A Resident’s Analysis
of Jan. 2000 Draft Master Plan
By: Ivanka Roberts
March 2, 2000
The draft
master plan is based on two old Master Plans of 1957 (prior to any real development of
this area) and 1980. The concepts contained in them are now outdated, yet the zoning has
been retained. The old Master Plans designated Carmel hamlet as the primary industrial
center to generate income and, during the last twenty years, much residential and
strip-commercial development has taken place.
The present Master Plan does not take this into
consideration. It should take a look at the situation as it is now, and the zoning should be upgraded so
as to preserve the environment
Even the population figures stop with a “1996
estimate.” The County population figures state that by 1997/1998 there were already
over 94,000 residents here; and in 1999, Bondi commented on the “astounding
growth” and deplored the fact that the entire County would soon be totally under
asphalt. How much of this was in Carmel? The Master Plan does not look at this.
The Master Plan must include population estimates up to the year
2000.
In
addition, the household income table makes the
region look deceptively affluent. It does not take into consideration that the income is
frequently (if not mostly) attained by both
spouses working. Individual incomes are not particularly high.
Nor does
the Master Plan take into consideration where this income is earned (NY City, Westchester,
Connecticut - all involving long commutes). The conclusion that the relatively high income
is due to the high employment rate and type of employment is thus deceptive as it sounds
as if the income were earned locally.
The Master Plan should address both the individual incomes and
amount of commuting to attain them.
In the
section on Land Use, the Master Plan mentions
the loss of forests and agricultural land. It seems to have been much worse in Carmel than
elsewhere in the County: loss of forest in Carmel 14.4%, but only 6.4% in the County; loss
of agricultural land in Carmel: 71%, but 52.1% in the County.
In regard
to forests, their loss is detrimental to the
environment as trees help to clean the air - and at this time, Putnam is an
ozone-exceedence zone! Trees also help protect against floods, and help to stabilize the
soil.
Any remaining forests should be strictly protected in the Master Plan.
There should be a
protective tree ordinance.
In regard
to agricultural land, none is zoned in Carmel.
Yet the Master Plan states that 71% of the agricultural land has disappeared. Logically,
this would leave 29%. Where is it on the maps?
Despite
potential pesticide/fertilizer/manure pollution problems if the agricultural land is too
close to streams, lakes, and reservoirs, recent studies have shown that concrete/hard-top
causes even more damage and pollution due to oil, gasoline, winter salt & gravel, PCBs
and other toxins, which are flushed by rain straight into the water bodies.
In
addition, agricultural land provides the possibility of ground-water regeneration,
concrete/hardtop does not, thus potentially causing additional problems with water supply
and quality.
Any
agricultural land that may still exist should be strictly protected in the Master Plan.
In
general, the Master Plan should protect what still remains of our living environment and
attempt to mitigate the damage already done.
An increase in public land could be a partial answer. However,
this should not be done in the form of parks but in the form of a green belt or open
space.
In regard
to commercial development: so much strip
development has gone in during the past years, that many of the stores cannot sustain a
living.
As far as
industry is concerned, no distinction is made in the Master Plan between light and heavy
industry.
In
addition, too much of both Mahopac and Carmel has been designated as industrial.
The
Master Plan should re-zone - and upzone - the areas designated commerce/industry in the
old plans.
It should limit light industry and prohibit heavy industry.
It
should also prohibit any industry that creates/uses hazardous or toxic materials (e.g.
printing) - existing facilities would be grand fathered as “pre-existing,
non-conforming.”
Light
industry is incompatible with Carmel hamlet due to its proximity with streams leading to
drinking water reservoirs and Lake Gleneida, which is also a source of drinking water. It
should be changed to small businesses.
There
should be wetland protection, and Carmel L-I should be changed to a stream corridor
protection zone.
In the
Section on the Environment, there are several matters that have not been taken into
consideration. The first is that much of the environment has already been destroyed, due
to indiscriminate construction during the past years. This must be avoided in the future.
In regard
to slopes, the Master Plan seems to believe
that the County regulations (no sub-surface sewage treatment systems [i.e. septic systems]
on slopes greater than 15%) should be sufficient protection. However, Putnam County not
only permits fill to change a 20% slope into a 15% slope, it also has a history of
granting variances. Thus the “County law” is no safeguard.
The
Master Plan should stipulate that no variances may be granted under any circumstances. And
the Town should explicitly prohibit septic systems on natural
slopes greater than 15% .
In regard
to wetlands: many of these have already been
lost, yet they are crucial to the environment, to the cleaning of waters, etc.
The Master Plan should protect ALL wetlands, however small, that
still remain, as well as their buffers.
In regard
to soils: Paxton soils do not drain well. In
addition, the region is so complex geologically, that there are unexpected outcrops of
bedrock and unexpected seep lines - all of which cause serious problems in construction.
Further study should be made as to the location of each type of
soil prior to re-zoning.
In regard
to groundwater resources: The comment
“groundwater cannot be taken for granted” is absolutely correct. The following
should be included in the Master Plan to protect the groundwater:
The buffers for streams and other water bodies should be
increased to be greater than 100 feet.
All wetlands should be protected and buffers acknowledged.
There should be no BMPs (“Best Management
Practice”) in wetlands, or stream or lake buffers.
The prohibition of septic systems on natural slopes over 15% (see
above) would also help to avoid contamination of groundwater .
Paved areas should be
minimized.
In the
section on Transportation, there are some
oversights.
The junction of Route 6 and 52 in Carmel seems to have been overlooked altogether, and the junction of Fair street and 52, though the second most congested in the Town according to the map provided, has been ignored.
Also,
there is no mention of the State classification of roads. Already in the early 1990s the
roads in the hamlet of Carmel were classified as “D” and “E” - the
latter is the second-to-worst classification. The situation has not improved.
The congestion in the hamlet of Carmel should be looked at.
State classification of roads should be taken into consideration.
Tributary areas should be upzoned to decrease the increase in
traffic.
There should be no parking on any of the major arteries.
Additional parking should be in the form of multi-story parking,
no more “fields” should go under asphalt for cars!
Since, there is a
State Agreement that forbids widening any road along a reservoir, the suggestion of
widening some of the roads is moot.
The suggestion made for Mahopac of
installing modern round-abouts, is not appropriate. Roundabouts do not increase the
capacity of a road. In addition, they do not decrease the delay. They merely minimize the
severity of accidents (fender-benders rather than fatalities).
Additional development, which will increase traffic (this would
primarily be residential) should be restricted.
All of the above must be resolved before additional development
is permitted.
In regard
to community facilities:
Parks and recreation: a Town stipulation is that
residential subdivisions shall contain at least 10% of the land for park purposes.
A regulation should be included to prohibit any more monies being
accepted in lieu of parks.
The “parks” acquired this way
should 1) be contiguous from one development to the next, 2) should remain green, open
space, rather than actual parks.
Schools: Both Carmel and Mahopac school districts state that they need additional buildings. The Master Plan states that this should not be necessary for a while in Mahopac and makes no comment about Carmel.
This should be studied in more detail.
In regard
to sewers: The Carmel Sewer District #2
expansion has already promoted development, and is continuing to do so. Various projects
have already been submitted and approved or are in the process of being approved, which
would have been impossible without the expansion. The design capacity (1.1 million gpd) is
for more than 6,178 people!
The suggestion that the same detrimental decision be repeated in
Mahopac is counter to a good Master Plan.
In regard
to water: More places than Rolling Green have
had problems either with supply or contamination: Vista on the Lake has had water
problems, as has Secor. In addition, a number of places along the Route 6 corridor Mahopac
- Baldwin Place have groundwater contamination. And others have bacterial contamination.
An adequate supply of uncontaminated groundwater is crucial to planning future
development.
There should be comprehensive water quality testing of private
wells.
There should be an investigation to determine whether there are
supply problems with private wells.
A comprehensive investigation should be made as to any potential
problems with water supply/contamination in general.
In regard
to the suggestions made on the last two pages
of the Master Plan:
Here, as
in the rest of the Master Plan, little consideration is given to the “growth”
that has occurred during the last decade. Well-planned growth can be beneficial. However,
uncontrolled and arbitrary growth, as during the past years, is like a malignant tumor.
Considering
the growth of the past few years, the Master Plan should take a strict protection policy:
There should be no building on steep slopes at all, and no credit
should be given for steep slopes or wetlands.
In Land
use map 8.1, most of the City land has not been delineated; nor have the stream or wetland
buffers; nor is there conservation around Lake Gleneida, the reservoirs, and other lakes.
There cannot be construction on NYC lands.
There should not be construction in stream/water body/wetland
buffers.
Water protection zones are needed, where all construction would
be prohibited.
Conservation
density should be upgraded to 4-5 acres, and should not be limited to the far west side of
the Westbranch Reservoir.
Low density should be 2 - 4 acres.
Medium density should be 1 acre.
Medium-High density should not be smaller than ½ acre.
The suggested density zoning has taken little consideration of
steep slopes, wetlands, etc. This should be corrected.
Parks and
Open space:
Clustering:
Cluster
zoning is merely an artificial means to maintain high density zoning in areas that should
have low density zoning. If clustering were to be adopted,
strict protection measures must be incorporated
There must be an explicit statement that the open land may never
be used for other construction.
General
comment: