THE LINKS
The following are excerpts that were obtained from the Carmel Planning Board Files regarding the limited number of homes that can be developed in the proposed Links SubdivisionExcerpt Number One:
From: Frank Fish, Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc,
Consultant
To: Southeast Planning Board dated July 14, 1995
Subject: Review of Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and the design drawings for
Centennial Golf Links
...There is a large out parcel retained by Duke & Benedict in the Town of Carmel. At the Board’s June 19th meeting you expressed concern over the development potential of this piece. We have now investigated the constraints on development. Over 50% of the site is wetland and the remaining land is severely constrained by steep slopes. Although the zoning might allow 20-25 homes, access via Kelly Road would certainly be an issue in Carmel. We feel the more likely potential is an extended driveway from Kelly Road providing access to 3-4 homes.
Excerpt Number Two:
RESPONSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMNT TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING OF DECEMBER 6, 1995
Comment 1 of John Butler
What would be the potential environmental impact of a development of the proposed Lot 1 assuming potential waivers of zoning for this property?
Response to Comment 1 of John Butler
It was assumed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that the potential development capacity of Lot 1 is limited to eight single family residential lots. This capacity estimate was derived from a consideration of not only zoning and subdivision requirements but, more importantly, the physical limitations of the land. The principal limiting factors to the development of Lot 1 are steep slopes and extensive wetlands. Zoning factors to the development consist of use factors (ie, use limited to the development of single family lots) and dimensional factors (ie, minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft, minimum frontage of 200 ft, etc.). A subdivision regulation limiting the length of dead-end streets to 2,000 feet ( a basic public safety consideration) further limits the development capacity of this lot, given that there will exist only one feasible means of access to it (ie, an extension of Kelly Road). Accordingly, the estimated development capacity of this lot, as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, is based not only on current regulatory restrictions but also on a consideration of basic development feasibility and practicality and represents a reasonable estimate for assessment purposes. As a matter of sound planning and impact assessment, one should not and cannot disregard existing regulatory restrictions in defining potential land uses. One cannot begin to assume what could be developed on a site if any and all regulatory restrictions are waived. It should be noted that if and when Lot 1 is to be resubdivided or developed, the proposal to do so will be subject to the review and approval of the planning board. It will be considered on its own merits following public review and comment.
Notwithstanding the above, it has been suggested that a 20 percent slope (a limitation considered in the analysis of development potential presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) should not be considered preclusive of development and that the 2,000-ft dead-end street length limitation may be exceeded in certain situations. Under a worst case scenario at this site development can be assumed to be practical on slopes up to 25 percent in pitch. If it is also assumed that the dead-end street length limitation is waived, then under the worst case scenario a total of 18 single-family houses lots can be developed on proposed Lot#1. This estimate is derived by assuming lot sizes of 40,000 sq. ft and a 75 percent lotting efficiency. As a total of eight lots were anticipated in the analyses presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, this worst case scenario increases the assessed lot count by ten.
...Comment 2 of John Butler
Is there a possibility of having the "easement" to Lot 1 eliminated from the plans?
Response to Comment 2 of John Butler
The "easement" to Lot 1 is not an easement; rather it is part of the Lot. The purpose of this portion of the lot is to allow for a feasible access from Kelly Road. The applicant is entitled to include within the boundaries of a proposed lot any area of the site it so chooses, including this 50 ft wide access strip. Prior to any development of the anticipated eight residential lots on said Lot 1, the proponent of that development will be required to obtain subdivision approval from the planning board. During the review of such a subdivision, the planning board will consider alternative means of accessing the lots.
The submitted application contemplates the subdivision of the property into 6 lots, ranging in size from 1.4 acres to 293.9 acres. Within the Town of Carmel, two of the lots to be created by subdivision (Tract 1b and Tract2) would not be used for the golf course, and no other use is clearly advanced for them. Tract 1b, compromised of some 88.8 acres is a bizarrely-shaped parcel, which appears to have been provided access from the rear of Tract 1A in the Town of Southeast and from the extension of the existing Kelly Road (Note: Kelly Ridge Road) in Carmel. Tract 2 appears to be a very large wetland and also has a note on it saying "Subject to Utility Easements." It is not known what utility easements these are, or where they would be located, but it is difficult to imagine that the entire 26.7 acre parcel has no subdivision potential.
Carmel’s subdivision regulations require that, even though the project may not be completed at once or is to be filed in phases
"Where new lots will be of a size that could enable future, resubdivision, the Planning Board may require that such lots be arranged so as to allow further subdivision and the opening of future streets where they would be necessary to serve such potential lots. In such cases, the Planning Board may require a sketch layout showing such future resubdivision of the entire parcel under consideration."
Thus, although these parcels may not be conveyed to the present applicant (Note: Centennial Golf is now the owner and applicant) and their development is not contemplated as part of the application, their future usability must be demonstrated. I recommend that the application be processed no further until the plans for these two parcels are provided.
Another issue linked to the re-subdividable parcels is the cumulative effects that their development could add, to be measured and disclosed in the environmental assessment.
Excerpt Number Four:
From: Paul
Buckhurst, Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc.
To: Frank Fish, Consultant for Town of Southeast Planning
Board, dated July 7, 1995
Subject: Proposed Centennial Golf Course Potential Issues and Suggestions for Procedural
Review
Job: Centennial Golf Properties
This memo provides a preliminary review of the proposed site plan with particular reference to Tract 1B (Note: proposed cluster development site) as noted in Drawing CO-1 dated April 25, 1995.