Back
Next | Back |
Next |
Introduction
The Carlotta/Hydesville Community Advisory Committee produced a planning questionnaire which was mailed to planning area residents on April 24, 1985. The questionnaire informs residents of the local community planning and zoning program and provides a means of early public input for the preparation of the Carlotta/Hydesville Community Plan.
About 650 questionnaires were mailed to households and businesses within the planning area and 163 (25%) were returned by May 6, 1985. This response rate is slightly above the average returns experienced by other community planning areas and implies a healthy interest in the community development process.
The questionnaire was designed and the results tabulated to present a profile of planning issues and concerns by community. For purposes of this report, Yaeger Creek served as the dividing line between the community of Carlotta (and the surrounding area including Riverside Acres) and the community of Hydesville (and the surrounding area including Starvation Flats and Wolverton Gulch).
Some respondents did not answer all questions; however, all questionnaires were tabulated, even if only partially completed.
Owner Occupancy
95% (156) of the respondents were homeowners.
Land Use: 151 respondents (77%) indicated the main use of their property was residential; 33 respondents (17%) indicated agriculture; 6 (3%) indicated commercial; 5 (2%) timber and 2 (1%) indicated other. 184 respondents (94%) categorized their property as either residential or agricultural.
Dwelling Type: Of those responding 81% (133) reside in conventional single family dwellings and 16% (26) reside in mobilehomes on individual lots or a total of 97% living in single family units.
Household Size: The average household size of those responding is 2.65 and closely approximates the 2.72 persons per occupied housing units found in the community of Hydesville as defined by the 1980 Census Enumeration District 518.
House-Builder: 21% (34) of the respondents were owner-builders.
Parcel-Size: 40% (62) of the respondents indicated their property was 1 acre or less; 37% (59) indicated their property was between 1.1 and 5.0 acres; 13% (21) indicated their property was between 5.1 and 20.0 acres and 10% (16) indicated their property was greater than 20 acres.
Neighborhood Character: 44% (93) of the respondents classified their neighborhood as rural residential - 48% in Carlotta and 41% in Hydesville; 20% (43) classified their neighborhood as urban, single family - 15% in Carlotta and 25% in Hydesville; 15% (3) classified their neighborhood as agricultural - 10% in Carlotta and 18% in Hydesville.
Land Use-Potential: 46% (73) respondents classified the future potential of their land as rural residential - 58% in Carlotta and 38% in Hydesville; 14% (22) classified the future potential of their land as agriculture.
Neighborhood Change: 57% (93) of the respondents indicated their neighborhood was changing with appreciably more respondents in Hydesville (65%) perceiving a change than in Carlotta (43%). 25% (40) favored change while 68% (111) did not want a change - only 7% (12) indicated no preference.
Types of Neighborhood Changes: The types of changes experienced in the various neighborhoods were ranked as follows:
1. Subdivision/more homes
2. More traffic
3. More noise
4. Improvements to housing
5. Loss of aesthetics
6. Loss of environmental values
7. Lack of home maintenance
8. More commercial development
Desired Change: The four (4) most desired changes in each of the community areas are ranked below:
Carlotta
1. Improved or new roads
2. Protection of environmental values
3. Bike lanes and pedestrian walkways
4. Water/Sewer improvement
Hydesville
1. Improved or new roads
2. Water/Sewer improvements
3. Subdivision/more homes
4. Protection of aesthetics
Overall the desired changes were ranked as follows:
1. Improved or new roads
2. Water/Sewer improvements
3. Protection of environmental values
4. Protection of aesthetics
5. Bike lane and pedestrian walkways
6. Subdivisions/more homes
7. Additional commercial uses
8. Other
9. Additional manufacturing/industrial uses
Opposed Change: Opposition to various types of development in the neighborhoods ranked as follows: 1 - Industrial, 2 - Commercial, 3 - Mobilehomes/Mobilehome parks, 4 - New Subdivisions, 5 - Public water/sewer expansions.
Home Occupations and Cottage Industries: Both these types of uses were generally supported (76% and 61% in favor, respectively) in the planning area, with Carlotta respondents slightly more supportive than those in Hydesville. Opinions on the necessity of a public hearing for home occupation was split (52% for a hearing, 48% opposed). The type of controls people felt should get the most attention in allowing home occupations and cottage industries ranked as follows:
1. Noise controls
2. Water and air pollution controls
3. Size and number of structures
4. No increased traffic
5. Parking restrictions
6. Sign restrictions
7. Number of employees
Public Service Evaluation: The quality of public services was rated and ranked in the descending order:
1. Schools
2. Utilities (phone, electrical, etc.)
3. Fire protection
4. Roads
5. Drainage
6. Sheriff
7. Garbage collection
8. Recreation facilities
9. Pedestrian walkways and bike paths
10. Public transportation
Water and Septic Disposal Systems: Respondents overwhelmingly indicated the adequacy of their water systems (95%) and septic disposal systems (98%).
Financing Capital Improvements: In Carlotta 78% of the 55 respondents indicated they would not financially support a public water system while in Hydesville 70% of the 82 respondents indicated they would not financially support a public sewer system.
Private Roads: Overall 49 respondents or 44% expressed an interest in sharing the expense of improving their private roadways. This interest was substantially greater in Carlotta (54%) than in Hydesville (36%).
Land Use Planning Criteria: Criteria were ranked in order of importance as follows:
1. Rural Character (retention of larger parcel sizes, etc.)
2. Water Quality
3. Agricultural Use
4. Natural Resource Protection
5. Public Services
6. Hillside Development (slope stability, erosion control)
7. Views
8. Timber Use
9. Potential for Development (subdivisions, land developments)
10. Commercial Development
|
Back | Title Page | Next
|