to pursuefinancing.

7. Finally, theexperiencepointed out the impor-tance of studying the restrictions of financing sources earlyin the process. Inthe caseof Bath, an

earlier examination of

FmHA

regulations

would

have eliminated the necessity of considering

wastewater treatment systems for limited areas of

the

town

sincethe

FmHA

financesonly

community-wide

programs.

Bath

Land Use Update

The

5-year update of theTown's

Land Use

Plan

is based

on

a household survey conducted

by

the

Planning

Board and

consultantsin 1986. Itreflects

thehighpriority the

Town

placed

on

public input.

The

citizens of Bath

and

its planning jurisdiction

considered five issues to be of

primary

concern: pollution of creeks

and

rivers

from

farmlandwater

run-off; phosphate

mining

operation along and within thePamlico River; pollution of creeks and

rivers

by

industry; protection of cultural and

historical areas;

and

protection of commercial

fishing.

The

Planning

Board

isadaptingthese goalstoits

statement of policy objectives:

1. Encourageresidential

and

small business

devel-opment

within

town

boundaries;

2.

Promote

the agriculture

and

fishing industries;

3.

Where

development

requirestheexpansionof

community

services, discourage(a)privatemarinas,

(b)wateraccessforsailboatsonly,

and

(c)

subdivi-sion

development

whereinthe

town

providesallthe

facilities,

and

require the developer to

assume

the financial responsibility.

In

many

ways, the

development

ofa

community-wide

wastewater treatment system representedthe

culminationofcitizens'concerns overthe futureof theirtown.

However,

continued

and

widespread

in-terest inlanduse planningindicatesthat maintain-ing abalance

between

environmental

and

cultural

protection

and economic development

will require

fine-tuning.

The

success ofBathoffers

hope

for similar towns

in

North

Carolina

and

throughoutthe nation. Bath's

success provides inspiration to planners that a