1 INTRODUCTION

The Carmel Town Board retained Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. (BFJ) to assist with an update of the Comprehensive Plan. This update builds upon the foundations set by the previous plan of 1980 and the original Town Master Plan of 1957. It is intended seek a balance of environmental forethought with reasonable development policies to guide the Town’s land use into the initial stages of the 21st Century.

1.1 Planning Basis

The development of this plan was initiated at the same time as the Croton Plan, a County-wide planning effort with goals to improve water quality to the standards of the New York City Watershed Rules and Regulations, and to protect the character and meet the needs of the communities in the watershed. A separate report prepared on behalf of the Town will be supplied to the County and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) will address water quality as required by the guiding policy found in the Memorandum of Agreement. This separate document has been used in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and may be reference for detailed background information.

The Plan is general in nature, examining demographic and potential long-range impacts. The Comprehensive Plan contains an inventory of existing conditions in the community, followed by a future land use plan to serve decision making on physical development. These elements are the Town’s historical and regional context, population characteristics, environment, transportation and community facilities. The features of each of the elements are integrated into the concept Comprehensive Plan and an implementation chapter concludes the overall Comprehensive Plan.

1.2 Citizen Based Planning

The Comprehensive Plan of will only be effective if it reflects the values and desires of the community it serves. To measure the community’s vision for the future of the Town, two public workshops were conducted. This allowed citizens to express their concerns, goals and recommendations at critical points in the planning process.

The first workshop introduced the planning concepts and program to the public. Participants contributed their vision of the future of the Town. At the second workshop, a concept land use plan and background report was presented with participants working in breakout groups toward consensus on the most significant issues.

1.3 Goals and Objectives

This plan is guided by the goals that were formulated during the workshops, Town Board meetings and public meetings. The goals are desired outcomes of the most significant land use issues facing the Town in the next ten years. The goals found in 8.1 have guided the Plan’s development.

2 HISTORICAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT

Carmel is 35.8 square miles in size and lies in south central Putnam County (see Figure 1). The Town, with its two hamlets, Mahopac and Carmel, has the largest population of all the towns in the County despite ranking third in overall area. It is approximately 60 miles north of New York City. Planning for the region is coordinated by the Putnam County Planning Department, however, no county or regional plan is in effect.

The Town of Carmel, one of eight municipalities within the County is almost entirely within the watershed. The Croton Watershed encompasses approximately three-quarters of Putnam County and portions of Dutchess and Westchester Counties. In total the Croton System, based on the Croton River, in made up of 13 reservoirs, 3 controlled lakes. The System serves New York City with ten percent of its normal water needs. Of the 22,937 acres within Town boundaries, over 20,000 acres or 91%, are Croton Watershed lands.

Carmel is bisected on a northeast to southwest diagonal by New York State Route 6. This two-lane highway is the only significant arterial road providing access to nearby Interstate Highways 84 and 684 located to the north and east. The Taconic State Parkway to the west grazes only a portion of the northwest corner of the Town. New York State Routes 6N, 52 and 301 provide arterial road access within the Town. Putnam Valley borders the Town to the west, Kent to the north, Patterson and Southeast to the east and Yorktown, Somers and North Salem within Westchester County to the South.

There are two reservoirs serving New York City within the Town; West Branch and Croton Falls. Many other water bodies are scattered throughout the Town, making for an attractive residential location. Lake Mahopac provides a focal point for the Mahopac hamlet as does Lake Gleneida for the Carmel hamlet.

2.1 History

Between 1600 and 1750, Native Americans began to encounter European travelers and settlers in the region. The early travelers called the natives Wappingers, thought to have meant "easterners" inferring east of the Hudson River. In southern New York and Connecticut as many as 13,500 Wappinger lived in small settlements and villages on the many rivers and waterways within the region. By the middle of the 1700’s, less than 1,000 native people were present, largely reduced by the introduction of European diseases.

Early European settlers squatted on forests and later received unofficial patents to the lands from natives. In 1697, one such patent was sold from squatters to Adolph Philipse, a merchant from New York City. Philipse soon after negotiated a deed with local natives. The deed recognized land along the Hudson River and as far east as the Connecticut border. In the early eighteenth century, Wappingers continued to settle on lands they considered not to be part of the Philipse land claim. They established farms and even rented land to other new European settlers.

Figure 2.1, Regional Setting

Adolph Philipse, on his death, left the land to his nephew Frederick. Frederick handed down the land to three of his family members, Philip, Mary and Susannah. Mary later married Roger Morris and Susannah married Beverly Robinson. To accommodate fair distribution among the siblings, the patent was divided into nine segments, three fronting the Hudson River, three along the Connecticut border and three long lots running north to south in the middle. Many of these boundaries are evident in the present day borders of towns in the County.

The Wappingers lost their land during the French and Indian War when many of the men left the area for Canada to fight for the English. In an attempt to reclaim 204,800 acres in the area of their land, they had filed a claim against Philipse, Morris and Robinson.

At the time, however, the laws forbid Indians from testifying in support of their claim, allowing the land patent to stand. Any further hope for their claim was lost when Chief Nimham and many of his tribesmen were killed by Loyalists while fighting for the Americans during the Revolution.

After the war, much of the land in the Philipse deed was taken over by the State of New York and given to the tenant farmers settled in the area. This helped to further establish the community and resolve long running rent disputes with tenant farmers. By 1795 a significant settlement had established itself as the Town of Carmel with Timothy Carver as the first Supervisor and John Crane as the Town Clerk. In 1812, the Town became the County Seat after the Southern Precinct of Dutchess County was split off to become Putnam County. In 1814 the courthouse was built at its present day location on Route 6.

In the late 1800’s, the City of New York claimed property in Putnam County for the construction of water supply reservoirs. Farms and families were moved to make way for the City’s drinking water supply. In Mahopac, after many of the buildings were burned, the business district was moved up in the present day town hall vicinity.

Despite the land disruptions, the economy prospered as the 1800’s came to an end. Mines supplied iron ore, stone and granite for the industries in the region. The area had also become a leisure destination with many hotel resorts along the shore of Lake Mahopac. The hotels continued until the middle of the 20th century, but declined in popularity and upkeep. Many of the hotels burned, with only one hotel building intact today.

The modern day Town of Carmel has largely become a residential community, with comparatively less industrial or office development. The Town is a bedroom community to neighboring employment centers including the Cities of White Plains and Danbury. The proximity to employment and rural character has been attractive to young households in their family building years.

3 DEMOGRAPHICS

The Town of Carmel has experienced significant population growth in the last several decades to become the most populous municipality within Putnam County.

3.1 Population

In 1930, the Town was similar in population size to Philipstown and Southeast with 3,434 people. The growth of all towns in the 1940’s and 1950’s, with the exception of Brewster, continued the increasing settlement of the County. The most significant change occurred between the years 1960 and 1970 where the population grew from 9,113 to 21,639, representing a staggering 137% increase. Population for the beginning of each decade since 1930 and up to 1990, and for 1996, is depicted below (see Table 3.1).

TABLE 3.1

Putnam County Population Change, 1930 to 1996

Town* 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1996 Est.

Carmel 3,434 4,195 5,458 9,113 21,639 27,948 28,816 31,027

Kent 770 1,546 2,146 3,924 8,106 12,433 13,183 14,594

Patterson 1,196 1,328 2,075 2,853 4,124 7,247 8,679 9,473

Philipstown 3,982 4,246 4,332 5,918 7,717 9,155 9,242 10,018

Putnam Valley 859 1,187 1,908 3,070 5,209 8,994 9,094 9,489

Southeast 3,505 4,053 4,388 6,844 9,901 11,416 14,927 16,382

Putnam County 13,746 16,555 20,307 31,722 56,696 77,193 83,941 90,983

Source: Putnam County Planning Department, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

*Villages of Brewster, Cold Spring and Nelsonville are included in overall town figures.

Through the 1980’s and into the present decade, growth rates have been much less dramatic; 3.1% from 1980 to 1990 and 7.7% from 1990 to 1996. This is comparatively lower than the growth rate for the County during the same time periods; 8.7% and 8.4%. Population change for the County and towns are shown in Table 3.2, below.

Table 3.2

Putnam County Population Change (Percent), 1930 to 1996

Town* ‘30 to ‘40 ‘40 to ‘50 ‘50 to ‘60 ‘60 to ‘70 ‘70 to ‘80 ‘80 to ‘90 ‘90 to '96

Carmel 22.2 30.1 67.0 137.5 29.2 3.1 7.7

Kent 100.8 38.8 82.9 106.6 53.4 6.0 10.7

Patterson 11.0 56.3 37.5 44.5 75.7 19.8 9.1

Philipstown 6.6 2.0 36.6 30.4 18.6 1.0 8.4

Putnam Valley 38.2 60.7 60.9 69.7 72.7 1.1 4.3

Southeast 15.6 8.3 56.0 44.7 15.3 30.8 9.7

Putnam County 20.4 22.7 56.2 78.7 36.2 8.7 8.4

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

*Villages of Brewster, Cold Spring and Nelsonville are included in overall town figures.

In 1990, nearly 98 percent of Town residents were white persons, with about one percent Asian and nearly one percent Black. These ratios are similar to the County’s overall ethnic makeup with about 97 percent white. Ethnic makeup of the Town and County are depicted below in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3

Town of Carmel Population by Ethnic Group, 1990

White Black Native Asian Other Total

Carmel 28,189 205 33 270 119 28,816

% of Total 97.82 0.71 0.11 0.94 0.41 100.0

Putnam County 81,686 694 103 919 539 83,941

% of Total 97.31 0.83 0.12 1.09 0.64 100

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

In 1990, the median income, representing the mid-point value, of all households in Carmel was $58,204, with an average income slightly higher at $64,750. These figures are higher than the median or average household income levels within the County; $53,634 and $61,042, respectively.

As reflected in Table 3.4, very few households in the Town or the County are within a low income level of $14,999 or less. Just over four percent of the households in Carmel are within this income range. In aggregate numbers, 325 households earn less than $15,000 in Carmel and 976 are within this range for the whole of the County. Proportionately, the 325 households represent approximately 33 percent of the 976 households throughout the County, which is again proportional to Carmel retaining 35 percent of the total number of households in the County. Middle income earning households in the $35,000 to $100,000 range represent nearly 70 percent of all households in the Town.

Table 3.4

Household Income by Range, 1990

Town of Carmel Putnam County

Households % of Total Households % of Total

Less than $5,000 81 1.0 216 1.0

$5,000 to $9,999 94 1.2 328 1.5

$10,000 to $14,999 150 1.9 432 1.9

$15,000 to $24,999 293 3.7 1097 4.9

$25,000 to $34,999 633 8.1 2076 9.2

$35,000 to 49,999 1407 17.9 4400 19.5

$50,000 to $74,999 2497 31.8 7051 31.2

$75,000 to $99,999 1450 18.5 3850 17.0

$100,000 to $149,999 914 11.6 2396 10.6

$150,000 and over 340 4.3 767 3.4

Total Households 7859 100.0 22613 100.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

The relatively high household income within the Town can be attributed to the high employment rate and type of employment. The County as a whole enjoyed a 3.3 percent unemployment rate in 1990 and 2.6 percent in 1998. A significant proportion of manufacturing, business, finance and education occupations appear to contribute to the above average household income levels. These four general occupation categories make up approximately 40 percent of the employment types in the Town. Health, transportation and communications, and general professionals have a significant number of employees, 24 percent. As Table 3.5 depicts, it would appear that there is no one type of occupation that dominates the employees in the Town. Retail occupations have a significant portion of the workforce and, with generally lower incomes levels in the occupation type, may serve to moderate-income levels.

Table 3.5

Comparatively, the workforce in the Town is similar to that of the State as a whole (see Table 3.6). While the Town has 14% of its workforce employed in manufacturing, 15% of the State is employed in the same field. Likewise 16% of the Town are retail workers which is closely matched to the State’s 15%. The pie chart also reflects the Town’s workforce patterns where there is no disproportionate occupation type.

Table 3.6

3.2 Age

In the 1980 to 1990 time period, the average age of the Town has risen by 3.6 years to 33.5. While the Town has aged slightly, the population is relatively young, with only 2,227 people over the age of sixty-five. The Town is largely representative of a suburban community with many households in their family buildings years. This is evident from the increase in children from infant to four years of age and the bulk of the population, 40 percent, in the 30 to 54 years of age range in 1990. This age group represents the baby-boom generation born after World War II.

Table 3.7

Town of Carmel

Population Characteristics 1980 to 1990

1980 1990 Absolute Percent

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Change Change

0-4 984 958 1,942 1,079 994 2,073 131 6.7

5-14 2,906 2,620 5,526 2,088 1,960 4,048 -1,478 -26.7

15-17 1,065 974 2,039 716 647 1,363 -676 -33.2

18-19 503 468 971 444 363 807 -164 -16.9

20-21 368 360 728 419 383 802 74 10.1

22-24 516 508 1,024 625 617 1,242 218 21.3

24-29 819 974 1,793 1,140 1,141 2,281 488 27.2

30-34 1,160 1,271 2,431 1,229 1,273 2,502 71 2.9

35-34 2,193 2,304 4,497 2,491 2,542 5,033 536 11.9

45-54 1,618 1,438 3,056 1,961 2,015 3,976 920 30.1

55-59 506 497 1,003 730 659 1,389 386 38.5

60-64 360 408 768 538 513 1,051 283 36.8

65-74 561 778 1,339 575 680 1,255 -84 -6.3

75-84 256 413 669 287 499 786 117 17.5

85+ 54 108 162 53 133 186 24 14.8

Total 13,869 14,079 27,948 14,397 14,419 28,816 868 3.1

Median 29.9 33.5

Source: U.S. Census 1990, Putnam County Division of Planning and Development.

3.3 Population Projection

The Town had a 1990 population of 28,816 and an estimated 1996 population of 31,027. Population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census have been used for Carmel for the 1991 to 1996 years and for Putnam County from 1991 to 1998 since population counts were not available. In the 1990 to 1996 period, Carmel’s population grew by 7.4 percent for an average annual rate of 1.2 percent. Putnam County in the eight year time period grew by 10.7 percent, averaging 1.8 percent annually.

Table 3.8

Population Change, 1990 to 1998

Average

1990 Est. '91 Est. '92 Est. '93 Est. '94 Est. '95 Est. '96 Est. '97 Est. '98 % Change

Carmel 28,816 29,168 29,541 30,012 30,380 30,750 31,027 n/a n/a

% Change 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.9 n/a n/a 1.2

Putnam Co. 83,941 85,505 86,882 88,047 89,063 90,138 90,983 92,382 93,358

% Change 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.1 1.8

Source: Putnam County Planning Department, U.S. Bureau of Census, 1999.

Table 3.8 depicts an average growth rate of approximately 1.2% for the 1990 to 1996 time period. This growth rate has been used to project the current estimated year 2000 population of 32,000. The Town will have the ability to verify this estimate when the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) publishes its estimates at the end of 2000. U.S. Census data should be available in 2001.

From the current year, a projection to the year 2010 has been made assuming a slightly lower growth average; approximately 0.8% annually. This growth rate is based on three assumptions; (1) the recommendations of this plan to "upzone" remaining undeveloped land will be implemented, (2) NYC DEP regulations will continue to regulated development, and (3) development opportunities will be slightly reduced because remaining vacant land has more development constraints. As a result of these assumptions, this plan projects a 2010 population for Carmel of 35,000 and a 7.5 percent overall growth rate.

The increase of approximately 2,500 people would, on average mean an approximate increase of 250 people per year. Using the 1990 average household size of 3.08 people per household (Source: 1990 U.S Census), this could translate into approximately 80 households per year. Building permits for single family homes in 1999 were reported at 149. The population assumptions would see a slowing of this activity to rates more consistent with the early 1990’s (see Table 4.5).

4 LAND USE

4.1 Existing Land Use

According to Putnam County Planning Department records, Carmel has become increasingly more residential. From 1968 to 1991, the Town has gained over 2,900 acres of residential development, representing a near 67% increase. A portion of the development can be attributed to residential expansion on vacant or undeveloped land. The majority of residential land, however, was previously forest area. The loss of over 2,200 acres of forestland can only be attributed to the 2,900 acres of newly created residential development. The new residential settlement has largely been outside of the Mahopac and Carmel hamlet areas where land has been available. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2 depict the land use for 1968 and 1991, respectively.

Likewise, commercial development has shown a marked increase during the same time period. Over 400 acres of commercial development has been developed since 1968, a near 240% increase. Largely, the settlement pattern has been concentrated in strip development complexes along State Routes 6 and 52. Although the aggregate commercial land has dramatically increased, commercial land represents only 2.4% of the total land area, up from 0.7 % in 1968.

Public land was the only other land use to increase in the 1968 to 1991 time period. The Town and other agencies added over one hundred acres of public land representing three percent of the overall land area.

The most dramatic decline in land use type in the 1968 to 1991 time period has been forestland. Over 2,200 acres were lost, declining from nearly 60 to 50 percent in overall land area. Over 300 acres of agricultural land has also been lost to the point where it represents only 0.5 percent of the overall land use in 1991 from 1.7 percent in 1968. Industrial lands represent the smallest overall land use type in the Town at 0.1 percent. This figure is down from 0.2 percent in 1968.

In 1999, the Town of Carmel Industrial Development Agency issued an analysis of industrial land; The IL District Study. The study revealed that 1,188 acres of land are industrially zoned, but only 332 acres contain industrial developments. The vacant industrial land was reported to be 855 acres. The report made note that some existing sites contain wetlands and severe slopes, limiting the overall development potential. An evaluation of individual parcels would be required to determine developable areas. The report suggested that a great deal more industrial land than the 33 acres, depicted by the County’s data, is used for industrial purposes.

Table 4.2

Carmel Land Use by Type, 1968 to 1991

1968 (acres) % of Total 1991 (acres) % of Total Change

'68-'91 %

Agricultural 441 1.7 128 0.5 -313 -71.0

Residential 4,344 16.7 7,246 27.8 2,902 66.8

Commercial 184 0.7 622 2.4 438 238.0

Industrial 55 0.2 33 0.1 -22 -40.0

Public Land 676 2.6 783 3.0 107 15.8

Undeveloped 901 3.5 118 0.5 -783 -86.9

Forest 15,263 58.6 13,059 50.1 -2,204 -14.4

Wetland 4,196 16.1 4,070 15.6 -126 -3.0

Total 26,060 100.0 26,059 100.0

Source: Putnam County Planning Department, LUNR 1968, 1991.

The land use changes that the Town has witnessed are similar to changes throughout the County. Generally, residential development has increased at a dramatic rate, 86.6 percent, in the 1968 to 1991 time period, while all other land use types have declined (see Figure 4.3 below). Commercial development was the only other land use that experienced an increase, representing only a small portion of overall development. Importantly, forest and wetlands still represent a sizable amount of land use within the County.

The most significant decline in land use throughout the County has been with forested lands. Nearly 7,000 acres have been lost through the 1968 to 1991 time period. In relation to the aggregate forest area, however, only 6.4 percent of the forest has declined. More significant may be the loss of agricultural land marked by a 52 percent reduction and over 2,500 acres lost. Only 1.2 percent of undeveloped land was available in 1991, representing a loss of 49 percent from 1968. Significantly, however, only 656 acres of wetlands were lost in the 23-year study period, accounting for a respectable 12 percent of overall land use in 1991. The summary of land use for the County can be found in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4

Putnam County Land Use by Type, 1968 to 1991

1968 (acres) % of Total 1991 (acres) % of Total Change

'68-'91 %

Agricultural 4,889 3.1 2,343 1.5 -2,546 -52.1

Residential 13,377 8.5 24,967 15.9 11,590 86.6

Commercial 911 0.6 2,028 1.3 1,117 122.6

Industrial 394 0.3 300 0.2 -94 -23.9

Public Land 6,593 4.2 5,941 3.8 -652 -9.9

Undeveloped 3,608 2.3 1,838 1.2 -1,770 -49.1

Forest 108,620 69.0 101,632 64.6 -6,988 -6.4

Wetland 19,032 12.1 18,376 11.7 -656 -3.4

Total 157424 100.0 157425 100.0

Source: Putnam County Planning Department, LUNR 1968, 1991.

Continued growth in both the Town of Carmel and Putnam County can be expected to continue based on the previous growth. Through the 1990’s, the Town has added nearly 900 single family dwelling units as reported in Table 4.5 below. During the reported time period, Carmel has consistently added on average over 30% (for comparable years) of the single family residential supply within the County even though it contains only 15% of the land area.

Table 4.5

Single Family Building Permits 1990-1999

YEAR

Building Permits 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Carmel 60 78 88 92 105 75 72 79 99 149

Putnam Co. 490 204 238 183 257 178 184 189 484 N/A

% in Carmel 12% 38% 37% 50% 41% 42% 39% 42% 20% N/A

Source: Putnam County Planning Department and Town of Carmel Building Department, 1999.

The Town is predominantly single family residential with a total 10,152 housing structures in 1990. The housing stock is relatively new; 6,271 dwellings, representing over sixty percent, were constructed after 1960 (see Table 4.6). The majority are owner occupied with only 14 percent, or 1,442 households, occupied by renters.

Table 4.6

Housing Construction 1939 to 1990

Construction Years Houses Built

1980 to March of 1990 1,573

1970 to 979 1,978

1960 to 1969 2,720

1950 to 1959 1,573

1940 to 1949 799

Before 1939 1,509

Total 10,152

Source: U.S. Census, 1990

The developed land use in Carmel is largely single family residential. By subtracting the industrial and developed residential lands from the undeveloped, forested and agricultural lands, an estimate of single family development can be made. The following table (Table 4.7) depicts the developable land as of 1991.

4.2 Development Potential

Table 4.7

1991 Development Potential

1991 Developable Land Use Acres

Agricultural 128

Undeveloped 118

Forest 13,059

Total 13,305

Vacant zoned industrial land, as noted in the 1997 IL District Study was 885 acres. Developed residential since 1991 included 837 single family dwellings as referenced in Table 4.5. Single family residential development typically requires 1.75 to 2 acres per lot since the new lots are largely in R-60 (60,000 square feet minimum lot area) zones and take into account roads and environmental constraints. In fact, recently approved subdivisions in the R-60 and R-60/40 zones for which data was available averaged 2.3 acres per lot (see Table 4.8).

Table 4.8

Subdivision Lot Size Comparison

Subdivision Name Acres Approved Lots Acres per Lot

Lakeview at Hill Farm 172 48 3.6

Reservoir Estates 21 11 1.9

Levine 55 18 3.1

Kirkwood Estates 45 17 2.6

Laurel Hill 26 10 2.6

Carmel MacGregor 133 215 0.6

Shenandoah Estates 36 14 2.6

The Links 281 100 2.8

Michaels Glen 29 24 1.2

21.0

Average Lot Size 2.3

Source: Carmel Planning Board, 1999.

With this, the total developed residential acreage is assumed to be approximately 1,550 acres. As shown below in Table 4.9, the total available vacant land for residential purposes has be interpolated to be 10,870 acres.

Table 4.9

Residential Land Potential, 2000

1991 Vacant Land (from Table 4.6) 13,305

Vacant Industrial Land - 885

Developed Residential Land - 1,550

Total 10,870

The development potential can be estimated using the calculation of vacant land in Table 4.9. Some of the remaining developable land in the Town is characterized by several environmental constraints including steep slopes and wetland. In addition, subdivided land will require roads, accounting for approximately 20 percent of land area. For the discussion purposes here, 30 percent of vacant land is assumed to be used for conservation of slopes and wetlands and road construction or design inefficiencies.

In Table 4.9, 10,870 acres of vacant residential land were reported. By subtracting the area that will not be developed due to slopes, wetlands and design (30%), the net developable acreage is approximately 7,600 acres. As the R-60 density (minimum lot area of 60,000 square feet) allows for today, the present potential development is approximately 5,000 development lots.

5 ENVIRONMENT

The Town of Carmel enjoys a wide variety of terrain, offering diverse plants, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Each environmental component is interrelated and co-dependent for successive regeneration. As human interaction with nature continues to extend further from urban areas, respect for the environment should be given suitable regard. The four significant components in Carmel, slopes, surface water, soils, and ground water, require individual and collective consideration in land use decisions.

5.1 Slopes

The Town contains a significant amount of slopes that are over 15% in grade. These areas, as shown in Figure 5.1, are considered unsuitable for intensive development for several reasons:

? Construction in these areas is difficult and expensive.

? Putnam County does not permit sub-surface sewage treatment systems (septic systems) on slopes greater than 15%.

? Roads should not exceed a 10% grade whenever possible, a 12% grade should be a practical maximum.

? Clearing of vegetation for development on these steep slopes would cause increases in the rate and volume of surface runoff and soil erosion resulting in septic system failure.

5.2 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Floodplains

The lakes and rivers in Carmel have attracted people for many years. Lake Mahopac, Kirk Lake, Secor Lake, and Lake Gleneida had previously been a focus for resorts and cottagers earlier in the 20th Century. The Croton Falls and West Branch reservoirs add to the natural environment. Additionally, the streams and rivers feeding the lakes and reservoirs, including the West Branch Croton River, Muscoot River, Plum Brook, St. Michaels Brook contribute to the rural surroundings.

The area along these streams, especially in the lowland zone, is characterized by extensive wetlands, swamps, and marshes, as well as by areas that are susceptible to flooding. The 100-year flood plains and wetlands, as generally delineated in Figure 5.1, are considered to be unsuitable for development for several reasons:

Figure 5.1 Slopes, Waterbodies and Wetlands

? Areas that are prone to flooding represent a life and property hazard.

? Wetlands reduce the danger of flooding downstream by acting as natural detention basins during peak runoff periods and the biological activity in wetlands helps to maintain water quality by absorbing excess nutrients.

? Wetlands play a vital role in the ecosystem by providing habitat for various wildlife and flora.

Wetlands over 12.4 acres in size are mapped and protected by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Any construction activity that might impact these wetlands (excavation, filling, building, obstructions, potential pollution sources, etc.) is regulated, whether or not the activities occur on the wetland itself or on land adjacent to the wetland.

5.3 Soils

The Town’s soils are generally characterized by Chartlon-Chatfield and Paxton-Woodbridge soil types. These soils formed in glacial till from granite, schist, gneiss and were deposited in various depths throughout the area. The soil types are generally well drained and are relatively deep to bedrock.

Depth to bedrock and soil permeability are significant in terms of development and land use. Shallow soils with rock at or near the surface and/or impervious soils represent a development constraint for the following reasons:

? Construction costs for buildings and roads can increase sharply if rock excavation is required.

? Installation of on-site waste disposal systems such as septic tanks may be difficult or impossible in shallow soils.

? Soils that are essentially impervious are unsuitable for surface drainage systems and septic systems as well.

5.4 Groundwater Resources

Of the 22,937 acres in Carmel, approximately 20,000, or 91 percent, are within the Croton Watershed. This watershed contains five reservoirs that supply New York City with about 10 percent of its water needs. During drought situations, the reservoirs in the system can deliver up to 30 percent of the City’s water needs. Two of the five reservoirs, Croton Falls and West Branch, are within the borders of the Town enveloping over 2,000 acres. Additionally, three lakes within the Town’s borders, Gilead, Gleneida and Kirk, are "controlled" by the City, where no buildings or septic systems are allowed within 300 feet of the waterbody. Figure 5.3, below, depicts the Croton Watershed area.

Figure 5.3

Croton Watershed

While the Town is the host of the Croton Falls and West Branch reservoirs, no water resources are drawn from these basins for its residents. There are a number of public and private water supply systems that serve residents.

Groundwater cannot be taken for granted, however. It is susceptible to contamination and requires replenishment. Contamination can take place from septic fields or industrial spills. All well fields, especially those public or community wells serving a number of households, should be protected by a minimum 100-foot buffer. Likewise, any possible uses that could contaminate the groundwater should be sited to minimize any potential negative and harmful effects.

The groundwater is replenished from rain that percolates through the soil into the ground, and from recharge areas, such as wetlands. Both wetlands and the soil serve to filter the water and make it safe for drinking when it is pumped back to the surface. The quality of the environment on the surface, therefore, affects the quality of the water beneath the surface. Paved areas near recharge areas should be kept to a minimum to allow water to seep into the ground. Additionally, wetlands should be protected to allow water to collect and percolate beneath the surface.

6 TRANSPORTATION

The Town’s transportation network is designed to allow vehicles to move within the town and to locations beyond by way of local streets, county and state highways. Ideally, each of these components should complement the others. However, due to the suburban residential development patterns, the family car has become the preferred mode of transportation. This chapter describes the Town of Carmel’s transportation system, notes existing deficiencies and recommends improvements in critical areas.

6.1 Functional Classification of Roadway System

To optimize the efficiency of the road network, transportation planners typically assign streets and highways to a specific functional class based on the purpose a particular road is planned to serve. The functional classifications are major arterials, minor arterials, collector streets and local streets. Figure 6.1 depicts the road classifications.

Arterials:

The primary purpose of arterials is to provide for traffic movement between the Town of Carmel and surrounding towns.

All four state routes within the Town of Carmel are arterials and they dominate the road network of the Town of Carmel. The routes are 6, 6N, 52 and 301. All of these are one lane roads in each direction with street parking allowed in hamlet areas, including angled parking on Route 6N in Mahopac. In many rural communities, these arterials also serve as local access. The traffic movements in and out of the commercial driveways hamper the traffic flow efficiency and safety.

County Maintained Arterials and Collectors

The county maintains 32 miles of roadway within the Town of Carmel. These roads serve as minor arterials and collectors carrying traffic to the arterial state routes. The County roads are:

? Secor Road (CR 30)

? Hill St / Long Pond Rd / Crane Rd (CR 32)

? West Lake / North Lake Bvld. (CR 33)

? Croton Falls Road (CR 34)

? Stoneleigh Avenue (CR 35)

? Drewville Road (CR 36)

? Baldwin Place Road (CR 37)

? West Shore Drive (CR 38)

? Gipsy Trail Road (CR 41)

? Hill & Dale Road (CR 44)

? Simpson Road (CR 57)

? Fair Street (CR 60)

? Myrtle Ave (CR 71)

? East Lake Boulevard (CR 72)

Figure 6.1 Road Classifications

Collectors

Collector streets bring traffic from local streets to the arterial streets. They are normally designed to handle heavier traffic volumes than local streets, but are not designed for traffic volumes as heavy as those on arterial routes. Collector streets in the Town of Carmel are:

? Archer Road

? Union Valley Road

? Seminary Hill Road

? Hughson Road

? Dixon Road

Local Streets

Local streets provide direct access to the properties located along them. All streets in the Town of Carmel that are not listed in the above categories are local streets.

6.2 Traffic Volumes

Traffic volumes are collected by highway authorities to estimate maintenance schedules. They give some indication of existing conditions. A detailed study of peak hour traffic volumes and capacities is necessary to fully understand the level of service of a particular roadway. Figure 6.2 details the Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for segments of state and county roads in the Town of Carmel. As the map indicates, daily volumes are heaviest on State Routes 6, 6N and 52. The intersection of Route 6 and 6N and the intersection of Route 6 and Mount Hope Road experience the heaviest peak hour volumes.

6.3 Vehicle Crash Data

The New York State Department of Transportation compiles vehicle crash records for state highways, county highways and local streets. BFJ summarized the crash data for the most recent three-year period available (October 1995 through September 1998) by location and severity (fatal, injury or property damage only). Figure 6.3 indicates the locations of crashes within the Town of Carmel. Table 6.1 provides the intersections with the greatest number of crashes. Not surprisingly, the roads with the highest volumes experienced the greatest number of accidents.

Figure 6.2 Traffic Volumes

Figure 6.3 Highest Accident Locations

Table 6.1 High Intersection* Crash Locations (October 1995 - September 1998)

Map No.

Location

At

Fatal

Injury Property Damage Only Total Reportable

1 Route 6 Church St. 0 14 10 24

2 Route 6 Mt Hope Rd. 0 6 11 17

3 Route 6 JCT. 6N 0 9 7 16

4 Route 6 Baldwin Pl. 0 8 6 14

5 Route 6 NY 118& Kenard Rd. 0 5 6 11

6 Route 6 Miller Rd. 0 7 3 10

7 Route 6 Croton Falls Rd. (CR. 34) 0 5 4 9

8 Route 6 Stoneleigh Rd. (CR. 35) 0 2 6 8

9 Route 6 Bucks Hollow Rd. 0 5 3 8

10 Agor Ln. Lake Secor Rd. (CR. 30) 0 7 1 8

11 Route 6N Lake Secor Rd. (CR. 30) 0 4 3 7

12 Route 301 Belden Rd. 0 5 2 7

13 Route 6 Clark Pl. 0 3 3 6

14 Route 52 Fair St. (CR. 60) 0 3 3 6

15 Fair St. (CR. 60) Vink Dr. 0 4 2 6

16 Route 6 Union Valley Rd. 0 5 1 6

*Crashes in this table occurred within 33 feet of the named intersection.

Two fatal accidents occurred over the three-year period. One occurred at the intersection of Route 6 and Pond Road. The other occurred at the intersection of Route 6 and Corlandt Road.

Underscoring the data above, the Carmel Police Department noted that the following corridors represent traffic safety hazards: Route 6, Route 6N, Route 52, Croton Falls Road and Secor Road. The police department indicated that speed and traffic congestion are the primary causes of vehicle crashes in the Town of Carmel.

6.4 Roadway Issues and Recommendations

Significant population growth over the past several decades combined with recent commercial growth has led to increased traffic congestion particularly on the major arterials of the Town of Carmel. As the traffic volume data, crash data and citizen input indicate, primary areas of concern are congestion and circulation in the two hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel and congestion along Route 6. This section focuses on possible improvements for these critical areas.

Route 6 / Route 6N / Mount Hope Road

The intersections of Route 6 with Route 6N and with Mount Hope Road in the hamlet of Mahopac are critical areas for improvement. As discussed above, Route 6 serves not only as the primary route between the Town of Carmel and surrounding towns, but also as the primary route for travel between the hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel. Average Daily Traffic volumes on Route 6 are greater than on any other road in town. Peak hour volumes at the intersection of Route 6 and 6N and the intersection of Route 6 and Mount Hope Road are greater than those at any other intersection along Route 6. Traffic volumes at Route 6 and Mount Hope Road exceed 2300 vehicles in both the AM and PM peak hours. Queues from northbound vehicles at Route 6 and Mount Hope Road often extend south into the intersection of Route 6 and Route 6N exacerbating the congestion at that intersection. In addition to the heavy traffic volumes, the intersections of Route 6 with 6N and Mount Hope Road rank among the highest intersection crash locations in the Town of Carmel.

Solutions to the traffic and safety problems in this area are limited due to the small amount of land available in the area and the proximity of Lake Mahopac. The New York State Department of Transportation is currently conducting a study of the Route 6 and Route 6N Corridors and will make specific recommendations for improvements to these intersections as well as other points along these corridors. While the results of this study will allow for more detailed recommendations, we have developed the following alternative solutions:

1. Upgrade and Synchronize Signalization: Upgrading and synchronizing the signalization at the intersection of Route 6 and 6N and the intersection of Route 6 and Mount Hope Road will improve the efficiency of these intersections allowing a greater volume of vehicles to pass through the intersection during the peak hour.

2. Install Modern Roundabouts: The installation of modern roundabouts at both of these intersections would decrease vehicle delay, and increase intersection capacity. Small, modern roundabouts are particularly appropriate to intersections that 1) experience a high number of accidents; 2) have high delays; and 3) where it is difficult or expensive to widen the approaches sufficiently to provide the approach width needed.

3. Widen Route 6: Widening Route 6 would allow for greater capacity at these intersections. Two through lanes in each direction at Route 6 and Mount Hope Road could potentially solve congestion at this intersection and alleviate current congestion at Route 6 and 6N. In order to achieve this, an additional right of way would need to be purchased from adjacent property owners.

4. One way minor collectors: The Town Engineer has also recommended that Mt. Hope Road and East Lake Boulevard could be converted to one way routes; Mt. Hope Road would be one-way south from Route 6 and East Lake Boulevard would be one-way north from Route 6 to the intersection of East Lake Boulevard. The implementing of the one way alternative would eliminate the need for a traffic light at the intersection.

Route 6 / Route 52 / Church Street

In the hamlet of Carmel, the intersection of Route 6 with Route 52 (Gleneida Avenue) and the adjacent intersection of Route 6 and Church Street have heavy traffic volumes. The highest number of intersection crashes in the Town occurs at the eastern intersection of Church Street and Route 6. The signalization should be upgraded at these intersections and a detailed analysis of the safety hazards and visibility should be conducted.

Route 52 / Fair Street (CR 60)/ Route 301

The intersection of Route 52 with Fair Street (CR 60) and with Route 301 in the hamlet of Carmel also has heavy traffic volumes and safety concerns. These intersections are in close proximity, but are not aligned. Route 52 runs north-south with Route 301 meeting it from the west in a T-intersection and Fair Street (CR 60) meeting Route 52 in a T-intersection from the east immediately north of 301. This area contains several commercial buildings, a county office building, a nearby church and school. In addition, it is to be the site of the new county courthouse and a new professional office building. The signals at this intersection should also be upgraded and synchronized. In addition, a parking study should be conducted to determine if the on-street parking should be shifted to off-street municipal parking either in underutilized portions of the county’s parking lot or in a future off-street parking area. The elimination of on-street parking, particularly on Route 52 north of Fair Street would allow for greater visibility, reduced conflicts between parking cars and traffic flow on Route 52 and would result in an increase in capacity. Municipal off-street parking should be encouraged rather than individual on-site parking, because of the greater efficiencies associated with shared parking. Opportunities for off-street parking may further be available as plans for a new County courthouse are developed. Additional parking spaces are anticipated to accommodate existing parking conditions in the present year. A site drive connecting the courthouse to Route 6, east of the intersection with Route 52, is one possibility that could present various traffic flow possibilities.

Circulation and Parking in the Town’s Hamlets

The parking in the hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel lack a coordinated plan making circulation between various properties difficult. Opportunities should be explored to develop circulation routes either behind properties or between parking lots to help better manage the access of vehicles onto Route 6.

6.5 Bus Network

Putnam County operates the Putnam County Area Transportation (PART) bus system throughout the county. The service consists of five fixed routes and paratransit service. PART ridership in 1998 was 147,292 down from its peak ridership of 162,391 in 1995. All routes are accessible in the Town of Carmel. Putnam Plaza in the northeast corner of town serves as the hub for these routes. Some portions of the fixed-route service require patrons to call ahead to request a stop. The following table, 6.2 summarizes the fixed-route service.

Table 6.2

Fixed-Route Bus Service

Route Number Major Route Destinations Major Destinations within the Town of Carmel Frequency

PART 1 Carmel, Putnam Lake, Brewster

Putnam Plaza, Putnam Hospital, Office for Aging/DSS Every hour

PART 2 Carmel, Mahopac, Mahopac Falls, Jefferson Valley Mall Putnam Plaza, Points along Route 6 between Union Valley Road and Route 52 Every two hours

PART 3 Fair Street, Kent, Patterson, Rt. 22, Rt. 312 Putnam Plaza, Carmel High School Every hour

PART 4 Carmel, Putnam Valley, Philipstown, Dutchess Mall, Poughkeepsie Putnam Plaza, Mahopac Lake Plaza, Mahopac Village Center Monday, Wednesday, Friday only

PART 5 Carmel, Lake Carmel Putnam Plaza, A& P, County Courthouse, ShopRite Every hour

The Town does not have commuter rail service. Commuter rail stations within close proximity to the Town include Croton Falls Station in North Salem to the south, Brewster Station in the Village of Brewster, Brewster North Station in the Town of Southeast, and Patterson Station in the Town of Patterson.

6.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation

The commercial areas of the hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel create some safety hazards for pedestrians. Heavy traffic volumes on Routes 6, 6N and 52 combined with poorly planned parking and a lack of sidewalks and crosswalks make pedestrian circulation through the commercial areas difficult. The situation has the potential to increase congestion problems by discouraging auto users from parking in one place and walking to multiple destinations within the commercial areas of the hamlets.

At this time, there are few accommodations made for bicycles in the Town of Carmel. There are no bike lanes or bike-specific trails. Cyclists can be seen riding along Route 6, a hazardous practice due to heavy traffic volumes and poor visibility in some area.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Issues and Recommendations

The Town of Carmel should focus on further defining the hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel as village centers, paying particular attention to pedestrian circulation such as pedestrian crossings and sidewalks. The Hamlet Center Revitalization Plan should continue to be implemented or revised to reflect new developments and community desires.

While the Town currently lacks a bike trail through town, the possibility of a trail along the former railway right-of-way exists. This rail-trail would connect with the trailway in Somers and link to the Mahopac Hamlet. Although some of the rail-trail right-of-way has reverted back to the original land owners, the county is pursuing acquisition of this land. We recommend that the county continue to pursue the possibility of a rail-trail as it would serve both as an alternative form of transportation through the town and as an amenity for the community.

7 COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Community facilities are those buildings, public places and infrastructure that serve the general or specific needs of the public. They are the responsibility of the Town or a specific agency to maintain. Parks, recreation complexes, schools, fire halls, police stations and highways are examples of such facilities in Carmel.

7.1 Parks and Recreation

The Town presently has two community parks for use by local residents; Sycamore Park and Crane Road Field (See Table 7.1). Sycamore Park contains a number of outdoor amenities for activities by various age groups including swimming, baseball, tennis and winter activities. Crane Road Field is oriented for organized sports with tennis courts and ball fields.

Three other neighborhood parks are also owned by the Town; Secor, Tea Kettle and Lake Casse. The maintenance of these parks has been taken over from neighborhood park associations in recent years. Each park is a small parcel allowing passive recreation use to residents within the neighborhood. Three neighborhood park associations, Dixon Road, Wixon Road and McGregor, maintain small parks independent of the Town’s resources. A number of private lake districts also exist, providing lifeguards and beach access to neighborhood residents.

The Town has long had regulations for Subdivision of Land mandating that any residential subdivision shall contain at least ten percent of the land area for park purposes. The dedicated land may be given to the Town or a neighborhood association may establish ownership and operation of the park. Alternatively, a subdivider may pay a fee of $3,000 per lot in lieu of land conveyance. According to the Planning Board Secretary, Peggy Moore, no land for park purposes has been taken through the subdivision process since 1980. In fact, one parcel given to the Town had been redeveloped for residential purposes. The money acquired through the process can be used for parkland acquisition and existing facility improvements. Eighty-five parkland acres contained in forty-six parcels that have been acquired through the subdivision process are presently vacant.

Table 7.1

Carmel Municipally-Owned Parks

Name of Park Size (acres) Facilities

Sycamore Park 32

(20 acres active) 1 Ballfield

2 Basketball Courts

Beach area

4 Tennis Courts

4 Playground Areas

Crane Road Field 19

(13 acres active) 5 Ballfields

2 Tennis Courts

Source: Town of Carmel, 1999.

The two boards of education that have schools within the Town own a number of facilities that serve not only for educational purposes, but also for neighborhood recreation space. The high schools offer additional amenities such as running tracks and football fields (see Table 7.2).

Table 7.2

Carmel Schools

Name of School Size (acres) Outdoor Facilities

Mahopac High/

Middle School 61 Running Track

Football Field

Varsity Baseball Field

3 Softball Fields

1 Lacrosse Field

4 Tennis Courts

Carmel High School 27 Running Track

Football/Soccer Field

Major League Ball Field

2 Softball Fields

Austin Road School 4 Ball fields

Lakeview School 6 Ball fields

Mahopac Falls School 5 Ball fields

Fulmar Road School 4 Ball fields

Source: Mahopac and Carmel Central School Districts, 1999.

Putnam County and New York State also have significant recreational lands within close proximity to the Town. The 220-acre Putnam County Park is just north of the Town, nearly on the Carmel/Kent border. This park is surrounded by the Nimham Mountain Multiple Use Area, a State owned park with over 1,000 acres. Combined, these parks offer many amenities, including beaches, playground and nature trails. To the northeast of Carmel, the Fahnstock State Park stretches over much of the northeastern portion of Putnam County. This 6,800-acre park offers many passive recreational uses, which include beaches, boating, hiking and camping.

In 1988, the County published a Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan. Existing park resources were identified and improvements to the County’s lands were recommended. The plan did not envision additional lands for the County’s purposes.

In the year 2000, the State expects to begin construction on the bike and walking trailway on the former New York Central Railroad right of way from Route 118 in Somers to Seminary Hill Road in the Carmel hamlet. An additional portion of trailway extending to the Village of Brewster is expected to be constructed in future years. The right of way has largely remained vacant, and in some cases reverted to private ownership, since the closing of the rail system in 1965. The State expects to acquire many of the privately owned parcels or adjacent lands to complete the continuous trail link to other areas within the County.

7.2 Schools

There are eight schools within the boundaries of Carmel managed by two school boards and two parochial organizations. The Mahopac School District serves approximately three-quarters of the Town and a small portion of the Town of Putnam Valley. The Carmel School District mainly serves the area in the northeast section of the Town and extends into much of Kent and Patterson. Much of the Hamlet of Carmel is served by the school district.

In the 1998-1999 school year, the Mahopac School District had 4,708 attending students. The total number of school age children in the district was 5,120. The 412-student difference represents non-public school attendees. The parochial schools are St. James the Apostle in the Carmel hamlet and St. John the Evangelist in the Mahopac hamlet.

The Mahopac School District has predicted student increases through the 2008-2009 school year in their 1999 Final Report. The increases average approximately 2 percent per year. The District estimates that classroom space equivalent in size to accommodate an additional 236 elementary students will be needed within the next five years. By the year 2006-2007, an additional 300 elementary students are anticipated. The District anticipates that no additional schools will be required, but will add space within the Falls School and optimize space within the high and middle schools. The Falls Elementary School has a capacity of 825 students and is currently not in use by the District. At the secondary school level, the middle school will require space to accommodate the additional students coming up from the elementary levels by the year 2009-2009. The accommodation needs for 200 students presently exists within the Mahopac High School and an estimated 700-student capacity will be necessary by the 2008-2009 school year. Renovation and expansion of the existing facilities is presently underway.

Table 7.3

Carmel School Facilities

School Site Area (acres) School Size (sq. ft.) Student Capacity

Elementary Schools

Austin Road 21 67,113 816

Fulmar Road 23 63,000 710

Lakeview 12 87,400 867

Secondary Schools

Carmel High School 30 192,653 1,092

Mahopac Middle School 61 (shared) 100,696 1,320

Mahopac High School 61 (shared) 177,000 1,650

Source: Final Report, Mahopac School District, 1999, and Town of Carmel Community Facilities, 1978;

Carmel Central School district, 1999.

The Carmel School District only has one facility within the Town boundaries; the High School. The facility has a functional capacity of 1,092 students and a 1998 enrolment of 1,335 students. Peak enrollment in 2006 is expected to reach 1,587 students. This capacity takes into account the design of the building and the realistic functionality in relation to the activities required. For New York State purposes, the operational capacity was reported to be 1,269 students. In any situation, the present school enrolment is exceeding the capacity and will require expansion to some degree.

The High School campus is comprised of two buildings including the main school structure and an industrial and fine arts building. The classroom space needs for the Carmel High School have been reported to be adequate in a Draft Long Range Facilities Plan. The recommended needs of the facilities include small group instruction rooms, a larger fitness center, dance studio, electronic music studio, math lab, a 700 to 800 seat auditorium and additional locker corridors. These changes to the existing building would be accommodated in an addition to allow for approximately 250 students. No additional lands were reported to required for the school’s operations.

7.3 Libraries

Two libraries presently exist within the Town; the Mahopac Library and the Reed Library. The Mahopac Library is located on the West Side of Route 6 at Mount Hope Road, in the hamlet’s business district. The facility is approximately 5,800 square feet in size on two floors. A total of 81,383 holdings are available at the facility, which include books, tapes and CD ROMS (see Table 7.4.)

Table 7.4

Library Facilities

Holdings by Type, 1997

Mahopac Reed

Books 65,456 20,529

CD ROM 0 25

Audio 7,690 1,338

Video 1,421 665

Serials 14,971 700

Un-cataloged/Other 14,106 4,575

Total 81,383 27,832

Source: Mid-Hudson Library System Statistical Report 1997.

The Library originated in 1952 as a voluntary association operating with book donations out of a room at Lakeview School. In 1961, a provisional five-year State charter was awarded to the Library. In 1967, with the underpinnings of the library well established the Board of Trustees purchased the Erickson Ice Cream Parlor building as their new permanent home.

The present day facility, the Mahopac Library has been designated as the reference center for Putnam County and the building has been improved with air conditioning, carpeting and a new roof. An effort to expand the library is presently underway for an increase from 5,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet.

Since 1987, the library has been a school district public library. With this status, funding is provided through the Mahopac Central School District. In 1990, the library served a chartered population of 22,381 people.

The Reed Library, located at the intersection of Routes 6 and 52, was constructed by Mrs. Arietta Crane Reed in memory of her husband William Belden Reed. The library is an Association Library with a volunteer board. Annually, the Town Board of Carmel approves an operating budget supplied by the library.

Today, the library serves a population of 8,800, mainly within the Carmel Hamlet. The pie shaped, 2,062 square foot building is registered as an historical landmark. It sits on an irregular shaped 7,000 square foot lot with little potential for expansion. Within the facility, nearly 28,000 holdings are held. The facility should be expanded or an alternative site found for this use.

Both libraries within the Town are members of the Mid-Hudson Regional Library System, which share resources among libraries in Putnam, Dutchess, Ulster, Greene and Columbia counties. The libraries meet all operating standards required for continued State support and registration, including the employment of a full time librarian; Patricia Kaufman at Mahopac and Marilyn Schlansky at Reed. Physical standards for space, parking and seating are deficient at the Reed Library. While there are no specific standards for library size, the State has considered the general standards applied by Connecticut; 1.0 square feet of space per capita. Using this ratio, the Mahopac Library should be approximately 22,000 square feet and the Reed Library should be 8,800 square feet in size.

In addition to the stand-alone libraries within the Town, the two high schools are required by the State to contain libraries.

7.4 Municipal Buildings

The Town Hall is located in the hamlet of Mahopac at the intersection of McAlpin and Croton Falls Road. The modern facility houses all town agencies and departments within 20,000 square feet of space on a 1.67-acre parcel of land. The Police Department is housed in the entire lower level, which occupies 4,900 square feet. Although the present use appears appropriate for the building size, future expansion would be available on site.

7.5 Police Services

The force has 31 staff members, including the Acting Chief, dispatcher, records clerk and constables. There are twenty police vehicles that service the Town. Use of a room at the Volunteer Ambulance Corps facilities, on Route 52, allows for police presence within the Carmel hamlet.

The department also has back-up facilities for the County’s 911 emergency call center.

7.6 Fire Protection Services

There are three fire departments within the Town; Mahopac Falls, Mahopac and Carmel. All three are volunteer departments. Mahopac Falls has two fire house locations to serve the eastern portion of the Town. Their main station is located at Brook Avenue, west of Myrtle Avenue. A second substation is located at Austin Road and Bullet Hole Road. According to the Fire Chiefs of each service, appropriate coverage to the Town is provided.

Mahopac Fire Department serves the center portion of the Town with two stations. The main station is located on Route 6 at Croton Falls Road. Their second location is located on Long Pond Road at Dixon Road.

The Carmel Fire Department serves the western section of the Town. The station is located on the West Side of Route 52 at Vink Drive.

7.7 Highways

The Highways Department is housed in a 6,000 square foot building directly opposite the Town Hall on a one-acre site. Much of the building is used for the maintenance of the department’s vehicles. A 75 by 50-foot salt shed is also located on the premises. The department employs 31 staff. The site is small for the present use, but additional property, shared with Putnam County Highways Department, is available on Route 6N at Myrtle Avenue.

7.8 Sewer

The Croton Plan has helped to guide the development of this plan and, specifically, the sewer policies found below. This section contains a policy framework, and the Croton Plan provides background information and detailed policy.

There are thirteen surface water discharge wastewater treatment plants, three are currently owned and operated by the Town (see Table 7.5 and Figure 7.1.) The other plants in the Town include four owned by the public school system, one owned by the City of New Yor,k and the remaining five are privately owned. Except for New York City’s Mahopac Sewer District, there are no plans to expand the sewer districts within the Town. The Town is currently studying the commercial area along Route 6 between Croton Falls Road and Nicole Way, 0.3 miles north of Baldwin Drive, as a possible expansion of the Mahopac Sewer District. This expansion, when completed, will correct some of the septic problems that have been identified in the area.

Table 7.5

Waste Water Treatment Plants

Facility Name Year Built Present Usage

Carmel Sewer District No. 2 1965 ? 4,995 population present operation level.

? 0.63 million gallons/day (MGD) flow.

? Upgraded in 1997.

Carmel Sewer District No. 4 1976 ? 0.015 MGD flow.

Carmel Sewer District No. 7 1960's ? Accepts waste from 150 condominium homes.

? 0.036 MGD flow.

Fulmar Rd. Elementary School 1973 ? Accepts only sanitary waste from the school.

? 0.003 MGD flow.

Lake Plaza (Mahopac Assoc.) 1970’s ? 0.004 MGD flow.

Mahopac Falls Elem. School 1960's ? Serves 200 students and faculty.

? 0.002 MGD flow.

Mahopac High School 1960's ? Serves 1,400 students.

? 0.005 MGD flow.

Mahopac Middle School 1960's ? Serves 1,000 students and faculty.

? 0.004 MGD flow.

Mahopac STP 1990's ? Serves 607 population.

? 0.15 MGD flow.

Mahopac Village Center 1993 ? Serves shopping center only.

? 0.009 MGD Flow.

Maple Hill Estates 1984 ? Serves 77-unit condominium complex only.

? 0.012 MGD flow.

Society Hills Condos 1987 ? Serves 100 condominium homes.

? 0.016 MGD flow.

Williamsburg Ridge 1985 ? Serves 89 condominium homes.

? 0.015 MGD flow.

Source: NYSDEC Wastewater Treatment Facility Compliance Inspection Report and Year End Summary Reports, 1997 (Mahopac STP) and 1998.

The total amount of wastewater now treated in all the wastewater treatment plants is approximately 903,500 gallons per day (gpd). The total wastewater surface water discharge flow of all the treatment plants that have been permitted by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is 1,673,400 gpd. Subtracting the current discharge rate from the permitted rate leaves approximately 769,900 gpd of available wastewater discharge capacity. While the excess capacity is significant, it is not readily available to all areas of the Town.

There is an excess capacity of 484,400 gpd in the plants controlled by the Town, the majority being Carmel District No. 2 (see Table 7.6). The remaining excess capacity of 285,500 gpd is not controlled by the Town, and, except for the Mahopac Sewage Treatment Plant, there is generally little room to allow for new connections. The Mahopac plant has the highest capacity of the non-Town owned plants at approximately 149,000 gpd excess capacity. Excess capacity flows for districts 4 and 7 are insignificant for planning purposes.

Table 7.6

Excess Sewer Capacity

Sewer District Excess Capacity

Carmel District No. 2 468,500 gpd

Carmel District No. 4 5,100 gpd

Carmel District No. 7 10,800 gpd

Mahaopac District 149,000 gpd

Since the Mahopac plant serves Town residents and businesses, it would be advantageous to utilize this plant to provide additional service to those areas that are in need of service and, if permitted under zoning and environmental regulations, additional development growth in areas nearest to the plant.

There are two areas in the Town of Carmel that have a higher intensity of development, including commercial and industrial, and have experienced a higher rate of septic problems. These areas include are in the Carmel hamlet around Lake Gleneida and the Mahopac hamlet (including Lake Secor and Baldwin Place) around Lake Mahopac. Outside these hamlet areas, a lower density of development has occurred and the need for sewer and water services has not been demonstrated nor warranted. The low density provides more land for septic systems and ground-water wells.

Much of Mahopac’s medium density residential areas (i.e. existing R-40/30, R-40/20, R-40/10 zones) remain unsewered. The areas that would benefit from sewers from the standpoint of improving water quality, include:

? Medium-High Density Residential – These areas are extensive and are located adjacent to Lake Mahopac and stream corridors. The septic systems were generally developed in the last 30 to 50 years and may soon experience an increase in failure or repair rates.

? Septic Focus Areas – These areas have begun to show signs of increased failure rates and needed repairs.

? Future Growth Areas – As development continues, there will be a need to find innovative solutions for treating and discharging wastewater. Under the current regulations, these developments will not be permitted to construct treatment facilities with surface discharge. More land will be needed to construct subsurface disposal systems. This restriction will limit the amount of development which could be built if conventional wastewater treatment plants with surface discharge were permitted.

This entire service outline would generate approximately 2,076,000 gpd. The service area, including the treatment plant, would need to be expanded as the flow increases. The plant’s current excess capacity of approximately 149,000 gpd could support approximately 300 to 350 residential four-bedroom homes. It would be advantageous to begin the expansion of the service area adjacent to the existing sewer districts and to extend new mains from existing mains. The expansion of the service area could expand in a logical order beginning from the Mahopac plant.

As an alternative, the Town may also wish to investigate alternative sewage treatment options where appropriate. Some innovative options include:

Recycling of Wastewater for Commercial and Industrial Use – Recycling of grey water back to toilet fixtures can return up to 90 percent of wastewater for reuse. This reduces the water demand and wastewater discharge. As a result, the nutrient loading into the reservoir is less than conventional treatment systems, and the land area needed for discharge is considerably less than for a conventional subsurface disposal system.

Home Treatment Systems retrofit the septic tanks with small treatment devices to reduce the nutrient loads into the ground. The level of treatment varies and would require a cost benefit analysis to determine if improved water quality is affordable to homeowners. These systems do not reduce the soils ability to absorb the effluent, so sufficient land area for subsurface disposal is still needed.

Community or Shared Systems can reduce the overall cost of the treatment system when it is shared by two or more property owners. This would be applicable to residential and commercial facilities. As with any treatment system, regulatory approvals, as well as legal agreements, would be required.

Private Treatment System Monitoring Programs can be implemented either by Putnam County or the Town of Carmel to assure that existing systems will be properly maintained and repaired. Some aspects of a monitoring program could include:

? Regular inspection of properties for possible failures or violations

? Mandated septic tank pumping

? Random well testing for pollution

? Documentation of failures and repairs

? Regulatory installation of repairs

Diversion

The Putnam County-Croton Watershed Diversion Feasibility Study was prepared by Insite Engineering and O’Brien & Gere in 1999 to determine the technical feasibility of diverting sewage flow out of the watershed and included diversion costs and water quality benefits. The possibility of diversion could render the expansion of existing facilities unnecessary. The study was completed in June of 1999 and included five schemes to divert wastewater out of the watershed. The five schemes include:

Scheme 1 – Untreated Flow Diversion to Peekskill WWTP

Scheme 2A – Untreated Flow Diversion to New WWTP with Outfall to Hudson River at Peekskill

Scheme 2B – Untreated Flow Diversion to New WWTP with Outfall to Hudson River inside Putnam County

Scheme 3A – Treated Flow Diversion to Hudson River at Peekskill

Scheme 3B – Treated Flow Diversion to Hudson River inside Putnam County

The benefit of the diversion is improved water quality within the Croton Watershed. Diversion Scheme 3A was found to be the most practical alternate for diversion due to its lower capital cost and consideration to environmental and governmental issues. The Town of Carmel’s share of the diversion cost was not yet known. The study concluded that additional analysis would be necessary before the County and the Towns could make a determination on diversion based on the total costs and benefits it would receive.

Areas that would benefit from wastewater connections include the commercial areas in Lake Mahopac along Route 6 and commercial areas in the Baldwin Place area along Route 6. Diversion would also eliminate the septic sewage area requirements for development. In addition, the time frame for a diversion of this magnitude will need to be presented to the various towns so they can utilize this information in developing their wastewater goals.

Diversion of wastewater from the watershed will allow the commercial and residential establishments along the more developed sections of the Town to be maintained in their current condition without having to use land for subsurface wastewater treatment and disposal system upgrades or replacements. Businesses or establishments could utilize more of their land area to improve their facilities and be more competitive by allowing a more economical use of their property.

Diversion Recommendations

This plan does not recommend diverting all wastewater from existing treatment plants in Carmel. As noted above, areas in the Mahopac hamlet would benefit from connection to public sewage treatment facilities. However, until the final cost of the diversion system is known, the long term benefits derived from improving water quality to the Town of Carmel, Putnam County and the NYCDEP water supply system are determined and a realistic time schedule to complete the diversion of wastewater is developed, the Town of Carmel should wait to make a decision.

As the Carmel community develops and its infrastructure needs are increased, a dynamic balance must be established between the maintenance of community character and meeting the demand of increased community needs. The Town could seek to sustain reasonable growth for while utilizing the existing infrastructure (via extension). The cost of new connections should be funded by those benefiting and, where appropriate, improvements to existing infrastructure should be provided.

Recommended Sewer Districts

Figure 7.1 depicts the proposed sewer areas as well as the existing districts. The area within the Mahopac hamlet is the only area proposed for extended sewer coverage. A three-phase plan could be implemented to accommodate new growth and address the septic focus areas within the Mahopac hamlet.

Phase 1 of the expanded sewer collection system includes flows from two septic focus areas, two commercial areas, and one industrial area. All these areas are relatively close to the Mahopac STP and would eliminate high priority septic focus areas.

Phase 2 of this expansion would include the high-density residential areas surrounding Lake Mahopac. These areas have been classified as imminent focus areas rather than existing focus areas. The homes in these areas are older and are located on small lots. If feasible, a separate treatment facility could be developed as a second part of Phase 2 to divert the high-density residential areas in the southwest corner of Town out of the NYC watershed. The district could also expand and accommodate additional properties in the Baldwin Place area, since they would be in close proximity to this location.

Phase 3 will involve the largest extension and encompass four septic focus areas, three industrial areas, two commercial areas, and eleven high-density residential areas. This number would be reduced if the areas on the southwest side of the Town are diverted outside the watershed. Also included are many residential areas that are classified as medium or medium high density as indicated on the proposed land use plan. Refer to Figure No. III-E-2 and Table No. III-A-3 for details of the individual phases.

This strategy proposes to collect the sanitary flows from the priority areas closest to the Mahopac STP and extend outward with time as needed. Ultimately, within the hamlet of Mahopac, the area surrounding the Lake, and the southern portion of the hamlet towards the county line could be included in the collection system expansion.

Figure 7.1 Large Geographic Area

7.9 Water

There are ten water districts in the Town; Carmel Water District No. 2 is the largest. This district is located in and around the Carmel hamlet. The other districts serve relatively few residential homes, instead drawing their water from individual private wells. All other water sources are supplied to residents from private wells. Figure 7.2 provides the water district locations.

Water quality and capacity of the existing districts has been sufficient by recent accounts, with the exception of the Rolling Green subdivision. During the drought conditions of 1999, many private wells in the area had insufficient flows. Also, some isolated low-quality water conditions were found around the Long Pond area.

Despite the relatively few quality issues, no new or expanded water districts are proposed. The Rolling Green situation may be rectified by the extending service to the area from a proposed development. The Long Pond situation should be monitored for future problems and weighed against the 1999 conditions.

Figure 7.2 Water District Locations

8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

This chapter is intended to summarize the policies and goals for the Town. The objectives derived through the Comprehensive Planning process are intended to represent a consensus view of the future land use of Carmel. The culmination of concepts and ideas for the future community of Carmel is represented by the future land use plan (Figure 8.1). Below are the goals and objectives helping to drive the future planning. Following this the future land use plan and discussion of the plan’s components.

8.1 Comprehensive Plan Goals

As noted in the introduction, the development of this plan has been guided by goals arrived at during the public workshops and public meetings with the Town Board. These community-based goals are presented below. The goals are a link with the town’s previous comprehensive plan and the view into the future visualized by this plan. They build upon the problems and community assets noted in the plan. The goals further the community’s desire to protect its existing development pattern, tax base, and commercial areas, while further protecting the natural environment.

Land Use

Carmel should establish a balance between protection of the natural environment and maintaining existing neighborhoods, community services, and a sound economic base.

This first goal is the main theme of the Comprehensive Plan. The operative concept in this goal is balance. The community has a heightened recognition of the need to protect natural resources, especially the New York City watershed. The town will seek to accomplish this protection while also preserving to itself a high quality of life for its residents. This will entail keeping a diverse housing stock, continuing the presence of professional and retail goods and services, and funding necessary and adequate community facilities. The end result will be a community of high quality and economically and environmentally sound land uses that are consistent with the best of the community’s historic character and the carrying capacity of its natural resources.

Environmental Protection

Carmel should preserve its local natural resources, and in particular the New York City watershed.

This second goal recognizes the need to better protect watercourses, wetlands, steep slopes, and the reservoir system. This plan is written at a time when residents understand that environmental protection requires direct conservation actions, but mixed with land use and infrastructure improvements. Significant natural features can and should be protected through residential rezoning and capital improvement utility programs. Two of the most far-reaching of the plan recommendations are thus twinned: large areas of the town should be upzoned from 60,000 square foot lots to 80,000 square foot lots, in order to avoid future sewer construction, and the historic, densely populated hamlet centers of Carmel and Mahopac should be fully sewered. If adequate public infrastructure is built in the proper locations, the hamlets will be strengthened, accommodating growth within compact settlements, while the watershed-damaging impacts of growth – runoff from impervious surfaces and septic failures – are eliminated in the reservoir’s drainage basins. When public water and sewer are lacking, development in open rural landscapes is a developer’s only alternative.

Infrastructure

Carmel should support its existing settled neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas by maximizing existing public sewer capabilities, ensuring sound environmental operation of private septic systems, and constructing or expanding sewer districts.

The creation of a new sewer district is especially important in southern Carmel along Route 6. This new district should be mapped to enclose areas that are suffering chronic septic failure. As described above in the environmental protection goal, the presence of efficiently functioning and adequate water and sewer districts will further strengthen the town’s hamlet centers. Carmel should protect its own supply of water from contamination and seek to expand its drinking water resources.

Along with this goal of infrastructure construction is sewer avoidance. Just as critical as providing public infrastructure in the Carmel and Mahopac areas will be an adherence to a program of sewer avoidance throughout the rest of the town. This is a prime reason for increasing the minimum lot size from one and one-half acres to two acres in the predominant residential zone. At two acres, residences should have adequate land to site a septic field and have reserve space for a future field if the first fails over time. In addition, the reduced residential density will reduce the pressure on the town’s water supply.

Economic Development

Carmel should sensitively develop its economic sector so that the tax base is better balanced between business and residential property owners.

It is important that the town protect its established commercial and industrial areas, with some minor land use control modifications. These areas provide jobs and necessary goods and services to the local market. By controlling density and design, Carmel will promote economic growth that is sympathetic with established community character. Improved controls would allow businesses to expand and attract new ones, but would mitigate their design impact; these include design guidelines, floor area ratios to control size, ridgeline and viewshed protection, and landscaped buffers between commercial and residential areas.

Traffic and Transportation

Carmel should have efficient and well-maintained roads, which serve local and through traffic.

The town’s difficulty is that it does not control the two most significant routes through town: Route 6 and Route 52. Carmel will need to work closely with the state on any road widening or improvement plans, especially where these all-important state roads become the town’s main streets through the hamlet centers. Additionally, Carmel should provide transportation, parking, and circulation services that benefit all residents. These include pedestrian and bicycle circulation, traffic mitigation in the densely settled areas, and off-street parking improvements.

Community Character

Carmel should seek to provide the quality and quantity of facilities – such as parks and libraries – demanded by its residents as part of an overall commitment to the quality of life in the town.

New and improved services and facilities can be provided in a cost-effective manner, if the above goals are realized. Further, Carmel should seek with every land use decision and approval a quality of development in keeping with its rural character surrounding historic and thriving hamlet centers. The importance of the hamlet center designation (termed Village Center by NYC DEP) is that setback requirements are reduced for development in these areas, allowing more flexibility. With the construction of additional public sewer and water capacity, and stormwater controls, these reduced setbacks from watershed reservoirs and lakes will pose minimal threat. The hamlet centers should allow a natural mix of uses such as found in hometown downtowns, at densities and under design guidelines that foster a small town atmosphere.

8.2 Future Land Use Plan

The future land use plan is the vision for the future of Carmel and is meant to guide upcoming development decisions. The map and accompanying text describe the generalized future land uses as well as proposed zoning and urban design changes recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Not only does the future land use plan recognize the established settlement pattern, natural features, existing retail, commercial and industrial areas, but also projects the location of future land uses. Thus, the future land use plan attempts to reconcile the contrasting purposes of conservation and development with existing land uses, zoning, market pressures for development, environmental constraints as well as existing and proposed infrastructure.

It should be noted that the map is diagrammatic. Land uses are generalized.

RESIDENTIAL

Residential areas of the Town remain relatively unchanged from the previous plans and generally conform to the Town’s zoning ordinance. Three residential categories representing various population densities are included in the plan.

Low Density residential areas are generally those that can be developed without the need for public sewer and water services. Lot sizes for single- family residential dwellings would be 1.5 to 2 acres. With this density, cluster or open space developments should be possible without public water or sewer. This is a land use density that does not anticipate the extension of public water and sewer systems. All new subdivisions that do not have access to public sewers are expected to have minimum lot sizes of 80,000 square feet.

The Medium Density residential areas are found where public or communal sewer and water services can be made available. A density of one or two units per acre characterizes this land use designation. It would be the equivalent of the R40/30 and R 40/20 zones.

Medium High Density residential areas are neighborhoods that should utilize public or communal sewer and water services. This is a density of four units or more units acre which generally include the R-40/10 and RMFA zones.

COMMERCIAL

The commercial designations of the plan largely reflect existing conditions and support the focus on the Hamlet Centers.

INDUSTRIAL

Industrial lands are designated in two specific areas of the Town; the northeast and southwest areas. They are generally large tracts of land in close proximity to commercial and high-capacity transportation routes.

INSTITUTIONAL

Institutional uses, primarily schools and hospitals, have been recognized in the plan to depict a representational distribution throughout the Town. These uses are valuable as community resources that should be generally accessible.

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

The Town has relatively few parks for its population. Since Putnam County is rich with a variety of recreation and open space opportunities, this deficit of parkland is not necessarily a detriment. The plan has, however, designated the islands within Lake Mahopac and the waterfront area of the Carmel Hamlet as additional park resources. Each of this will provide unique recreation opportunities and aesthetic value to the Town. This plan also recognizes the State and County efforts to realize a bike and walking trail using the former New York Central Railroad right of way.

CONSERVATION (WETLAND/FLOOD CONTROL)

Conservation land has been designated on the plan to help protect the wetlands and watercourses that serve the Towns water bodies. Development is not necessarily restricted (for example the zoning ordinance allows for single family dwellings) within these areas, however, future conditions should strive for wetland preservation.

TRANSPORTATION

The land use plan does not project any new roads. All future roads should be designed to channel traffic onto major arterial roads that can accommodate the traffic, and to discourage through traffic on subdivision and other minor roads. Intersection improvements, as noted in Chapter 6, are the only infrastructure changes recommended.

Figure 8.1 Future Land Use Plan

VILLAGE (HAMLET) CENTERS

The hamlet center areas, Carmel and Mahopac, are intended to be the commercial and cultural focal points within the Town. Retail shops, convenience stores, professional offices, institutional services and churches, common areas and residential dwelling are encouraged to located within the centers for an eclectic land use mix. Previous revitalization plans can facilitate the continued support for Town focal points. As the Town and market conditions change, the revitalization plans should be revisited to meet the goals of the community.

The two designated areas, Mahopac and Carmel hamlets, are intended to serve as the designated village centers, as required to be identified by the NYC Memorandum of Agreement. These Village (Hamlet) Centers extend beyond the boundaries of the designated main street areas previously approved by New York City Department of Environmental Protection. The Centers are mixed use areas within the Town and are intended to allow the construction of a new impervious surface within the limiting distance of 100 feet of a watercourse or wetland, or within the limiting distance of 300 feet of a reservoir, reservoir stem, or controlled lake. The CYC DEP shall review all request to construct any paved areas within the defined limits and approve construction where there is no reasonable alternatives.

9 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide land use decisions in the Town. By itself, the Plan does not change zoning or assure implementation of the land use plan. A necessary first step in putting the Comprehensive Plan to work is for the Town Board to adopt the Comprehensive Plan as its recommendations for the future growth and improvement of the Town. Once adopted there are many strategies that the Town can utilize to implement the individual components of the Plan. These components include roads, zoning/subdivision controls, utilities, environment, and open space and agricultural protection. Some strategies are already in place to enact changes, others need to be further developed and adopted to ensure enforcement and implementation. The principal implementation recommendations are as follows:

9.1 In Non-Sewered Areas a Minimum Lot Size of Two Acres

In an attempt to better preserve the watershed environment and maintain the Town’s rural character, this plan recommends a two-acre minimum lot size for new residential subdivisions not served by public sanitary sewers. If adopted as a zoning text amendment, this policy would increase the minimum lot size for future non-sewered subdivisions from 60,000 square foot lots to 80,000 square foot lots. In conjunction with the density restrictions imposed by the environmentally sensitive lands, as described below, this policy will serve to "up-zone" remaining vacant residential lands.

9.2 Environmentally Sensitive Land

Environmentally sensitive wetlands are already protected through programs set by New York State and Putnam County. These policies have helped to preserve the rural character of the Town while serving to protect water resources. Other environmentally sensitive lands receive less attention, but deserve similar protective benefits.

This plan recommends that an "environmentally sensitive land" ordinance be adopted to include all wetlands and slopes over 25%. These designated areas would be allowed to count toward the maximum permissible density by a maximum of 50%. For example, if a property contained 10 acres of steep slopes, only 5 acres would be permissible to count toward the allowable density of the larger parcel. This regulation is aimed at more carefully calibrating allowable density to environmental conditions.

9.3 Cluster Subdivisions

This Plan advocates the adoption of cluster subdivisions that promote grouping of residential lots on relatively smaller plots with no increase in densities. Clustering allows houses to be set back from the road and screened from view while helping to preserve open space. The following illustrations (Figure 9.1 and 9.2), used courtesy of Randall Arendt, depict the cluster or open space development principles.

Figure 9.1

Conventional Subdivision

Clustering enables the preserving of areas that would normally be dedicated to private roads. The preserved areas may be used to buffer the residential land from neighboring areas and for natural or public space.

Figure 9.2

Cluster Subdivision

Clustering must be encouraged. This plan recommends that the Town Board strongly utilize Section 278 of New York State Town Law and authorize the planning board to require cluster development where, in the Planning Board’s judgement, it would benefit the Town. The Planning Board will be afforded the power to require any applicant to submit cluster subdivision plans in any residential zone as an alternative to a conventional layout. The Planning Board should determine the minimum lot sizes based upon its review of the cluster layout.

This proposed policy strengthens the existing regulations that allow the applicant to present a cluster subdivision at their own discretion. By granting mandated cluster authority to its Planning Board, the Town Board can establish a more pro-active cluster policy.

A key component to any cluster subdivision will be buffering from neighboring uses. The separation of clustered lots from adjacent residential areas and major roadways should be required. It is suggested that a minimum 50-foot buffer be established.

9.4 Ridge Line Protection and Scenic Vistas

There are many areas of the Town with significant elevations and steep slopes. These features add to the natural beauty area of the area. Setting standards to protect the ridge line today will ensure harm to the local landscape is minimized. In addition, restricting development from a ridge line will help reduce runoff from contaminating water resources and reduce surface erosion.

For protection of any ridge line within the Town, an overlay district as part of the zoning ordinance should be created. The overlay district would not change the underlying zone. Those areas where the district overlaps a zone qualify for additional protective policies and could also form a basis for the Planning Board mandating cluster development.

9.5 Commercial Area Controls

(a) Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

Floor area ratio is a mechanism to control the square footage of buildings through zoning. This zoning tool will help to control the bulk of commercial buildings to better fit within the predominant residential context of Carmel.

Permitted floor area is determined by a calculation of the total square footage of a lot multiplied by a set ratio, as presented below. Typically in suburban areas, restricting the bulk of buildings to a fraction of the lot area is desirable. The present Town zoning ordinance does not govern floor area.

Figure 9.3

Floor Area Ratio

A maximum floor area ratio at 0.35 is recommended for the commercial zones of the Town of Carmel. These FAR controls would work with existing zoning controls that are currently enforced in the commercial zones but would provide an added control on total square feet. This ratio should adequately allow for commercial development and is similar to other ordinances in the region.

(b) Buffer Requirements

The present non-residential buffer requirements include "a buffer of at least (6) feet in height and at a width and density which will substantially screen adjacent properties". The width of the buffer is discretionary, as is the material, fencing, trees or shrubs.

A buffered area to help separate uses may be more appropriate than allowing discretionary requirements. Buffer areas around the perimeter of the lot would add to the open space character of the Town. A 10-20 foot front and rear yard and five foot side yard buffer from parking would allow for plantings and landscaping. The exception would be in the Village (Hamlet) Centers where the development context would make added yard requirements difficult to meet.

(c) Landscape Standards for Parking Areas

The present requirements for off street parking and loading are adequate. For commercial purposes, the ordinance is similar to those of surrounding municipality’s standards. However, the parking and loading requirements lack landscape standards. Such standards should be incorporated into the code. Requirements could include: a set number of trees for each parking space (e.g. 1 tree for every 10 parking spaces), landscaped 5 to 6 foot islands between parking bays to allow for trees, and lighting not to exceed 20 to 25 feet in height.

9.6 Split Zones

There are four residential zones in the Town that permit so-called "split" zones: R-60/40, R-40/30, R-40/20, R-40/10. The first number in these zones indicates the allowable density if there is no public sewer; the second number indicates the density if a public sewer is available.

This plan suggests that existing neighborhoods be recognized at their existing built density. Where there is a clear predominant density, the land use plan recognized this density. In the Lake Secor neighborhood, for example, the land use plan indicates a medium to high density, recognizing the development pattern of the lake community. There may be scattered parcels above or below this density, but they are the exception. Zoning policy should be based on prevailing density and not the exceptions.

The split zones pose a unique situation when juxtaposed to single density residential zones that are within an existing sewer district. The portions outside of a split zone, but within a sewer district, are not afforded the density of the split zone. Examples exist in Carmel Sewer District Number 2 where, for example, one side of the street is zoned R-60 and the other side is zoned R-40/20. Land on both sides of the street has sewer service. Vacant or underutilized land adjacent to developed residential split zone areas may be appropriate for added density when serviced by sewer. There are several mechanisms that may be used to increase density if the Town Board believes it is appropriate:

(a) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

TDR, as provided for by the State under Section 261-a of Town Law, allows the designation of "receiving" areas that may, for example, be eligible for higher density. A subsequent "sending" area where the Town prefers to preserve land would be required. The development rights of the sending area would then be transferred to the "receiving" area. The Town would be required to monitor this process of transference and preservation. In most towns, it is not a problem to identify the sending area. In Carmel, it could be any non-sewered area.

The usual problem is identifying the "receiving" area. The buyer of the development rights can increase the allowable density, and this may bring objections about infrastructure capacity. However in this limited case of adjacency to split zones within a sewer district, TDR might provide a useful mechanism. It can provide a means for a property owner who has sewer service but whose property is zoned R-60 to buy development rights to become an R-20 density which the neighbor across the street already has.

(b) Clustering Developments at a Higher Density

A second option for the Town to respond to property owners is to offer the higher density of the adjacent split zone if the applicant develops a cluster proposal that preserves meaningful open space, scenic vistas or other significant preservation of natural features.

(c) Rezoning

A third option is for the town to entertain site specific rezonings where applicants can show an adjacency to split zones and existing sewer service to their parcel. The danger of this third approach is the possible domino effect caused when one property owner after another requests individual rezonings. To remedy this, the Town might wish to conduct an area-wide or neighborhood study after it receives an individual rezoning application. The study could then set the limits to the rezoning, the density of the rezoning and determine what specific natural features should be preserved.

9.7 Land Use Changes/Property Rezoning

Two specific parcels of land have been identified during the development of the Comprehensive Plan that are possible candidates for rezoning. Both are presently zoned for industry. Both were identified at the Comprehensive Plan workshops, and both were suggested for residential uses. These are: Baldwin Meadows, west of Route 6 in the southern part of Carmel; and the Urstadt Biddle property in the northeast part of Carmel, east of Route 52 (see Figure 9.4).

Figure 9.4

Potential Rezoning Sites

(a) Baldwin Meadows

The Baldwin Meadows site is located on the west side of Baldwin Place Road, south of Stillwater Road. The property is approximately 68.5 acres in size, contains approximately six acres of wetlands, some significant slopes and abuts the Muscoot River floodplain. The existing zoning would allow uses such as warehouses and manufacturing facilities to accommodate a building up to upwards of 600,000 square feet with parking for over 1,200 vehicles. A rezoning application currently before the Planning Board recommends 32 residential lots at a minimum size of 60,000 square feet. Under the proposed environmental regulations recommended above, approximately 22 to 26 lots would be achieved.

There are several planning issues that affect the Baldwin Meadows rezoning question. These can be summarized as:

? Location

? Topography/natural features

? Environmental impact

? Market demand

As the map shows, the Baldwin Meadows property is the one major industrial property that is directly adjacent to the Muscoot River wetlands and floodplain area. This is a tributary system to the Muscoot Reservoir in neighboring Somers. This parcel is also the only major parcel in the southern Route 6 industrial zone that is west of Baldwin Place Road. Both of these locational attributes differentiate this parcel from the rest of the industrial zone. Properties north and south of Baldwin Meadows are developed for residential and/or zoned for residential use.

The topography of the site and the presence of some wetlands and poorly drained soils make the site somewhat sensitive to development. The total coverage and square footage of built space should respond to these environmental constraints.

In terms of environmental impact, the existing industrial classification could allow upwards of 600,000 square feet of development compared to approximately 112,000 square feet if 32 homes were built at 3,500 square feet per home. The industrial development would generate four to six times more traffic depending upon the type of industrial development. However, industrial development would be a net taxpayer in that it would generate no school children. Residential development is expected to be generally revenue neutral.

In terms of market demand, there is a clear market demand for residential as evidenced by the rezoning application and the significant increase experienced in single-family building permits in 1999. However, much of the industrially zoned property has been zoned for many years without significant development. This property lacks direct access and/or visibility to state highways such as Route 6.

Given the above analysis, two options which would imply a new zone could be considered:

(1) R-80 Residential

Given the politics listed above for all future residential development in non-sewered areas, the Town Board could consider a zoning request to an R-80 density (minimum lot sizes of 80,000 sq. ft. per home). When the environmental constraints of wetlands and steep slopes are considered, approximately 22-26 lots might be achieved. This could allow for relatively sensitive single-family home development of less than 100,000 square feet in total coverage.

(2) Industrial-Office/Research Zone (I-OR)

A new industrial zone could be tailored to a more focused set of "clean" uses such as office, conference hotel and light assembly. In order for this to be sensitive to the environment, a floor area ratio (FAR) should be applied to control total square footage. The Somers, NY zone for IBM and Pepsico has an FAR of 0.15 and the recently created Planned Hamlet zone in Baldwin Place has an FAR of 0.20. This range would control total built space to roughly one-half million square feet.

The Future Land Use map shows Baldwin Meadows as low-density residential development; that is the primary recommendation of this plan. This gives the Town Board the option to rezone the parcel to residential in accordance with the rezoning application and the Carmel Planning Board’s recommendation. The second option could be exercised if the Board feels that as a policy, it does not wish to rezone any industrial property. If the Board exercises this latter option, it should create a new industrial zone, preferably with an FAR of 0.15. It should be noted, as discussed in Chapter 4, that the IL District Study of the Carmel Industrial Development Agency noted that there are approximately 850 acres of vacant industrial land in Carmel.

(b) Urstadt Biddle Property

Similarly, the 52 acres of industrially zoned land abutting the commercial plaza on Route 52, north of the Carmel hamlet, would be better suited for residential purposes. This site does not have direct access to a State route within the Town and is possibly restricted by steep slopes and wetlands.

The parcel has 50-foot accessway from Route 52 in the Town of Kent and located behind the Shop Rite plaza. The steep slopes rising from Route 52 to access the site would be difficult. Access from existing roads to the east and south would be unlikely. A residential development extending down from the Town of Kent would not be suitable for industrial use and slopes and wetland restrict access from the south.

The present IL industrial zoning is liberal, allowing for a building with coverage up to 40 percent (900,000 square feet). While a 900,000 square foot building would be difficult to site upon the difficult topography, a sizable industrial use is presently allowed by right.

Alternatively, the residential building potential would be significantly less in terms of square footage. Road access could potentially be along the eastern property line, connecting to existing residential development. As a result the Future Land Use Plan also shows this property for low density residential.

9.8 New Land Use/Innovative Planning Techniques

In the zoning text update to follow this Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board may wish to examine new land use developments and new zoning techniques.

These could include the following:

? Home Occupations: Home occupations are no longer limited to doctors and lawyers. The use of computers has allowed a significant increase in home occupations and telecommuting. Modern zoning techniques can accommodate these uses while minimizing neighborhood impacts.

? Assisted Care Housing: In the last decade, a large new market has opened to serve the needs of the elderly who need personal assistance but not the medical care of a nursing home. Carmel may want to permit such uses in limited areas by special permit.

? Affordable Housing: In several areas or in the split zone areas previously discussed, the Town may want to examine techniques to encourage affordable housing. Density incentives are a zoning technique now used in some New York communities.

? Boat Docks: On the lakes in Carmel there have been increasing numbers of applications for boat docks. Possible regulations might consider size, height, number and proximity to shoreline.

9.9 Development Capacity

As reported in Chapter 4, the present residential development capacity of the Town is approximately 5,000 homes if all of the vacant land zoned residential was to be developed. With fewer development opportunities within sewer districts, the majority of new residential development can be expected to be low-density housing on two-acre lots pursuant to the policies of this plan. (sec 9.1) Additionally, new residential will include areas of wetlands and steep slopes, which will be further constrained by the recommendations of section 9.2. These two policies will, in effect "upzone" the remaining vacant residential property. This will reduce the potential residential build-out from a theoretical maximum of 5,000 units to a maximum of 3,000 units. This is based upon dividing 7,600 acres of vacant land by an average of 2.5 acres per unit, which accounts for minimum lot size, wetlands and steep slopes.

Thus it is expected that implementation of the land use recommendations of this plan will result in approximately 2000 fewer homes than current zoning policies in terms of a potential build-out of the Town.