Affordable housing plan hits zoning hurdle in Carmel 

A proposal to create three affordable, handicapped-accessible apartments in Carmel ran into an obstacle last week when Planning Board members acknowledged that the town's newly adopted zoning code may inadvertently stand in the way of a project they generally support. 

The Putnam Housing Corp., a Carmel-based nonprofit that administers affordable housing programs, appeared before the Planning Board on June 24 seeking approval to convert its former offices on Seminary Hill Road into three ground-floor apartments while relocating the agency's office to another building nearby. 

The conversion would increase the building's total number of apartments from four to seven. According to the applicant, all three new units would be rented at below-market rates and designed to be fully accessible for people with disabilities. 

But while board members praised the public benefit of the proposal, they also acknowledged that the project conflicts with portions of the town's new zoning code it adopted last year, raising questions about whether the regulations adequately account for projects involving existing buildings. 

"This is a different kind of use," town planning consultant Pat Cleary told the board. "It's a use that has a public benefit associated with it." 

Joel Greenberg, the Mahopac architect representing the applicant and president of the Putnam Housing Corp. board of directors, said the project would address a pressing community need. 

"What we'd like to do is change the first floor (formerly office space) to three handicap-accessible apartments — not at market rate but at low-income rates — so we can provide something for the community," Greenberg said. 

He explained that the building's only exterior modification would be relocating the existing accessible ramp from the rear to the side of the building, allowing residents direct access to their apartments from Seminary Hill Road. 

"There'll be seven apartments," Greenberg said. "The four upstairs remain as they are, and now we're adding three." 

Assistant Building Inspector Ed Spadaro outlined several issues that must be addressed before the application can move forward. 

Among them are questions over lot coverage, parking dimensions and setbacks. Spadaro said the applicant's calculations show 28 percent lot coverage, but town officials believe paved areas and sidewalks push coverage above 50 percent, potentially requiring a variance. Additional variances would also be needed for parking space width and length, side-yard setbacks and the total number of required parking spaces. 

Town engineer Rich Franzetti had only one request, asking the applicant to provide a water and wastewater report because no significant site work is proposed. 

The larger challenge, however, stems from the town's recently adopted zoning regulations governing multifamily housing. 

Under the new code, the property's approximately 7,000-square-foot lot would be permitted for only two dwelling units based on current density standards. The building already contains four apartments, and the proposal would increase that number to seven. 

"The plain letter of the code says what it says," Cleary said. "There are very specific standards that relate to multifamily housing units. They don't comply with a lot of them, including the density provisions." 

As a result, the project will require not only the variances identified by Spadaro but also additional relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals before the Planning Board could issue a special permit. 

Still, several Planning Board members questioned whether the new density standards should be applied the same way to an existing building being repurposed for affordable housing as they would be to new construction. 

Planning Board Chairman Craig Paeper asked whether the density provisions were intended primarily for new development. 

"It is an existing building," Cleary responded. "New rules. And again, are they perfect? They're brand new. This may be an example where we may want to go back to the Town Board and say there may be a reason to suggest existing buildings get a different number instead of one number that applies to new or existing buildings." 

Greenberg argued the public benefit of the project should weigh heavily in the board's consideration. 

"We're providing something for the community that I think is important," he said. "We're doing something for the community that is not here." 

Board members also discussed whether any approval should require the apartments to remain affordable in perpetuity. Cleary noted that while Putnam Housing Corp. intends to maintain the units as affordable housing, future ownership changes could complicate enforcement unless conditions are attached to the approval. 

The board suggested that any eventual approval could require future owners to return before the Planning Board if the property is sold or the affordable housing use changes. 

For now, however, no action was taken. 

Paeper directed the applicant to prepare responses addressing the special permit criteria, identify the necessary variances, and return with revised materials at a future meeting. 

"There's a lot of comments [from town planners]," Paeper said. "Let's see what you can clean up. If you're ready, we'll be ready for the next meeting.”