Medical office’s on-street parking creates hazard, residents say

A proposal to restrict parking on Northern Parkway off Roanoke Avenue in downtown Riverhead drew criticism from some neighboring residents who said parking restrictions alone would not address the source of the problem.

The code change, proposed in response to traffic congestion complaints in the area, would ban parking on the north side of Northern Parkway for 500 feet east of Roanoke Avenue, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, Riverhead Town Attorney Eric Howard said.

At a Town Board public hearing on the proposal Tuesday afternoon, Northern Parkway residents urged the board to look beyond signage and enforcement to broader compliance issues they said are driving the parking problem. 

Resident Jeanne Fallot, argued the measures would not resolve “the broader zoning, safety and accessibility issues at 968 Roanoke,” the site of a dermatologist’s office. 

“The property is operating as a multi-provider medical office, yet there’s no updated certificate of occupancy reflecting the scope of use,” Fallot said.

“The property was transferred in 2019 to 968 Roanoke LLC, which is an affiliated entity within Advanced Dermatology’s corporate structure, which operates in more than 40 locations,” she said. “This change in ownership raises questions about whether any prior grandfathered status continues,” she said, because the intensity of use at the site increased with the new owner. 

“While the code may not use the phrase intensity of use, it is reflected in measurable standards such as parking requirements and certificate of occupancy limits. When those limits are exceeded, the code is implicated,” Fallot said.

Fallot said lack of adequate on-site parking results in the “overflow onto Northern Parkway,” a result she called “predictable.”

“Signage and enforcement do not create the missing required parking” on site, Fallot said.

She also raised concerns about fire safety as a result of on-street parking on Northern Parkway. When cars are parked on both sides of the street, Fallot said, the roadway narrows to 10 to 14 feet in width. The state fire code requires “20 feet of clear access,” she said. 

Finally, Fallot addressed the site’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The town approved a site plan in 1993 that included a ramp for accessibility, she said. “Records show that the ramp was never built, yet occupancy continued,” she said. 

“These issues are interconnected, intensified use drives parking overflow, overflow creates fire hazards and accessibility remains unresolved,” Fallot said. “I respectfully request a formal zoning determination and coordinated review of zoning, parking, fire safety and ADA compliance for this property.”

Council Member Ken Rothwell asked Fallot if the proposed parking restriction is something she supports, as “a step that helps in the right direction.” Fallot said she thinks the restriction would not decrease the number of cars parking on the street. “It’ll just push them down the block.”

Adele Wallach, also a Northern Parkway resident, said she does not think the parking restriction will be effective to address the underlying problems tied to traffic volume.

“If the cars are still parked on one side of the road to the corner of Roanoke on Northern Parkway, anybody turning into the street is in danger of a head-on collision with somebody coming down Northern Parkway,” Wallach said.  “It’s not a wide enough street for parking to the corner. People fly around the block like they’re at Indianapolis Raceway. Nobody has regard for any speed limits. It doesn’t mean anything,” Wallach said.

People going to the doctor’s office routinely drive onto her front lawn, Wallach said. “They have no respect for the private property that they’re now encroaching on … so that my lawn is completely cut up every summer… They don’t care.” 

Parked cars also encroach on the road’s already-narrow lane of travel, sometimes halfway into the middle of the road, Wallach added.  This creates a hazard for people getting out of the parked vehicle, including parents taking their kids out of car seats on the street side of their parked car, while cars  are “flying down the block off Roanoke.” It happens every day, she said. It was even worse with all the snow, she said. 

“I mean, this is what we’re dealing with. It’s just no regard for anybody on the street at all, and it is a residential block beyond those two offices [on the corners],” Wallach said.

Supervisor Jerry Halpin closed the public hearing but left it open for 10 days for written comment, setting a March 13 deadline.

The zoning that allows professional offices along Roanoke Avenue, including medical and dental offices, was adopted in 1978. The code was intended to implement the recommendations of the 1973 master plan, which envisioned the use of existing structures — typically dwellings — as “professional office buildings.” It spelled out 22 professional uses that would be allowed by Town Board special permit in the Business PB zoning district. The Business PB code has since been amended four times to add various eligible uses.  In 1992, the special permit requirement was eliminated, making each of the professional uses permitted as of right.

The current site of Advanced Dermatology was built as a single-family residence prior to 1965, according to town records obtained by Fallot through a Freedom of Information Law request. It was purchased by John Franzone, a dermatologist, in 1980. The doctor converted the use of the building to an office and in 2019 transferred the  property to a limited liability company (968 Roanoke LLC) for $485,000, according to Suffolk County land records. The company is registered with the N.Y. Secretary of State with a New Hyde Park address for Advanced Dermatology PC. 

Fallot said the town’s zoning code ought to take intensification of use into account. Not all professional offices have the same impacts on surrounding residential areas, she said, and multi-practitioner medical offices certainly have greater impacts than sole practitioners.