TOWN of C~R El COMPREHENSIV: L

TOWN OF C~R El COMPREHENSIV: l

OCTOBER, 2000

u,1 (T olaf? l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN l CREDITS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TOWN SUPERVISOR PLANNING BOARD l Frank Del Campo Harold Gary, Chairman John Glynn TOWN BOARD Emma Kounine Robert J. Ravallo William Carlin l Norman M. Marino Dorothy Weydig Timothy F. Wilson Carl Greenwood Doris A. Stahl John Mallegol Peggy Moore, Secretary BUCKHURST FISH & )ACQUEMART, INC. 881 Broadway TOWN CLERK New York, NY 10003 Connie Munday Frank Fish, AICP, Principal Joseph Cimer, Senior Planner BUILDING INSPECTOR Tammy Sufi, Transportation Planner Mike Carnazza Martin Torre, Graphic Design Teri Dennin, Research LIBRARIES Patricia Kaufman, Mahopac Library DIVNEY TUNG SCHWALBE, LLP Marilyn Schlansky, Reed Library 1 North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 FIRE DEPARTMENTS Gerhard Schwalbe, P.E. Robert Efferen, Carmel Fire Dept. I. Jeff Sonnergren, P.E. Scott Hawkins, Mahopac Falls Fire Dept. Dale Smith, Mahopac Fire Dept. TOWN ENGINEER John Karell, Jr., P.E HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Mike Simoni TOWN COUNSEL Ron DeFrancesco Tomas Costello, Esq. PARKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING CONSULTANT TO TOWN BOARD Richard Gennaro Edward Borroughs POLICE DEPARTMENT Bruce Hart

SCHOOLS Jim Maloney, Superintendent of Operations Lennie Costable, Director of Facilities

L ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Ross Weale

PUTNAM COUNTY John Lynch, Director Barbara York, GIS Assistant

The assistance of the Town Board's Planning Consultant, Edward Burroughs for drafting sections of the Plan and the Planning Boards Planning Advisor, Pat Cleary, for review of the Plan has r' been appreciated. l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -, ,-.I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PLANNING BASIS 1

l 1.2 CITIZEN BASED PLANNING ...... 1

7 i 1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 2 J

....., 2 HISTORICAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT ...... 4 2 .1 HI STORY ...... · ...... 4

3 DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 8 3. 1 POPULATION ...... 8 3 .2 AGE ...... 12 3 .3 POPULATION PROJECTION ...... 13

4 LAND USE ...... 14 4.1 EXISTING LAND USE ...... 14 4.2 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL...... 18

5 ENVIRONMENT ...... · .20 5. 1 SLOPES ...... 2 O 5.2 SURFACE WATER, WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS...... 20

5.3 SOILS ...... 22 5.4 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ...... 23

6 TRANSPORT ATION ...... 2 5 6.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADWAY SYSTEM ...... 25

6.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...... 27

6.3 VEHICLE CRASH DATA...... 27 6.4 ROADWAY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 30

6.5 BUS NETWORK ...... 32 6.6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION ...... 33 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE 7 7 COMMUN ITV FACILITIES ...... 34 7 .1 PARKS AND RECREATION ...... 34 7.2 SCHOOLS ...... 36 7.3 LIBRARIES ...... 38 7.4 MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS ...... 39

7.5 POLICE SERVICES ------.. ··· ...... , ...... 39 7.6 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ...... 40 7 7.7 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ...... 40 7.8 SEWERS ...... 40 , 7. 9 WATER ...... 46

8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ...... 48 _l 8.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS ...... 48 8.2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ...... 50

9 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...... 55

I 9.1 IN NON-SEWERED AREAS: A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2 ACRES ...... 55 'l 9.2 IN SEWERED AREAS: A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1 ACRES ...... 55 9.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS...... 55 9.4 CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS...... 56 9.5 COMMERCIAL AREA CONTROLS...... 58 9.6 NEW LAND USE/INNOVATIVE PLANNING TECHNIQUES ...... 59

9.7 SUMMARY ...... 60 9.8 PERIODIC REVIEW 60

APPENDIX A PLANNING WORKSHOP 1 REPORT APPENDIX B ··1 PLANNING WORKSHOP 2 REPORT APPENDIX C IL District Study l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

List of Tables Page

7 Table 3.1 Putnam County Population Change, 1930-1996...... 8 Table 3.2 Putnam County Population Change, 1930-1996...... 9 Table 3.3 Town of Carmel Population by Ethnic Group ...... 9 7 Table 3.4 Household Income by Range, 1990...... 10 Table 3.7 Carmel Population Characteristics...... 12 Table 3.8 Population Change 1990 to 1998...... 13 Table 4.2 Carmel Land Use by Type, 1968 to 1991 ...... 15 Table 4.4 Putnam County Land Use by Type, 1968 to 1991 ...... 16 7 Table 4.5 Single Family Building Permits 1990-1999...... : ...... 17 ' Table 4.6 Housing Construction 1939 to 1990 ...... 17 Table 4. 7 1991 Development Potential ...... 18 7 Table 4.8 Subdivision Lot Size Comparison ...... 18 Table 4.9 Residential Land Potential, 2000 ...... 19 Table 6.1 High Intersection Crash Locations (Oct. 1995 - Sept. 1998)...... 30 Table 6.2 Fixed-Route Bus Service ...... 32 Table 7.1 Carmel Municipally-Owned Parks ...... 35 Table 7.2 Recreation Facilities at Carmel Schools...... 35 Table 7.3 Carmel School Facilities...... 37 Table 7.4 Library Facilities, Holdings by Type, 1997...... 38 Table 7.5 Waste Water Treatment Plants ...... 41 Table 7.6 Excess Sewer Capacity ...... 42

List of Fi gures Page

Figure 2.1 Regional Context ...... 5 Figure 3.5 Carmel Occupation by Type...... 11 Figure 3.6 New York State Occupation by Type ...... 11 Figure 4.1 Carmel General Land Use Change, 1968 to 1991 ...... 14 Figure 4.3 Putnam County General Land Use Change, 1968 to 1991 ...... 16 Figure 5.1 Slopes, Waterbodies and Wetlands ...... 21 Figure 5.3 Croton Watershed ...... 23 Figure 6.1 Road Classifications...... 26 Figure 6.2 Traffic Volumes ...... 28 Figure 6.3 High Accident Locations...... 2 9 Figure 7.1 Existing and Proposed Sewer Districts...... 45 Figure 7.2 Existing Water District ...... 47 Figure 8.1 Future Land Use Plan ...... 53 Figure 9.1 Conventional Subdivision ...... 56 Figure 9.2 Cluster Subdivision...... 57 Figure 9.3 Floor Area Ratio ...... 58 ,...,

TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

1 INTRODUCTION

The Carmel Town Board retained Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. (BFJ) to assist with an __u pdat~ 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 .(,roton Plan was initiated by Putnam County. The Croton Plan is a water quality and community character plan for the Croton River watershed that is being prepared pursuant to the New York City Watershed !::::1fmoreL1dum of Agreem en.t. Four Putnam County towns - Carmel, Kent, Patterson and Southeast - are participating in this effort with the County. The update of the Carmel Town Plan takes into account the products of the watershed planning effort and relates their findings to the Town's policies and land use recommendations for the future.

The Carmel

fOWN DEVELOPMENT ?LAN _,// Comprehensive 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 The Town's first serve decision making on development pfan from 1957. physical development. These elements are the ) Town's historical and regional context, I / population characteristics, environment, transportation and community facilities. The features of each of the elements are integrated into the Land Use Plan and an implementation chapter concludes the overal I Comprehensive Plan.

1.2 Citizen Based Planning

The Comprehensive Plan 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, ~ _eublic workshops were conducted. This allowed citizens to express their concerns, goals an d recommendations at critical points in the planning process. TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

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 conceptual land use plan and background report was presented with participants working in breakout groups toward consensus on the most significant issues.

Round table discussions provided insight for a community-based plan.

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 th e Town in the next ten years. The goals found in 8.1 have guided the Plan's development.

2 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

l a. Land Use

7 Carmel should establish a balance among protection of the natural environment and resources, maintaining quality neighborhoods, providing necessary community services and insuring a sound economic base. 1 " b. Environmental Protection

7 . Carmel should preserve its natural resources and protect the quality of drinking water supplies.

l c. Infrastructure (l 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.

d. Economic Development

I! Carmel should sensitively develop its economic sector so as to strengthen its tax base consistent with the other goals of this plan. _J J e. Traffic and Transportation

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

,.. f. Community Character

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

g. Parks and Open Space

Carmel should seek to provide quality park facilities.

I 3

.fJl , .... I / >---- I.., \ / ?0! fUr 1 I '?-, ~------// I, ------I ...... \ / t I I 11 I ', ,t[.lSl!IT VHLEJ .. - 'I I J / I l I I --- f /~y ?Ill ----1' ------,-/ llOY') u E• I s I I r I I I I r UlllONYll! 'I : _.....------I 'I ------~ I I t''"-..... I

··.. ). I I l.

•ur,u.111 ·1uL£t

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Figure 2.1 . Regional Context Town of Carmel, NY

0 6 rni 12 rni EE BFJ Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. --,

TOWN OF (AR/v\El. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

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 I 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 Frederick Philipse, Morris and Robinson. Philipse's Putnam County 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 ~ as the first Supervisor and John Crane as the Town Clerk. In 1812, the Town became the ,.!:aunty 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 20 1h century, but declined in 1 popularity and upkeep. ,vtany of the hotels burned,_ with only one hotel building intact . today.

6 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN l Days ofgrandeur : The Gregory House Resort in Mahof;i_c

l l

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 l their family building years.

TOWK Ot" I('• ti\ 'D1_111.ti1 )lt _,_/...·----·--'j·--· ~ ~~*"•~ ...- ,.-" ' rulUlfDt r •. N.Y. •(,,,,/ ..- ,#IP/,';,.,(.,,/-, 1,t, /,,,

•.

•/ I

i I· .,t i I

7 7 TOWN OF (ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

3 DEMOGRAPHICS 7 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

7 J 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 7 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 2,146 3,924 8,106 12,433 13,183 14,594 7 1,546 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 1 J,416 14,927 16,382 Putnam Count 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.

8 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ..,

Table 3.2 7 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 196 7 Carmel 22.2 30.1 67.0 137.5 29.2 3.1 7.7 Kent 7 100.8 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 ..... I 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 7 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 I j 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 81,686 694 103 919 539 83,941 County % 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 Car.me! was $58,204, with a slightly higher average income at $64,750. These figures are higher than the median or average household income levels within the County: $53,634 and $61,042, respectively.

j . l

·1 9 J 7 TOWN OF (ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

As reflected in Table 3.4, very few households in the Town or the County are within a low l 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 all of the County. Proportionately, the 325 l 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 7 $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 7 $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 Figure 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. 7 j

10 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Figure 3.5

Carmel Occupation by Type 00 Agr/For/Min ■ Constr □ Manuf 5'¼, 1% 8% D Trans/Comm ■ Wholesale □ Retail ■ FIRE □ Bus/Personal ■ Entertain Ill Health D Education ■ Profession ■ Pub Adm 9% 16% Source: 1990 Census

Comparatively, the workforce in the Town is similar to that of the State as a whole (see Figure 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.

Figure 3.6

New York State Occupation by Type IE Agr/For/M in Constr 5%· : 1%5% □ Manuf □ Trans/Comm ■ Wholesale □ Retail ■ FIRE 8% 10% □ Bu s/Perso nal Entertain Iii Health □ Ed ucation 9% Profession [ii Pub Adm

Source: 1990 Census

11 7

TOWN OF (ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN l 3.2· Age 7 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 1990 population remained relatively young, with only 7 ·2,227 people over the age of sixty-five. The Town is largely representative of a suburban community with many households in their "family building" years. This is evident from the increase in children from infancy 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 7 1980 1990 Absolute Percent !Age Male !Female !Total Male !Female !Total Change I Change I l 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

jTotal I 13,8691 14,0791 27,9481 14,3971 14,4191 28,8161 8681

jMedian I 29.91 33.51 Source: U.S. Census 1990, Putnam County Division of Planning and Development.

j i .•

12 j 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 3.3 Population Projection l The Town had a 1990 population of 28,816; the estimated 1996 population was 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 actual population 7 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 1990 to 1998 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. 194 Est. 195 Est. '96 Est. '97 Est. 198 % Change 7 Carmel 28,816 29,168 29,541 30,012 30,380 30,750 31,027 nla Nia % Change 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.9 nla Nia 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% in Carmel 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 population 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 recommendati of this Ian to "upzone" remaining undeveloped land\ will be implemente , EP regulations w1 con inue to re ulate elopment, and (3) r. maining vacant land will have reater env1ronmenta constraints leading to reduced developm n opportunities. As a resu to t ese assumptions, this pan projects a 2010 population for Carmel of approximately 35,000 and a 7.5 percent overall growth rate.

The increase of approximately 2,500 people would, on average, allow for an 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). ·

,·f .·

13 7 TOWN OF (ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

4 LAND USE 7 4.1 Existing Land Use

According to Putnam County Planning Department records, Carmel has become 7 ; 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. Most of 7 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 an(Table 4.2 depict the land use averages for 1968 and 1991, respectively.· l

Figure 4.1 Carmel General Land Use Change, 1968 to 1991

18000 · 7 16000 l 14000 +------{'::!I --- 12000 ------~ 10000 +------ []) 1968 7 :t 8000 +------11! 1111991 6000 4000 +----Gi.1 2000 -4------lf.l" , 0

Land Use Type Source: Putnam County Planning Dept.

Commercial development also increased during the same time period. Over 400 acres of have been developed for commercial use 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 in the amount of forestland. Over 2,200 acres were lost, declining from nearly 60 to 50 percent of the Town's overall land area. Over 300 acres of agricultural were also lost; farmland represented only 0.5 percent of the overall land use in 1991, down ·from 1.7 percent in

14 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 1968. Industrial lands represent the smallest overall land use type in 1991 at 0.1 percent. This figure is down from 0.2 percent in 1968. 7 In 1999, the Town of Carmel Industrial Development Agency issued an analysis of industrial land; The IL District Study (See Appendix C). The study revealed that 1, 188 acres of land are 7 industrially zoned, but only 332 acres contain industrial developments. The vacant industrial land was reported to be 885 acres. The report indicated that some existing sites contain wetlands and severe slopes, limiting their overall development potential. An 7 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 in the County's 1991 data, was used for 1999 industrial purposes.

l Table 4.2 Carmel Land Use by Type, 1968 to 1991 7 1968 % of 1991 % of Change (acres) Total (acres) Total '68-191 % 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 7. 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 7 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, but commercial uses represented only a small portion of overall development. '} l~ y, forest and wetlands still represent a sizable amount of land within the County.

15 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -,

Figure 4.3 7 Putnam County General Land Use Change, 1968 to 1991

-, 120000 100000 80000 Q)"' El 1968 (acres) t:; 60000 <( 111991 (acres) 40000 20000 0

Land Use Type

Source: Putnam County Planning Dept.

The most significant decline in land use throughout the County has been with forested lands. Nearly 7,000 acres were lost from 1968 to 1991, but on1y'b.'t percent of the total forest area had 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 decline 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 % of 1991 % of Change (acres) Total (acres) Total 168-191 % 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 l 1.7 -656 -3.4 Total 157424 100.0 157425 100.0

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

16 7 TOWN OF (ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .J Residential 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 7 900 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 entire County, even though it contains only 15% 7 of the land area. Table 4.5 Single Family Building Permits 1990-1999 7 YEAR Building Permits 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 l Carmel 60 78 88 92 105 75 72 79 99 149 I l Putnam Co. 490 204 238 183 257 178 184 189 484 NIA % in Carmel 12% 38% 37% 50% 41% 42% 39% 42% 20% NIA 7 Source: Putnam County Planning Department and Town of Carmel Building Department, 1999.

Housing in the Town is predominantly single family residential with a total 10,152 homes 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 l 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 potentially developable land as of 1991 .

17 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7 ' 4.2 Development Potential

table 4.7 7 1991 Development Potential 1991 Develo able Land Use Acres Agricultural 128 Undeveloped 118 Forest 13,059 Total 13,305

J Vacant zoned industrial land, as noted in the 1997 IL District Study was 885 acres (See Appendix C). 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 2.9 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 Levine 55 18 3.1 Kirkwood Estates 45 17 2.6 Laurel Hill 26 10 2.6 Shenandoah Estates 36 14 2.6

Average Lot Size 2.9 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 been interpolated to be 10,870 acres.

18 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 Table 4.9 Residential Land Potential, 2000 7 1991 Vacant Land (from Table 4.7) 13,305 Vacant Industrial Land - 885 Develo ed Residential Land -1,550 7 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.

7 By subtracting the area that will not be developed due to slopes, wetlands and design (approximately 30%) from the 10,870 acres of vacant residential land shown in Table 4.9, 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 5,550 development lots.

The Town Assessor has recorded 1,708 vacant tax parcels that have a total land area of 6,207 acres. The vacant parcels include tax-exempt land, hut exclude NYC Department of Environmental Protection land area. The comparative development differences of the vacant land use data and the tax parcel data are provided below.

Land Use Data Tax Data Development Potential at R-60 5,550 3,200 Development Potential at R-80 2,750 1,600

19 7 TOWN OF (ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7 ENVIRONMENT

7 The Town of Carmel enjoys a wide variety of terrain, offering diverse plants, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. As human interaction with nature continues to extend further from urban areas, appropriate preservation and protection of environmental features 7 is needed. 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 l · reasons: • Construction in these areas is difficult and expensive.

7 • Putnam County does not permit sub-surface sewage treatment systems (septic _ 1J~ 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 historically attracted people to the area. Lake Mahopac, Kirk Lake, Secor Lake, and Lake Gleneida had previously been a focus for resorts and cottagers early in the 20tt, century. The Croton Falls and West Branch reservoirs add to the beauty of 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 areas along these streams, especially in the lowland zone, are 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:

20 l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

...:.

.., • Areas that are prone to flooding represent a life and property hazard . -,I I • Wetlands reduce the danger of flooding downstream by acting as natural detention basins during peak runoff periods and the biological act1v1ty 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 7 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.

l I

22 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

5.4 Groundwater Resources

Of the 26,060 acres in Carmel, 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, account for over 2,000 acres of the Town. Additionally, three lakes within the Town's borders, Gilead, Gleneida and Kirk, are "controlled" by the City, where no buildin s or septic s stems are allowed within 300 feet of the waterbod 1 • Figure 5.3, epicts the Croton Watershed s c ester, Putnam an

Figure 5.3 Croton Watershed

·. 8~1an Pawling

I . East Fishkill ,· - ---- r PMterSOn I I I I I ~

Source: NYCDEP, 1999.

23 l TOWN Of (ARMEL (OMPR'rHENSIVE PLAN

7 ..... I j

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

Groundwater quality 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 l 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.

I •

24 7 TOWN OF(ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

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. 7

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) • West Shore Drive (CR 38) • Hill St/ Long Pond Rd/ Crane Rd (CR 32) • Gypsy Trail Road (CR 41) • West Lake/ North Lake Bvld. (CR 33). • Hill & Dale Road (CR 44) • Croton Falls Road (CR 34) • Simpson Road (CR 57) • Stoneleigh Avenue (CR 35) • Fair Street (CR 60) • Drewville Road (CR 36) • Myrtle Ave (CR 71) • Baldwin Place Road (CR 37) • East Lake Boulevard (CR 72)

I ..J

25 I l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7 l 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 l volumes as heavy as those on arterial routes. Collector streets in the Town of Carmel are: • Archer Road • Bullet Hole Road • Union Valley Road • Shear Hill Road l • Seminary Hill Road • West Shore Drive • Hughson Road • Lovell Street • Dixon Road • Belden Road l • Watermelon Hill Road • Baldwin Place Road 1 Local Streets Local streets provide direct access to the properties located along them. All streets in the L Town of Carmel that are not listed in the above categories are local streets. n 6.2 Traffic Volumes f 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 J 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.

1AADT: NYS DOT 1996, 1997, 1998; Data Storch Associates, 1996; Putnam County Department of Highways and Facilities, 1992. Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts conducted by Edwards & Kelcey, Inc. October 1998.

27 ' =-- ,_ -. --·+- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (/ 3410 i ~ Town of Carmel, NY / i8267 r r / ~ r~ rJ Figure 6.2 Traffic Volumes I ~ -~ I Scale: 1 in : 5000 ft ' j I ( ,-/ r I / EB (- I f 14624

I 8~281{ ~'

v.v I I I I I ./ I 5232 / I / I I I jJ) 8790 ___ ,_.,. ___ ...• ---· ·------·---·--··--· ___ jj/L_ I §I Source: NY State DOT l 996, 97, 98 Putnam County HighwayDepartment l 992, 1996. 1 - 4999 5000 - 9999 10000 - 14999 15000 - 19,999 - 20000 - 24999 _J J J

I '

1,...- -, ( ' ) _:>,-<·--·· -- - 1- •·" \ 4 -----~········-·· .- .-----·- ...- -- - .d,_,, ___ 30, •. ~ ...... ~•········ .. •-·-- \_ r-- . . coMPREHENS\\IE pl,~N j 1own oi carme\,· N'\' 'd \. t' ) fig••• 6.3 1-1igbesl M<' ent oe• ,onsrj.J ./J ,..,,· scale: , in : sooO ti. Intersection Crash Location 10~ and Ranl

------So"""' NS Stal< pQ1 1996, 97, 98 P"'"'m co,rtlY c11,hw"i°'P'""""' 1992, 1996.

.--·r .. -·•··· --~Ci\~ l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 Table 6.1 High Intersection* Crash Locations (October 1995 - September 1998) :)f 7 Map Property Total Location At Fatal Injury No. Damage Only Reportable 1 Route 6 Church St. 0 14 10 24 7 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 7 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 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 6 Source: NYS DOT, 1995-1998 *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 Wixon Pond Road. The other occurred at the intersection of Route 6 and Ballard 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 congestioti 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 ~armel 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

30 l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

greater than those at any other intersection along Route 6. Traffic volumes at Route 6 and l Mount Hope Road exceed 2300 vehicles in both the AM and PM peak hours. Queues from 7 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 ofCarmel.

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 ~ te 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 produce detailed recommendations, some measures can be considered now. Low cost, traffic management solutions may be able to provide results long before implementation of expensive construction schemes that could involve the taking of property and that may not achieve the support of residents. Traffic management solutions should be explored -l... ,_ .. , expeditiously.

First, the NYS DOT should upgrade and synchronize signalization immediately. Upgrading L 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 T' a greater volume of vehicles to pass through the intersection during the peak hour. Second, consideration should be given to strategic one-way traffic patterns. Using the existing roadways more efficiently may reduce traffic congestion. For example, creating a one-way loop of the sections of Route 6N, Clark Place and. Route 6 around the center of Mahopac hamlet may ease traffic flow and reduce turning conflic_ts.

Third, alternative traffic patterns should be investigated for a wider geographical area in the Mahopac hamlet. One way restrictions on sections of Mount Hope Road and East Lake Boulevard may have merit. These changes should be investigated, with and without left-turn ,.. restrictions.

Route 6 I 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. Restricted turns should be experimented with 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 have 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 chu~ch and school. In addition, it is to be the site of the new county

J 31 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

,....,7 courthouse and a new professional office building. The signals at this intersection should also be upgraded and synchronized. 7 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 aFea. Possible considerations for study should include reducing or eliminating on-street parking, particularly on Route 52 north of Fair Street, to allow for greater visibility, reduced conflicts between parking cars and traffic flow on Route 52, and an increase in capacity. 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 option that may present an alternative for traffic flow.

Circulation and Parking in the Town's Hamlets 7 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 Major Destinations within the Route Major Route Destinations Frequency Town of Carmel Number Carmel, Putnam Lake, Brewster Putnam Plaza, Putnam Every hour PART 1 Hospital, Office for Aging/DSS

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

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

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

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

32 T OWN OF CARMEL C OMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Town does not have commuter rail seNice. 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 th is ti me, there are few accommodations made for bicycles in the l\ ~•~rY Town of Carmel. There are no bike lanes fr' 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 .

The Town of Carmel should focus on further defining the hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel as I If village centers, paying particular attention to pedestrian circulation such as pedestrian \ crossings and sidewalks. The Hamlet evitalization Plan should continue to be implemented or revised to re ec new aevelopments an community desires. While the Town currently lacks a bike trail through town, the possibility of a trail along the [ I \ 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 [\_V · both as an alternative form of transportation through the Town and as an amenity for the \f community.

33 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 7 I 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. l 7.1 Parks and Recreation The Town presently has three community parks for use by local residents; Sycamore Park, Crane Road Field and the Geary Skate Park (See Table 7.1 ). Two additional parks are currently being developed, the Camarda Park and the Mahopac Chamber passive park. The Town is also considering property on Watermelon Hill Road for future park development. 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 (baseball, football, soccer). These parks are representative of the Town Board's policy of centralized parks.

Three other neighborhood parks are also owned by ·park districts of the Town; Secor, Tea 7 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 providing 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 beach access with lifeguards to neighborhood residents.

As is provided for under NYS Town Law, the Town's "Subdivision of Land" regulations authorize the Town Planning Board to require applicants for subdivision to set aside a portion of their property for recreation purposes or pay a fee into a dedicated Town fund to be used for recreation purposes. Before the 1980s, the Planning Board would often approve subdivision plans with land set aside for recreation. Based ao Jawn records, 46 parcel'i \ l~ encompassing 85 )H;res w,er~ set aside in this manner.- Unfortunately, due to the small size of the parcels, the lack of access and limiting physical conditions, most of this land is vacant and unused.

Recognizing this situation, the Town Board established a policy that recreation facilities should be developed in centralizing locations where large ballfields and similar needed l facilities can be easily established. As a result, the Planning Board has generally required ) the payment of a fee in lieu of land aside since 1980.

This policy has served the Town well and should continue. At the time that a subdivision application comes before the Planning Board where it may be possible to define a large, useable recreation area, the Planning Board should notify the Town Board and begin an evaluation if the potential recreation land would meet the centralized facility policy. In addition, the Town Board believes that a planned pattern of small satellite parks throughout the Town be implemented in order to provide additional recreational opportunities; such as playgrounds, skating rinks, basketball courts, contemplative areas

34 7

TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -, I and the like. These satellite parks would be monitored and supervised by the Recreation and Parks Department. The Town Board and the Recreation Department would identify 7 areas in the Town where such satellite parks would be appropriate and notify the Planning Board of the Town's desire to acquire land suitable for said purposes.

--, I Table 7.1 Carmel Municipally-Owned Parks

Name of Park Size (acres) Facilities 1 Ballfield Sycamore Park 32 2 Basketball Courts (20 acres active) Beach area 4 Tennis Courts 4 Playground Areas Crane Road Field 19 5 Ballfields (13 acres active) 2 Tennis Courts Geary Skate Park 0.5 In Line Skate Park 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 Recreation Facilities at Carmel Schools

Name of School Size (acres) Outdoor Facilities Running Track Mahopac High/ 61 Football Field Middle School Varsity Baseball Field 3 Softball Fields 1 Lacrosse Field 4 Tennis Courts Running Track Carmel High School 27 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

i r 35 7

TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN l 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. 7 This 6,800-acre park offers many passive recreational uses, which include beaches, boating, hiking and camping.

7 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 7 ..,' 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 7 of the rail system in 1965. The State expects to acquire many of the privately owned parcels I 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 districts 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 Central 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 Carmel Central 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 school land will be required, but will add space within the Falls School and optimize space withi~ the high and middle schools. The Falls Elementary School is currently being used as a kindergarten center. 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 2008-2009. The Mahopac High School can accommodate up to 200 students. Space for an estimated 700 students will be necessary by the 2008-2009 school year. Renovation and expansion of the existing facilities is presently underway.

36 TOWN OF C ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

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 Rep ort, Mahopac School District, 1999, and Town of Carmel Community Facilities, 1978; Carmel Central School district, 1999.

The Carmel Central School District only has one facility within the Town boundaries; the Carmel High School. Th e 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. Adequate classroom space needs within the Carmel High School have been reported in a December 1999 Draft Long Range Fa cilities Plan . The recommended needs of the facilities include small roup 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.

The trridi[iona/ f4r;ade of the Carmel Hit:h School.

37 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 .3 Libraries 7 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 l Books 65,456 20,529 CD ROM 0 25 7 I Audio 7,690 1,338 I 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 bee.n a school district public library. With this status, funding is provided through the Mahopac Central School District. In 1990, the library served a 7 chartered population of 22,381 people.

38 .7 I TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 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 7 population of 8,800, mainly I ! 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. The facility has nearly 28,000 holdings (books, tapes, etc.). 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 l/ registration, including the employment of a full time librarian. Physical-standards for space, •#~ parking and seating are deficient at the Reed Library. While there are no specific standards 1/ for library size, the State has considered the general guidelines 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. Tlie 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.

39 7 TOWN OF CARMEL CoMPREHENSIVIPLAN

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 three 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 and the third station is located on Buckshollow Road.

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

7 The Croton Falls Fire Department serves the southeast section of the Town, along Croton Falls Road and part of Stoneleigh Avenue. -, The emergency medical services are rendered through the Mahopac Fire Department ambulance, as is the Mahopac Falls Fire Department. The Carmel Volunteer Ambulance Corp. serves the Carmel Fire District and Protection District. The North 7 Salem Volunteer Ambulance Corp. serves the southeast section of the Town, along Croton Falls Road and part of Stoneleigh Avenue as part of Carmel Fire Protection District #3.

7. 7 Highway Department 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 Sewers The Croton Plan has helped to guide the development of this Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the sewer policies found below. In this Plan, a sewer policy is provided with the Croton Plan providing background information.

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 remaining plants in the Town include four owned by the public school system, one owned by the City of New York, and five that 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 expansion of the Mahopac Sewer District to address isolated septic failures along a 0.3 mile commercial section along Route 6 north of Croton Falls Road.

Page revised 3.20.01

40 7 . I I TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Table 7.5 7 Waste Water Treatment Plants Year Built Facility Name Present Usage Carmel Sewer 1965 • 4,995 population present operation level (1.1 mgd District No. 2 capacity) • 0.63 million gallons/day (MGD) flow . • Upgraded in 1997 . Carmel Sewer 1976 • 0.15 MGD flow. District No. 4 Carmel Sewer 1960'5 • Accepts waste from 150 homes. District No. 7 • 0.036 MGD flow . Fulmar Rd. 1973 • Accepts only sanitary waste from the school. Elementary School • 0.003 MGD flow. l. Lake Plaza 1970's • 0.004 MGD flow. (Mahopac Assoc.) Mahopac Falls 1960's • Serves 200 students and faculty. l Elem. School • 0.002 MGD flow . Mahopac High 1960's • Serves 1,400 students . 7 School • 0.005 MGD flow . Mahopac Middle 1960's • Serves 1,000 students and faculty. School • 0.004 MGD flow . Mahopac STP 1990's Serves 607 population . J • • 0.15 MGD flow . Mahopac Village 1993 • Serves shopping center only . Center • 0.009 MGD Flow . Maple Hill Estates 1984 • Serves 77-unit condominium complex only. • 0.012 MGD flow . Society Hills 1987 • Serves 100 condominium homes. Condos • 0.016 MGD flow . Williamsburg 1985 • Serves 89 condominium homes. Ridge • 0.015 MGD flow .

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

The total amount of wastewater now treated in all the wastewater treatment plants is approximately 1,008,600 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 1,853,400 gpd. Subtracting the current discharge rate from the permitted rate leaves approximately 814,800 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 529,300 gpd in the plants controlled by the Town, the majority being Carmel District No. 2 (see Table 7.6). The remaining excess capacity is not

41 7

I TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 controlled by the Town, and 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. The actual capacity will be further reduced by homes that have not connect to the system, but are within the districts. Additionally, the 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 50,000 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, 7 ' if permitted under zoning and environmental regulations, additional development growth in L 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 7 hamlet (including Lake Secor and Baldwin Place) around Lake Mahopac. Outside these j 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 7 septic systems and groundwater wells.

Much of Mahopac's medium density residential areas (i.e. existing R-40/30, R-40/20, R-40/10 zones) remain unsewered. These areas would benefit from sewers from the standpoint of improving water quality. The areas adjacent to Lake Mahopac and stream corridors may also pose future water quality problems, since most septic systems were constructed in the last 30 to 50 years and may experience an increase in failure or repair rates.

The Town can also 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.

i • Home Treatment Systems retrofit the septic tanks with small treatment devices to reduce j · 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 j for subsurface disposal is still needed.

I J 42 .l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7 Diversion

7 The Putnam County-Croton Watershed Diversion Feasibility Study was prepared by lnsite I 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 at a location within Putnam County

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

Scheme 38 - Treated Flow Diversion to Hudson River inside Putnam County

The benefit of the diversion is improved water quality within the Croton Watershed. According to the study, Diversion Scheme 3A was found to be the most practical alternate for l diversion due to its lower capital cost and consideration to environmental and governmental issues. However, the Town'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. Recently, the Putnam County Executive announced a new diversion program that is presently being reviewed by the County and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. For the purposes of this plan, diversion has not been considered a factor which will increase the development potential in the Town. This is because the present County plans do not contemplate any expansion of sewerage collection systems in the Town of Carmel. Therefore, those areas of the Town not currently serviced by a municipal sewerage collection system will remain unaffected.

Recently, the Putnam County Executive announced a new diversion program that is presently being reviewed by the County and the New York City Department of Environmental J

j 43 7 TOWN OF (ARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 I Protection. As this evaluation and its financial implications become available, the Town will then be in a position to respond to a diversion plan. 7 I Recommended Sewer Districts

7 Figure 7 .1 depicts the proposed sewer ar~as as well as the existing districts. The only .f I expanded district is proposed around Lake Mahopac and to the existing residential areas to I the east of Route 6. In the Carmel Sewer Distict Number 2, having recently undergone a significant expansion, is not projected to inlcude any new ;ireas.

The expansion of Carmel Sewer District Number 1 along Route 6 from Croton Falls Road to east of Baldwin Lane will help to address the chronic septic system failures where the Putnam County Health Department and NYC DEP have documented the septic failures. Conceptual approval for the expansion of the Mahopac Sewage Treatment Plant using

-, excess capacity has been granted by the NYC DEP. The district expansion extending around Lake Mahopac will allow the connection of homes with relatively old septic systems on small lots. l l ]

I _J

I J 44 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN l 7 The Town of Carmel administers eleven water districts (see Figure 7.2). The largest among I them is Carmel Water District Number 2 in the north east section of the Town serving approximately 4,400 people. The remaining districts serve approximately 5,600 residents.

Only two water districts, number 2 and 8, draw water from surface sources. The remaining nine systems are sub-surface systems that use water from wells.

There are twenty-nine additional water supply systems that are privately owned and operated. These systems serve approximately 6,700 residents, in addition to schools and institutions.

All other areas of the Town are served by private wells. 7 I. The water quality and capacity in the districts have generally been satisfactory based on Town and Health Department records. During an extended dry time period during 1999, private wells in the area were reported to have reduced yields, the Rolling Greens area along \I Baldwin Place Road being the most affected area. This situation may be corrected with the l l installation of a community public water supply or the extension of water service from an 7 existing district. ·1n addition; isolated cases of reduced well yield were reported in the Long Pond area of the \l Town. This area should be monitored for performance in the future. l1 ·

l 46 l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

This chapter summarizes the policies and goals for the Town. The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives derived through the planning process were designed 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 ).

8.1 Comprehensive Plan Goals

As noted in the introduction, the development of this plan has been guided by goals developed 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 Comprehensive 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 among protection of the natural environment and resources, maintaining quality neighborhoods, providing necessary community services and insuring a sound economic base.

This goal is the main theme of the Comprehensive Plan. The operative concept is b~ The community has a heightened appreciation for protecting natural resources. The community also insists on enhancing a high quality of life for its residents. These two aims require environmentally sound land use planning and land use regulations that reflect the carrying capacity of the land and the historic character of the Town. Provision must be made for a diverse housing stock. Opportunity must be available for insuring adequate local commerce. To implement this goal, large areas of the Town are identified in this plan as recommended for lower density development than was previously permitted by zoning. Other areas of the Town once contemplated for large-scale commercial development are now recommended for lower density, residential uses with fewer impacts.

Environmental Protection

Carmel should preserve its natural resources and protect the quality of drinking water 1 supplies. This second goal recognizes the need to protect watercourses, wetlands, steeply sloped lands and an integrated open space system. Appropriate land use controls and appropriate I infrastructure need to be in place to assure the qua·lity of life desired by residents. Significant natural features can and shou Id be protected.

Additionally, 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

48 7 i TOWN Of CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

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.

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.

Similar to the environmental protection goal above, the presence of efficiently functioning and adequate water and sanitary sewer collection, distribution and treatment facilities will further strengthen the Town hamlet centers. Carmel should take appropriate action to continue to protect its water supply from contamination and expand potable water districts as need arises.

Economic Development

Carmel should sensitively develop its economic sector so as to strengthen its tax base consistent with the other goals of this plan.

The Town must protect and enhance its established business areas as they provide vital \\ services for residents. The appearance of, and ease of access to, local business areas is of j 7 critical importance. Carmel should promote these areas in the context of community character and environmental sensitivity. The Town should also pursue attracting certain regional uses to the Town in order to strengthen the tax base and to provide convenient services to residents. Such uses - hotel corporate offices - can be attractively located within the plan's designated .s,ampll) ~_gal laiic(use areas without adversely impacting the Town's hamlet business area and established residential neighborhoods.

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 and/or encourage transportation, parking, and circulation services that benefit all residents. These include pedestrian and bicycle circulation, traffic mitigation in the de·nsely settled areas, and off-street parking improvements.

49 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

l Community Character 7 Carmel should seek to provide the quality and quantity of facilities demanded by its residents as part of an overall commitment to the quality of life in the town.

The Town of Carmel is primarily a bedroom community located in the Hudson Valley amidst the mountains, lakes, ponds and reservoirs, with commercial activity concentrated along Route 6 corridor which is the major thoroughfare in the Town. The hamlets of Mahopac and Carmel are located in this corridor and commercial activity is more concentrated in the hamlets. The hamlet of Mahopac Falls is located off of Route 6N and has a small commercial center. Most commercial buildings are one or two stories in height. Buildings greater than two stories are the exception rather than the rule. The Town values its rural character and bucolic setting. Future development should be consistent with this S existing community character. ~ 7 I(..., · Parks and Open Space ,. ~ 1'-=. r"""

Carmel should seek to provide quality park facilities.

Past experience with accepting recreation land as part of the ~ubdivision process has 7 resulted with the Town having an inventory of properties which are generally not suitable for f active recreation purposes whether because of land characteristics or because of location. As a result, the Town Board has generally emphasized the development of centralized recreation areas rather than neighborhood parks. The remaining land to be developed provides relatively few, if any, possible locations for park or recreation facilities when the size and suitability of such land is considered as well as other practical factors. Thus, a recreation fee in lieu of the dedication of park land is generally assessed in the subdivision and site plan approval process since the Town still has need for additional recreation facilities. While each subdivision and site plan must be evaluated individually, it is likely that the Town will continue to require monies in lieu of land for park, playground or other recreational purposes to be deposited into a trust fund to be used by the Town solely for said purposes.

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 (See Figure 8.1 ). 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. l It should be noted that the map is diagrammatic and that the land uses depicted are l generalized.

50 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

--, I

RESIDENTIAL 7 Residential areas of the Town remain relatively unchanged from the previous comprehensive -, plans. However, two residential categories, rather than the three densities of the previous ' Plan, are described as follows:

Rural 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 3 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 120,000 square feet.

Low Density Residential areas are neighborhoods within public water and sewer areas. Any future residential development will require a minimum lot size of 40,000 7 square feet and utilize public or communal sewer and water services.

Residential areas of the Town will all be upzoned. Lot sizes for single- family residential , dwellings will be three (3) acres (120,000 square feet). All new subdivisions will have minimum lot sizes of 120,000 square feet.

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

COMMERCE/ BUSINESS PARK Commerce/Business 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. These areas generally conform to industrial zones (IL) and allow for a variety of light industrial uses. This land use category is also intended to allow for assisted living facilities and day care centers.

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 A number of new park resources are depicted for the future of the Town. A new central facility along Seminary Hill. Road will allow for additional ball fields and a bike/walking trail using the former New York Central Railroad right of way will connect to trails areas adjacent to the Town.

CONSERVATION (WETLAND/FLOOD CONTROL) Conservation land has been designated on the plan to help protect the wetlands and watercourses that serve the Town's water bodies. Development is not necessarily restricted

51 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

(for example the zoning ordinance allows for single family dwellings) within these areas, however, future conditions should strive for wetland preservation. The Town of Carmel has a Wetland Ordinance that regulates wetlands of 5,000 square feet and over. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers regulates federal wetlands of more than 0.10 acres .

-, '

52 -, I TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TRANSPORTATION All future roads should be designed to channel traffic onto major arterial roads that can 7 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. l VILLAGE (HAMLET) CENTERS The hamlet center areas, Carmel and Mahopac, are intended to be the commercial and 7 cultural focal points within the Town. Retail shops, convenience stores, professional offices, institutional services and churches, common areas and residential dwelling are encouraged within the centers for an eclectic land use mix. Previous revitalization plans can facilitate the 7 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 for watershed planning. These Village (Hamlet) Centers extend beyond the -, boundaries of the designated main street areas previously approved by New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) . · The Centers are mixed use areas within the Town and are intended to allow the construction of a new impervious surface 7 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 NYC DEP shall -t review all requests to construct any paved areas within the defined limits and approve construction where there are no reasonable alternatives, however a stormwater pollution preservation plans will still be required. Figure 1.7-2, Village Centers, indicates the tax lots which will be included in the Village Centers.

54 7 I I I TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

9 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide land use decisions in the Town. By itself, the 7 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's 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 Minimum Lot Size of Three Acres (120,000 square feet)

In an attempt to better preserve the watershed environment and maintain the Town's rural character, the Plan recommends a three-acre minimum lot size for all new residential subdivisions. 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 120,000 square foot lots. In conjunction with the density restrictions imposed by the environmentally sensitive lands, as described below, this policy will serve to 11up-zone11 remaining vacant residential lands.

9.2 In Sewered Areas: a Minimum Lot Size of One Acre

A higher density than the rural residential density designation is planned for the areas of the Town served by public sewer and water. These areas will require a one residential unit on a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for any future subdivisions.

9.3 Environmentally Sensitive Lands

Environmentally sensitive wetlands are already protected through regulations administered by New York State, NYC DEP, Army Corps of Engineers and the Town of Carmel. These regulations 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 recommenqs 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 m~ efully calibrating allowable density to environmenta! conditions. When these polices are combined with the cluster subdivision pol_icies discussed in the next sectio wn should be able to avoid development on sensitive lands.

55 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

9.4 Cluster Subdivisions

--, Clustering allows houses to be set back from the road and screened from view while helping to preserve open space. The following illustrations (Figures 9.1 and 9.2), used courtesy of Randall Arendt, depict the cluster or open space development principles.

Figure 9.1 Conventional Subdivision

Vacant land with wetland and 25% slope constraints. 7

Maximum lot configuration in this traditional 1 acre subdivision plan.

Little open space and environmental protection is afforded by conventional planning.

Source: Randall Arendt, Natural Lands Trust, 1994. 1

56 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 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

The same vacant land can be used residentially and for open space purposes.

... I

The cluster plan groups homes more closely, but at the same density as allowed by conventional subdivision.

The resulting development is sensitive to the environmental constraints, while allowing for residential uses.

Source: Randall Arendt, Natural Lands Trust, 1994.

57 l TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Town Board authorizes the Planning Board to require clustering where it is in the Town's interest. The Planning Board will be afforded the power to require any applicant to 7 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 • I required. It is suggested that a minimum 50-foot buffer be established .

7 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 7 ; I predominant residential context of Carmel. i 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

Floor area ratio is the total floor area on a zoning lot, divided by total floor area FAR= the lot area of that zoning Jot. total lot area

-----'·,

1 story building 100% cover 5 story building floor area ratio = 1.0 20% cover floor area ratio = 1.0

2 story building 10 story building 50% cover 10% cover floo.r area ratjo = 1.0 floor area ratio = 1.0 j 58 7 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Town reserves the right to set an F.A.R in the future. FAR controls would work with fr'( J existing zoning controls that are currently enforced in the commercial zones but would I( 1 provide an added control on total square feet. Any set ratio should adequately allow for ' l 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. For example, 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.

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 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 ar:id 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 State communities. I J

59 7

TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

• Boat Docks serving Residential Properties: 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.

9.7 Summary

7 The policies contained within the Plan will have a minimal effect on the future potential development. As reported in Chapter 4, the present residential development capacity of the Town is approximately 5,550 homes if all of the vacant residentially-zoned land were to be developed. New residential development can be expected to be low-density housing on three-acre lots and application of wetland and steep slope policies (see Section 9.1 ). These policies will, in effect, "upzone" the remaining vacant residential property. This will reduce the potential residential build-out from a theoretical maximum of 5,550 units to a theoretical ,. I maximum of 2,750 units. This is based upon dividing 7,600 acres of vacant land by an average of 3.5 to 3.7 acres per unit, which accounts for minimum lot of 120,000 sq. ft. plus discounts for wetlands and steep slopes.

Thus it is expected that implementation of the land use recommendations of this plan will r~sult in approximately 2,800 fewer homes than current zoning policies in terms of a potential build-out of the Town. This represents a 50% reduction in allowable density. The Carmel Comprehensive Plan attempts to balance the various community needs and values by respecting the natural environment and providing appropriate development policies. A collaborative effort has been made to bring issues to the forefront and strive for a consensus. In this sense, the Plan is a community document that will guide the Town toward the year 2010.

9.8 Periodic Review

This comprehensive plan shall be reviewed at least once ev ry three years

60 TOWN OF CARMEL

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

7 I

APPENDIX A Planning Workshop 1 Report

7 7I

7 I

Town of Carmel Croton Plan Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Ordinance Update

7 Planning Workshop 1 Report Thursday May 6, 1999

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.

l . ! ------7 INTRODUCTION

The Carmel Town Board held the first community workshops in May to begin to identify the goals and objectives for the Town's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Approximately 100 people attended the workshop which was held in the Town Hall. 7 The workshop began with an introduction and welcoming remarks by Frank Delcampo, Town Supervisor. Following this introduction was a slide show presentation given by Frank Fish and Evie Strauss of Buckhurst Fish and Jacquemart, Inc. Planners, and Gerry Schwalbe of Divney Tung Shwalbe, engineers. The presentation consisted of an overview of the planning process and time schedule, a description of the scope of work. These are summarized on the attached timetable. This was followed by a brief review of the history of planning in Carmel, a general analysis of demographics and land use, and an introduction to the environmental and engineering issues facing Carmel. The presentation included a series of photographic images of Carmel.

After a short.coffee break,. a 'Town Meeting' was conducted and participants were invited to ask questions and make comments on any aspect of the future plan or planning process. Specifically, the consultants requested input regarding goals and objectives for the study, and input regarding issues faced by the town including strengths and weaknesses. For almost two hours, participants elaborated on their ideas and concerns regarding the Croton Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

The workshop generated a wide array of ideas from the public about Carmel's future, as well as highlighted issues and concerns currently being faced by the City. Workshop participants also offered a variety of recommendations as to how all these ideas might be addressed by the Town and its residents. This report summarizes the collective output of the workshop and provides a framework within which the Town can begin the Comprehensive Plan update.

The workshop closed with an announcement of the next workshop to be held in September when school sessions resume. l '

--, QUESTIONS & COMMENTS:

7 1. Suggestion that the Plan be a regional, not just county-wide or Town-wide perspective. Since there is a need and goal for NYC to have a greenbelt surrounding the city, Putnam County should be considered part of this greenbelt. 2. A.) The plan should include as part of the process, an overlay that includes new subdivision activity. 7 B.) Traffic information should include the hamlets of Carmel and Mahopac and around the Lakes during the Summer. 7 C.) Zoning text needs to include a category for Home Offices. 3. Request for specific recommendations, not just an analysis 4. Concern that most data is from 1990 and 1991 and the year 2000 data from the US Census will not be available until the year 2,002. Suggestion to add in the data at a 7 future date and to try to get more current data from other sources such as utility companies. l 5. Question regarding the affects of illegal uses on the town and a concern that too many zoning changes are made. 6. Request to investigate alternatives to waste disposal besides septic, including on-site waste disposal system, on-site recycling system, community recycling system, improved on-site septic systems. 7. Concern regarding loss of water quantity and quality as development continues. Wells are being removed and becoming dry. Should analyze water supply and project levels based on density, rainfall and removal of water sources, etc. 8. Question regarding school involveme~t with the process. Answer explained the use of existing study by Carmel and planned study by Mahopac School District to be integrated and discussions already underway with each district. Plan will look at projections for the Town and relate back to the school needs. 9. Concern if the Croton Plan has any benefit to Carmel. 90% of the study is funded by NY City, but the client is the Carmel Town Board, so the Plan will directly address the needs and goals of the Town. In answer to the question if the plan is mandated, it was explained that although it is not mandated, Putnam County decided that each individual town would produce their own Croton Plan which was agreed upon.

2 l

7 10. Need expressed to protect the Putnam County environment, especially wildlife and recreation land. Concern that there be a balance between fiscal needs and 7 I environmental development. 11. In response to the comment regarding the use of Professor Zimmerman's infrastructure 7 study, it was explained that it is only a revision from the old plan and focuses only on a few particular segments. Much of the data may be outdated. 7 12. Suggestion to focus on stormwater issues and to investigate contamination sources (i.e. filling stations). In answer to this concern, it was mentioned that the State and County have data which will be mapped and analyzed for the Town. Land uses in the watershed and critical problem areas will be analyzed. 13. Concern that since a variety of proposals will be suggested, how will these be paid for? Fiscal issues and sources will be investigated as part of the plan. The EIS requires such

7 an analysis. 14. Question regarding impacts to Emergency Service due to land use and population changes. Answer confirmed analysis for a land se perspective, but not regarding the internal affect on these functions. 15. Question regarding how extensive and expensive the updates would be. 16. Suggestion that the following information be included: Diversion and affects of diversion, building permits, traffic flow. 17. Concern that the following be included: Historic features, wetlands and steep slopes, and wildlife. 18. Question regarding how this study will integrate the Diversion Study recommendations since no decision by the county regarding the study recommendations. Consultants commented that this study will deal with that which is completed during our planning process, otherwise the plan could wait on particular areas or make recommendations to the county. 19. Concern that we ~hould delay the Plan until there is better data. In answer to this concern it was suggested that If the Town has a plan then it can make recommendation to the County, State and NYCity. In addition, many aspects are not directly related to the Croton Plan and water-related issues. 20. Concern that there are already mandates on properties and with this study more restriction will result. 21. Comment that tourism industry should be endorsed.

3 --, I I

..... 22. Comment that Towns are trying to stabilize their tax base, along with inevitable residential growth and the resultant need for increased septic, etc. and the limited 7 I commercial growth projected by the Chazan report - Can we evaluate the new WWTP based on these factors? 7 23. Question regarding how will the population growth will affect the Zoning recommendations? 7

4 7 TOWN OF CARMEL

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN --, I I 7

7 APPENDIX B Planning Workshop 2 Report

-lJ

7 , /

Town of Carmel

Planning Workshop II September 30, 1999

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc. INTRODUCTION

The Town of Carmel is participating in the Croton Plan, a New York City Department of Environmental Protection initiative to help protect the Croton Watershed and guide balanced growth pressures with water quality protection. In the Memorandum of Agreement with all municipalities in the watershed, volunteer participation in the program is allowed. The Town is also updating its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with this process.

The Carmel Town Board and Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc. (BFJ) held the second community workshop on September 30, 1999. 'The first, held on May 6, 1998, took place at the Town Hall. It helped to identify goals and objectives for updating the Comprehensive Plan. This second workshop provided the findings of the Community Character assessment and an overview of water quality in the Croton Watershed. Approximately 50 people were in attendance at workshop II.

The workshop began with a greeting and introduction by the Town Supervisor, Frank Del Campo. A slide show presentation followed given by Frank Fish of BFJ a nd Jerry Schwalbe of Divney Tung Schwalbe, Engineers. The presentation provided an overview of the planning process and a series of photographic images of Carmel. For dis cussion purposes, a concept land use map was outlined to the audience. It recognized man y existing land uses, and a number of changes to the existing comprehensive plan design ations.

After a short coffee break, the gathering was broken up into small workin g groups. Participants were invited to sit at any one of five tables, each devoted to a major component of the Plan: Environment (wetlands, steep slopes, open space, recreation) Economic Development (retail business, employment, industry) Infrastruc ture (water, sewer, storm drainage) Traffic General Land Use and Zoning.

To help focus the discussions, the working groups were each provided w ith a handout containing several questions about the Plan component(s) being consider ed by that table (see Appendix A). For approximately one hour, participants discussed the questions, writing down their responses and suggestions. Afterwards, one person fr o m each table presented that table's output to the entire gathering.

Workshop participants also offered a variety of recommendations as to ho w all these ideas might be addressed by the City and its residents. This report summarizes the collective output of the workshops and provides a framework within which the Pla 1<1 ning Commission can begin to establish _goals, policies and objectives of the 1999 Plan. A. Economic Development

• Low impact industry/business would help to reduce tax burden on residential property. • Transportation to major highways is required. Carmel Hamlet area best suited to attract industry. • Retail business expansion does not benefit tax base. • Encourage high technology industry to locate in Town and Putnam County. • More business within Carmel may not necessarily benefit the residential taxpayer - more taxes may be required to address other problems created • The natural environment is Carmel's most valuable asset which may attract tourism as a means of economic development. • An institute of higher learning would not only benefit taxes, but retain the youth within the region. • Mixed uses in hamlet areas would help to build neighborhoods. • Assisted living complexes for the aged would not benefit residential tax burdens.

2 • Require all new developments to conduct a traffic impact study.

• Synchronize traffic signals on State and County roads.

4 D. Sewer and Water

Sewer Issues: • Sewer systems could create a loss of water supply - sewer studies should include effects on water supply. • Septic system design controls need to be more stringent. • There is a lack of construction checks/inspections during septic installations. • Soil suitability should factor into minimum lot size for zoning.

Water Supply: • Create public water supply system and develop long range plans to incorporate area within the town that are having water problems. • Exclude ground water contamination sites from development. • Reduce density to preserve water supply. • New development proposal need greater study areas. Include not only adjacent properties, but watershed review as well.

6 TOWN OF CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

APPENDIX C IL District Study Town o·f Carmel Industrial Development Agency

IL-District Study

Prepared By: Cleary Consulting ,....

This report presents an. analysis of the industrially zoned land in the Town of Carmel. been prepared to provide a clear understanding of the extent and characteristics < industrial land.

~ E:xistine Zonin z::

The Town of Carmel has been divided among twe]ve separate zoning districts, residential, two commercial, one industrial and one specialized flood hazard/conser district:

Residential R-60 "''-'Residential R-60/40 Residential R-40/30 Residential R-40/20 Residential R-40/10 Multi-Family R-MF Multi-Family R-MF A Residential-Resort R-R Commercial-Central Business C-CB Commercial-General C-G Industrial-Light I-L Flood Hazard/Conservation-FH/C

The town is predominantly residentially zoned. The primary residential zone is tht district. These existing zoning controls have guided the characteristically low c residential development throughout the town, punctuated by concentrated higher c residential and non-residential development around the hamlets of Cannel and Mahopi along major transportation corridors such as Route 6.

By and large, the pattern of development in the town is orderly and logically planm

Ckarv Consultinl{ Town ofCarmel Industrial Dcvel.opment Agency- IL Distr B. 1-L District Regulatory Characteristics:

The focus of the analysis is on the I-L zoning district. The district is the only indll district in the town, and permits the most intensive type of land uses.

Specifically, the Town of Carmel Zoning Ordinance indicates that the I-L district permi following uses as-of-right:

1. Light manufacturing, converting, processing, altering, assembling, fini~ "') ·· printing or other handling or materials or products.

2. Fully enclosed wholesale distributors or storage establishments, but excl retail sales.

3. Research laboratories.

4. Data processing and computer centers.

5. Business and professional offi~es.

6. Hospitals, medical clinics and animal hospitals.

7. Commercial establishments, including gasoline service stations accompanying retail stores that existed at the time this amendmen adopted.

The following conditioqal uses are also permitted:

1. Metal working and machine shops.

2. Laundry and dry cleaning plants.

3. Public utility installations.

The following accessory uses are also permitted:

1. Parking and loading facilities.

Cleary Consulting Town ofCarmel Industrial Dev<:wpment Agency - IL Dmri 1 2. Signs.

As this list of permitted uses illustrates, the I-L district has been designed to acconur

a significant array of fairly substantial business operations. Manufactwing7 procc facilities, machine shops all have the potential to produce significant negative impacts is particularly true with regard to adjacent low density residential areas. Consequent] relationships between the various 1-L zones and adjacent land uses is particularly imp<

The I-L zone establishes the following dimensional requirements:

"''-Minimum Lot Area 3 acres

Minimum Lot Width 200 feet

Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet

Minimum Front Yard SO feet

Minimum Side Yard 40 feet

Minimum Rear Yard 40 feet

Maximum Height 40feet*

Minimum Floor Area 5,000 square feet

Maximum Coverage 40%

*Research labs. data processing and computer centers and office buildings shall not c 60 feet.

C. I--L District Spatial Characteristics:

Within the town of Carmel, 1,188 acres of land are industrially zoned. This land J among 120 separate property owners, and is distributed between seven basic industria (Figure 1). These seven areas are generally located in the northeastern portion ofth, armmd the hamlet of Carmel, in the southwestern portion of town along Route 6, and i area is located in the center of town at the Route 6/ Croton Falls Road intersection. seven areas range in size form 16.6 acres (Industrial Area #5) to 460.46 acres (Ind

Cleary Consulting Town of Carmel Industrial J)evelopment Agency - IL J)i:Jtn ·- 1_---.~ - {\ - I ·.. ~-~_; 'l ·,: ·. ' -- I . l ~

$ .. r-- t . ~ (r ,'>;-. 7,;.~ ,,, . : _/f'-J . ~-':if .. 7 ~:r-1 . -~r;'"ff~~7· I ./ •• , l \ r . , C •• f . • -· -· - C - .. • / I -, l\ ,· '"1:.,·f ,>~ • • I S \ .• I l :p• ·-~'i"llh-'n ')"'C(<-1 •. , nw,,.-...,... -, -. ( ._:; ·-. .1""' I . ~- .,,!? .. i . ' -

3 -=•·~~ ~ :J: "· i'~- ~ . . ~Jl\i/ rR~.~ .,:i-)- ~ ·-·- ·- -·-· , '~ ., "-;1 ._,...~ :. 1 ·,.(<.~~?.,· ,/~,,. .,° ~· . £1) iTTTfrtnr- \·/ .. 1·:i.:•yf.'7.)~

... ~ ~ 1/ I"' 1 ·-,•·. 1 J _b... ~' · ····•1,,.,;.J;.z ~...,.1-,.. '\ ~ ,lo- •~/ ... ---<.,,,< ... ·--.,:<\ ~ .. . ft~ v·./· : · · J Area#3)

#1 188.31 8 144.33 (76.6~ #2 62.78 4 62.78 (100% #3 West 256.21 24 119.92 (46.8~ ..,,_:,//3 East 204.25 34 161.75 (79.l~ #4 16.99 2 0(0%) #5 16.5 21 3.67 (22.2%:

#6 105.27 5 104.17 (98.~ #7 338.13 22 258.97 (76.5~

Totals -1,188.44 120 855.59 (71.9(}

Within the :industrially zoned area, 71 principal buildings are situated accountin 1,246,625 square feet of gross floor area. Importantly, 417,853 square feet of flom (33%) is used for non-commercial uses (i.e. residences, churches, county jail etc.).

#1 339,601 2,288 337.313 188.31 162.75 25,5{ (.6%) (99.3%) (86.4%) (13.6~

#2 0 0 0 0 0 0 #3W 368~852 328,318 40.534 256.21 197.62 58.51 (89.0%) (11.0%) (77.1%) (22.9~

Cleary Comulting 1own of Carmel Industrial Development Agency - IL Districl 1

#3E 356,469 356,469 0 204.25 204.25 0 (100%) (100%)

#4 17,041 17,041 0 16.99 16.99 0 (100%) (100%) #S'-) .. 74,917 48,097 26,820 16.5 10.33 6.1~ (64.2%) (35.8%) (62.6%) (37.4~ #6 5,028 4,390 638 105.27 104.77 .5 (87.3%) (12.7%) (99.5%) (.5'¾

#7 84,717 72,169 12~48 338.13 331.68 6,4: (85.2%) (14.8%) (98.0%) (2.01}

Total 1,246,625 828,772 417,853 1,188.44 1,089.17 99.2 (66.4%) (33.6%) (91.6%) (8.4~

D. Analysis of lndustrially Zoned Land:

As described above, the town currently hosts approximately 1,188 acres of industrially : land. In assessing the viability of this land, several factors require attention:

l. Vacant Land: .

855.59 acres of the 1., 1.88 acres of industrially zoned land are currently vacant represents 71.90/4 of all industrially zoned land. Tiris :figme alone strongly sugge: certain factors or influences have conspired to diminish the demand to de industrial facilities in the Town of Carmel.

It should be noted that a certain portion of this vacant land is environme constrained. Wetlands occupy a large portion of certain publicly owned Additionally. severe topography may limit access and the buildable portion of parcels. However, even if all of the constrained land were deducted, a subs1 amount of vacant industriaJiy zoned land would still remain.

Cleary Consu'/ting Town ofCarmel Industrial D,wel,opment Agency- IL Distru ... 1

2~ Underutilized L.and:

The extent of industrially zoned land within the town is somewhat limited. In 1,188 acres of industrially zoned land exists throughout the town. Recogniziu. the 1-L dis1ricts are not comparatively extensive, it can be concluded that pern industrial uses would represent the highest and best use of the stock of I-L land. res1rictive uses, such as residences, represent an undemtilization of industrially ~ land.

Only about 100 acres or about 8.4% of the industriaUy zoned land is put towf "''ortderutilized use. However, this land hosts 417,853 square feet of underut structures or about 33_6% of the gross floor area of all the buildings in the I-L di Of the 120 separate 1-L parcels, 92 (76.6%) are underutilized.

This data reveals the fact that underutilized parcels are generally smaller in siz< the larger conforming I-L parcels.

3. Split Zoned Parcels:

A troubling characteristic ofth.e J-L zone are parcels held_in single ownership th divided between two (or more) zones (i.e. split zoned). 11 such sites exist in the

Ideally, the pattern of ownership should correspond to the existing zoning d boundary lines. In tlie case of split zoned parcels, this is not the case. The 11 P. identified above account for 636.3 acres in total, of which 295.6 acres are in t1 zone. This figure represents 25% of all industrially zoned land.

4. Environmental Constraints:

As noted above in the discussion of vacant land, environmental con.strain1

significantly reduce the development potential of industrially zoned land. J analysis was not conducted for each of the 120 industrially zoned parcels.

With the exception of lands that are specifically restricted to development, s, City watershed lands, a specific site analysis would be required prior to maJ determination of development suitability.

Ckary Cbnsulti.ng T~-n of Carmel lndustrialDev~/QpmentAgency-lL Distri, ,-.

The following table, compiled from Town of Carmel assessment records,, presents a p: by parcel summary of the town's industrially zoned land.

TaxMap# Owner Address Use BldgSqFt Acre1

44.18-1-44 Cmual School 30 Fair Street School School,.J 02,496 n.14 District#2 Gym-27,869 Sclwot.9,240 ...... 1. Oti1ity Bldg-5,082 UtJ1ity B!Jg-1,100 Total-145,887

44.18-1-41 Central School Fair Street Apartment Apt-1,092 18. .fJ District#2 Office Offo:e-1,J 96 Total-2,288

.U.18-1-43 Counzy ofPutnam 2Z Fair Street .Jail 150,100 7.52

44.18-1~35.1 StJamathe Glenida AYe-Rte 52 ChHrch Church-15,698 S.70 Apostle Rectory-5, 717 Sch{)()t-19,911

44.18-1-35.2 County ofPutnam Glenida Ave - Rt.e 5.2 Vacant -0- 44.79 4.:I.J.8-1-41 Coun-ty ofPutnam Fair Street Vacant -0- 18.40

44.19-1-26 Counzy ofPutnam Fair Street- Vactlltt -0- 19.59 Rear/and

55.06-J-31 Grossman Route6 Vacant .().. 51.55

T(l:x;Mapll Owner Addre$s Use BldgSqFt Acn

44.10-1-3 Count;y ofPutnam Route S2 v~, -0- 3.48

44.14-1-57 Overb:H,k Woods 55 Fair Street Vacant ~O- 18.99 Not Entirely in Holding Corp. (9.11 1-L

44.J0-l-4 Nu:hol$ R.outeS) V11caJtt 87.Si Not Entirely in (48.2 1-L

Cleary Consulting Tmm of Carmel lnd11~ial Devel.opment Agency- Tl Distria. J

44.10-1-5 Tuwn ofCarmel 150RQuteSJ Water -0- 1.0 Su

Tax Map# Owner Address Use BldgSqFt Ac.Tl

56.06-1-1 Reilly 40 Seminary Jllll .1 Family 2,015 .J

~".). ' Road Residence 56.06-1-3 Townsend 36 Seminary Hill 1 F

56.06-1-4 Sclterer 34 Semin(II')' HiJl 1 Family 1,560 .4 RQaJ/ Residence

56.06-1-5 Cassidy 32 Seminary Hill I Family 1,430 .3 Road Residence

56.06-1-6 Faine 30 Seminary RiJl 1 Family 1,620 .4 Road Residence

56.06--1-73.1 Putnam County Ro'llte6 Vacant -tJ:. 1.03 Housing 56.06-1-73.2 Gleneida Housing Route6 Nursing 19,944 1.65 Develop. Fund Home

56.06-1-73.3 Putnam County Route6 Vacant -0- 1.15 Housing

55.10-1-1 Guideposts. 41 Seminary Hill Wareho11Sel 115,706 51.7~ N<>t Eniire!,y in 1?.oad DistrihUMn (50.(J 1-L

55.10-1-11 Liberty Health Route6 Vacant -0-- 13.L Nt>t En'lire'ly in Care (7.2, 1-L

5S.10-1-10 Liberty Health 75 Seminary Hill Health 81,110 ./0.0 CIIJ'e Road Facility

55.14-1-5 Brody Seminary Hid, Road I Family 1,725 6.88 Not Entirely in &Med,anic Residence (4.8. 1-L

55,U-l-$ ,All,ano Mechanic& Vacant .().. 6.1 Seminary

Cleary Consufling Town ofGannet Industrial DevelapmentAgency • IL Distrk 55.14-i-9 lannace Horsepond Rnad .( Fa"°41 2,62() 1.65 Remlence 55.14-1-10 /411nace Horsepond Road l Family 3,324 .9 Residence

55.14-1-12 C<1111JJhell 19 Mechank Street 1 Ftzmily 1,668 .8 Residence

SS.U-1-1.3 Troy 17 Mechanic Street 1 Family 1,471 2.66

.,,... _ ~·- ., Residence

55.14-1-14 Town ofCarmel Mechanic Stree:t Gikad -0- 1.24 Cemetery

SS.U-1-1S Kemp 31 Mechanic Stred 1 Flll1li/y J,068 1.01 Residence

S5.14-1J11 Tuwn ofCarmel Stoneleigh A venue Vacant -0- 11(}.6 Not Emirely in (102.; 1-L 1-L)

55.15-1-9 Danhury Stont:lagh A venue Light Office - 18,015 15.75 Pharmacal Mmrufact- Mfg.- 33,435 urihg tota1-111,s40

55.11-1-1 Kamin 1903.Kouu6 Offtce 6,152 1.38

55.11-1-2 Erbesh Stonel.eigh Avenue Vacant -0- I.OJ

55.11-1-3 Frktully lee 190SRoute6 Rl!$/aurant 3,710 1.21 Cream

. · · ,1,~,,;;};t);{:ff:lf.~~ .JJIII TaxMap# Owner Addrn.5 Use BldgSqFt Acre

5$.11-1-4() Shell Oil Cqmpany 1923Route6 Gas Station 1,596 1.0

55.1.1-1-4 Gandol Realty 18.'IO Route 6 Shopping 100,821 li.7 Corp. Center 55.15-1-10 Mavis Tire C.()rp. B,ews-ie,. Road Vacant .().. 6.44

55.15-1~11 . Mavis Tire O!rp. Rotlie 6 Vacant -0- 5.99

55.11-1~3:J Loibl 196.l Route6 Offu:e Office~ lo, 735 J.52 Warehouse Warehousc-4,800

Cleary CQnsulting T (nV1I ()fCarmel Industrial Development Agency- IL Di.stria 55.15-1-12 lt,ihl Route6 Vacant ..fJ- 2.02

55.15~1-10 Thomaston Spruce Route6 Vacant. -0- 12.94 Corp.

55.11-1-37 Loihl Rollle6 Vacant -0- J.O SS.Jl-i-36 LoiJ,l Route6 VQCQIJt -0- 1.f)

55.15-1-21 OJunty ofPutnam Route6 Office Offices - 4(),664 11.0 Warehouse-5,280 "'"'-~•.. Tt>tal-45,944

SS.11-1-35 Carmel Federal J955RouJe6 Bank Bank-1,591 1.0 Teadren Credit Office-17,920 Union T,:,tal- :W,511

55.11-1-34 Tqmpkins 15.'J Old Brewster Retail 14,000 1.0 Road

55.11-1-33 Cragnolin Old Brewster Road Vacant '-0- J.7

55.11-l-31 Town 1,fCarmel Route6 Vacant ..().. 3.1

55.11-1-30 County ofPutnam Brewster Road Vacant ..fJ- 18.18

55.11-1-31 Cou.nt;y ofPutnam Brl!W'Ster Road Vacant -0- 1.16 55.16-1-7 MorquipUd. Hughson Road Vacant -0- 8.77 55.12-1--o P-orcina 01.d Bre>VYtr:T Road Retail 3,150 1.12

55.12-2-5 Tajuelo 181 Old Brewster Cm-Wash 1,500 J.16 Road

55.12-2-4 Qc.5/casy Old Brewster Road Vacant -0- 1.19

55.12-1--3 Demin Old Brewster Road Vacant -0- 1.15

55.11-1-2 RAP Holding Old Brewster Road Vacant -0- 1.21 Corp. 55.12-2-1 Hughsqn Road Hughson Road Cemetry -0- .s Cemmy

55.16-1-8 Pablmho Sand & Kelly Road Vacant -0- 27.1 Not Entirely iJt Gro:velC,o, (11.1 1-L

SS.12-2-10 Carmel ln@or 181 Old Bremtu Tennis Club 48,419 5.0 Tennis Club Road

c_Leary Consu"/ting Tt:>"MI ofCarmel Industrial Development Agency w IL Dis"trid Pa

.... 55.12-2-.11 Carmel Indoor 182 Old Brewner Tennis Club -0- 1.01 Tennis Club Road

55.1:1-2-12 Lanny Napolitano 100 Old Brewster AutoBody Shop-4,0U 1.00 Inc. Rqad Shop Offee-918 Total- 4,992

55.12-2-13 Town ofSoutheast OldRoute6 Vacant -0- .22

SS,12-2-14 Napolll.ano Hugh$ott lwad Vacant ..(). .45 'I'.\ .. SS.12-1-9 Napolitano OldRout.e6 Vacant -0- 1.13

SS.12-2-8 Banks R

SS.12-2-7 Sh1:1pir<> OldR<>11te6 Vacant -0- .2

55.07-1-7 County ofPutnam Old Brewster Road Vacant -0- 23.]J Nut Entirely in (13.fJ 1-L

44.19-1-1 County ofPutnam 01.d Brewster Road Vacant -0- 114.l Not Entirely in (58.(J I-L

TaxMap# Owner Address Use Bl.dgSqFt A.CT,

65.17-1-41 NYCDEP Cro/Qn Falls Road Sewage U,817 15.1: Treatment Faci/,ity

76.f)S-1-64 Scalafani 52 Croton Falls 0/ftee 2,224 1.74 Road

TaxMap# Owner Address U.se BlilgSqFt Aet

75.20-2-78 v~;,,; Buckshollow Road Vacant -0- .5

75.J0-2-77 lemmen.s Buck$ho/JQw R(J{ld Warehouse 21,(JIJO 3.1

75,20-2-75 Lemmens Bucksho&w Road Warehouse Wrhse -11,000 2.56 LightMfg. Lt. Mfg.-5,000 Tc,tal-16,000

Ckary Consulting Town ofCarmel Industrial Development Agency- IL Distric. 75.10-:1-74 Degasperi 111 Buckshollow 2Family 1,746 .5 Road Residence

75.20-1-13 Agot 121 Bu.cks/l()llbw 2Family 3,363 2.67 Road Residence

75.10-2-72 N.Y. Tekplione l 36 /J1":lcs/wllmv Light Mfg. 11,097 1.0 Road 75.20-2-70 Brennan 14,1 Buckshollow 1 Family 1,166 .8 Road Residence

75.20-2-69 Clarit,io Buckshnll.ow Road Vacant -1)... .2 75.16-1-61 C1arido 154 Buckshollow 2Family 2,448 .3 &ad Residence

7$.16-1-1 Holstein 144 Bucksho/l.ow l Fami.ly 1,456 .2 Road Residence

75.16-1-2 Lomhardi 157 Buclcslrollow lFam~ 1,532 .3 RtJad Residence

75.16-1-3 lJattista Buck.rholk>w Road Vacant -1).. .2

75.16-1--1 Albrecht 163 Bucksholluw 2Family 1,768 .4 Road Resitknce

75.16-1-5 Ingersol 171 Bucksholhm.• Vacant -0- .05 Road

75•. 16-J-o Ingersol :Bucbhol/Qw Road I Family 1,290 .1 Residence

75.16-1-8 Schipp Bucksholluw R

75.16-1-9 Patrignelli 193 Buckshollow 1Family 1,519 .1 Road Residence 75.16-1-1() County ofPutnam 197 Buckahol/inv Muki-- 1,332 .2 Rvad Family Residence

75.:Z0-2-8 Bro-wn 145 Backsholk>w 2 Fami!J, 2,376 .2 Road &sidence

75.20-2-7 Italian Ametic(ltr 14I B11cksho/hw Private Club 4,814 .3 Road

75.:20-:2-6 MAPAC HoMings Buckshollow Road Vacant ..fJ- 1.1:,, Inc.

Cl.earv Consultitte Town ofCarmel lnd1Mtrial Devel.opment Acen,y- IL Distri ,....,

Pa-

Tax Map# Owner Addre:rs Use BldgSqFt Acre

86.Jl-J-14 Jacobsen Baldwin Pl & Kdler Vacant -0- 95.00 Road

86.11-1-13 New York State Bal.dwin PL & Miller Vacant J.2 Road'

86.11-1-12 New York State Union Valley Road Vacant -0- 7.97 --i'. ~..'. ·' 86.11.1~1.s DelGrosso 18 Miller .Pl.aa Road I Family 638 .5 Residence

86.11-1-16 Spain 4 Miller Place Road AutoBody Sltop - 3,090 .6

Offee u 1,300 'Total- 4,390

fgillf~~r,;;i,~1M:!'$JE;$~~ij~~J1tff;£[~~~i*ii~J~ai 'I ,\·~1:t:~lij~~;*:{!ff~;~~ \!~f~,C,k->:"* . : :<•»>! :«~M-W.t: : X•>:«-C•)C-X•):@;i*¾•

TaxMap# Owner Addrns U.,;e BldgSqFt Acrt

86.11-1-2 Bell 200Rcute6 Rdail 5,307 • .f

86.11-1-3 County ofPut,uun Route6 Vacant -0- 9.01

86.11-1-1 Jacobsen West Main Stred Vacant -I}- 12.89

86.06-1-4.1 Jaeob:ten Baldwin Place Rd Vacant -1)... 189.3

86.10-1-1 lJemard Crer,,tlons 118Iwute6 1 Fumlly 2,600 .01 Ltd. Reside1tce

86.10-1-3 Bernard Cieatwns West Main Street Vacant -0- .6 Ltd.

86.10-1-1 Baldwin. Place Baldwl1t Place Vacant -0- 4.11 Partnership

86.14-1-1 Reiirhllrtl Kennard'Road Vacant -0- .9

86.14-1-2 Mobil. Oil Corp. 15 Kenttard Road 1 Family 2,106 1.32 Residence

86.14-1-3 Paden 19 Kmnard lwad I Fam.Uy 2,210 J.03 Residence

86,14-1-4 Reinhard 35 Kmnard Road 1 Family 1,512 1.27 Residence

Cleary Consulting Tuwn ofOtrmel lndustrl4l Development Agency. IL Distiw Pa·

..... 86.14-1-5 Reilth.ard ,tJ Kennard Road 1 Family :Z,UB 1.32 Residence

75.19-1-1.1 Jac()b$en West Main Str~d Vacant -0- 93.68 Not En.i.re!J, in (28.2 I-L

75.18-1-42 NYSE&G Baldwin Place Road Warehous~, Wrhse-JS,148 3.38 Animal Hospital,.J,410 Ho.spibJL 75.18-.f"f13 Ferri Baldwin .i>lace Ri>ad Vacant -0- J,01 75.18--1-44 Ferri Baldwin Pl.ac~ Road Vac(IJt/ -1).. 3.53

75.18-1-45 NYCDEP Baldwin Place Ri>ad Wat,er -0~ 3.1 Supply

75.17-1-S3 8uttiglwne 105 Stillwatu Road 1 Family 1,991 1.50 Residence

86.05-1-26 Chabria Stillwater Road Vacant -0- 1.05

86.05-1-25 Chabria Stillwater Road Vactlfti -0- 2.26

86.05-1-2."I Maloney· 121 Still.water Road Warehouse 31,248 3.67

86.06-l~J S'ti/lwal.er Farms J 43 Baldwin Place Farm 3,OS6 68. .t/l Not Entirel)! In Devel.opment Road (6$.3 1-L Co . ..

E. Surrounding Land Use:

A review of the land uses indicated on Figure I indicates that generally, the ind1 districts surround commercial uses along major transportation corridors. In this fashio industrial districts are located nearby the transportation networks, and other comm facilities necessary to obtain and funnel goods and services·to ( and from) the industrial

Generally, the industrial districts give way to residentially zoned areas. This repres, potential conflict from a land use perspective. It should be noted however, that these of conflict are not always present. In several jnstances, the I-L districts back-up agair mupicipal boundruy. In other instances, the J-L zone backs up against an area of rest development, such as the Flood Hazard/Conservation district. Therefore, an abrupt lar

Cleary Cons11lting Town of Carmel Indu:strf{ll Dcvclcpmozt Ag~.ncy- IL Divtru Pa

transition is not always present.

G. Factors Influencing Industrial Development:

A host of considerations come into play when industrial development is concerned. Igll( for the moment internal business considerations, a series of traditional planning issues re1 as important concerns. Chief among these are land costs, property taxes, infrastru, availability, access, expansion opportunities, employee and employee housing availab Taken together, these factors all combine to influence the desirability of siting indu facilitie.s ·in town.

H. Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study:

Based on a detailed analysis of the existing stock of industrially zoned land within the of Carmel, it becomes apparent that an adequate stock of industrially zoned land is avai Furthermore, the location and distribution of this land appears appropriate. A subst number of underutilized parcels exist however, the land area they occupy is compara small. Large vacant undeveloped industrially zoned parcels do exist.

Without advancing beyond the limited scope of this study, several recommendations ,..- be offered that may serve to enhance the character of this industrial land.

,,. Rezone or subdivide split zoned property. ,. ldentijy environmentally constrained land and rezone to the Conservation district. Identify the availability ofinfta.vtructure; i..e municipal sewer, water etc.. Assess the suitability of site access points. ,. Addres.~ roadway and intersection capacities and adequacy. Determine the build-out potential of vacant 1-L property. ,.. Evaluate underutilized parcels, and explore rt!7flning to residential use. Review llst ofpermitted uses and expand or revise accordingly. ,. Review dlmensional regulations and parking requlrements and amend if approprlate.

Cl.eary Consulting Ton11 ofCarmel Indllstrial De:vewpment Agency - IL Distr coMPREHENS\\'E PlAN 10WN OF CARMEl, N"

fi~ure 5.1. S\opes and Wet\ands c=J Slopes 15% or Greater CJ Wetlands & 100 Year Floodplain

v1'3 o ,ooo• sooo• tJ2\ ;;;", .::;;:;:::-~, ,;:;; \acquernart, :.

Source: Putnam County LllNR Mapping,1991. Jj

CO Ml'RE.H E.NSIVf. plJ\N 10WN Of (A.RME.l, N'1' figure 6.1. Road C\assilications

a c State Route

a • county Road

c:::::::::===1 Loc a\

O 4000 ft. sooo ft,

-sf\ sucl<.hurst~ fish.,...,... & \acquernart, --\nc.

m5oun:<' 1 wn 1 Ca""''' 1999; ru1narn count;, 1999- 0 0 ---

~ r~#2

coMPRfttfNS\\lf plAN 10WN Of c.a.RMfl, N'I

Existing and Proposed figure 7 .1. Sewer OistrictS sewero~ c:J t,dsting sewer Districts Q proposed sewer District

sewerO~ O 4000 ft, sooo ft, ~

~ --Sf\ sucl<.Crst Fish-J°' &. \acquernart, \nc. sc,•"" loW•m ot c,,rnel, 1 999' Sf\ and o>vn•Y1 ••~ Sc~walbe, 2000-

se>N8r o\su\Ct /

1-----'-"'ater 01a\f\C\ #Z

coMVllE\-IENS\\IE rti\N 10WN Of Ci\llMEl, N'1'

figure 7 .2. Existing Water Districts

Water Oistr\cts

o ,woo tt. e,ooo \t. water 01&tnc\ • . - ..,... -- m:1 sucl

Figure 8.1. Land Use Plan

Rural Density Residential I ! Low Density Residential

- Commercial I JI Commerce/Business Park

- Recreationfrrailway

[ ':~ ,j Conservation (Wetlands/FloodControl)

- Institutional

[ I Village (Hamlet) Center

ITT o 4000 ft sooo ft rn BFJ Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc.