Proposal to expand Roanoke Avenue commercial uses meets neighborhood resistance

A proposed code change to allow personal service uses in the Professional Business zoning use district along Roanoke Avenue south of the traffic circle drew pushback from residents during a public hearing Tuesday night.

The proposal would allow personal service businesses, except dry cleaning and laundry services, by special permit of theTown Board in the Business PB district. It would also allow as of right apartments on the upper floors of buildings in the zoning district.

The Business PB zoning district takes in both sides of Roanoke Avenue north of the Roanoke Avenue/Northville Turnpike intersection to just south of the intersection with Route 58. 

Senior Planner Greg Bergman introduced the code change. “The impetus for the proposed code amendment was initiated when an application for a use permit was submitted to the building department at the end of April, for a property located on Roanoke Avenue, where an applicant sought to establish a hair treatment studio, which is akin to a hair salon,” Bergman said. “The use is not currently listed as a permitted use within the Business PB zoning use district, which currently allows for a range of professional offices as a permitted use,” he said. 

Bergman told the board the proposed personal service category would cover uses such as fitness studios, beauty services, massage therapy, personal coaching, esthetician and skincare services, cultural and educational studios and pet grooming. Dry cleaning and laundry services, although included in the broader definition, would be excluded from the Business PB amendment. The proposal would also limit business hours in the district to 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Bergman said the uses contemplated by the amendment would generally be conducted indoors, would not be expected to generate heavy traffic and would not involve outdoor storage or outdoor activity. Any conversion of an existing building would still require Planning Board site plan review, he said.

Residents who spoke at the hearing urged the board to reject the proposed code amendment expanding the district’s commercial uses, which they said would erode the residential character of the area. 

Laverne Tennenberg, a resident of the area and longtime chair of the town’s board of assessors, leveled withering criticism at the proposed change, which she called “misguided and inappropriate.” 

Roanoke Avenue is “lined with stately homes” and is bordered by a residential development called Roanoke Heights, which was “built in the 1930s and 1940s before there was a hospital or Old Country Road,” Tennenberg said. 

“Changing the zoning to accommodate personal services businesses will be a detriment to adjacent residential property owners and those homes in close proximity,” Tennenberg said. Some properties along Roanoke Avenue that are already in commercial use “struggle to provide the proper on-site parking, as evidenced by the situation on Northern Parkway,” Tennenberg said, referring to the unresolved complaints of residents about congestion on their block caused by vehicles parked for a professional office on the corner of Northern Parkway and Roanoke Avenue.

See: Medical office’s on-street parking creates hazard, residents say (March 4, 2926)

Tennenberg said parking in the front yard of properties on Roanoke Avenue, which the zoning already allows, is not “appealing to neighbors or to visitors to our community.”

“Allowing apartments on upper floors presents its own problems,” Tennenberg said. 

“Consider 1025 Roanoke Avenue. For many years, the second floor of the doctor’s office was rented out as an apartment. I recently found out that the use of the second floor as an apartment was specifically prohibited on that property,” she said. “The property has changed hands, and there are three cars continuously parked there day and night.” It’s a “red herring” and “no more than wishful thinking” to suggest that the apartment dwellers would only park on the premises at times when the business isn’t using available parking, Tennenberg said. “No one can force tenants to leave the premises during the day.” This would lead the ground-floor business use lacking in on-site parking, which would then force employees and customers to parkon on adjacent side streets. 

“Take, for example, the proposed use of a fitness studio or Pilates studio. Those uses would generate many participants who would need to park a car in addition to the instructor and receptionist. Many Roanoke Avenue properties are not designed or equipped to accommodate that many cars,” Tennenberg said. “That would involve seeking a variance with the zoning board of appeals to allow more impervious surface or smaller parking spaces to allow for many cars at one time, or even reducing the required setbacks from a required 10 feet to 5 feet,” she said. “Once that door has been opened, others will point to precedents as a reason for them to obtain the same variances.” 

Tennenberg continued: “Additionally, permitting these personal services to operate from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. would be disturbing to the residential neighbors, having to deal with car doors opening and closing, causing their dogs to bark at the noise, headlights pointing into the yards at night, and dark sky issues with security lights not being properly aimed downward.”

The new uses being proposed for Business PB are widely available throughout the town in eight different zoning districts, Tennenberg said. She listed them: DC1 Main Street, DC3 Office, SC Shopping Center, BC Business Center, HC Hamlet Center, VC Village Center, Business CR, and the Railroad Avenue Urban Renewal Overlay District. 

“By the looks of it, these zoning districts cover the entire town from west to east. These zoning districts have all the necessary codes in place for lighting and parking, including handicap parking,” she said. “They do not border residential lots and are specifically designed and zoned with these uses in mind,” she said.

Although Tennenberg was speaking as a private citizen, and not in her official capacity, her knowledge of real property tax assessment laws and the issues faced by the town informed her opinion of another potential consequence of the proposal: decreasing property assessment values in other commercial zones where vacancies may increase as a result of the changes to the Business PB zone.

“This town has many properties with buildings that have vacancies. Income-producing properties rely on an income stream to be successful. If you grant this zone change, it would adversely affect landlords where the uses are [already] permitted,” she said. “When vacancies occurs occur and landlords are unable to fill those vacancies, the property owner then seeks a tax reduction.  You could very possibly decrease property values by this proposed action.”

Tennenberg questioned why the Town Board would add new uses when a business owner has “a plethora of opportunities” to locate their business in a zone where it is permitted. “Why saddle nearby homeowners with unnecessary nuisances? Why are we contorting ourselves to accommodate one person’s request at the expense of many others?” she asked.

Tennenberg said that people who purchase property should do their due diligence and understand how it is zoned and what uses are allowed there. 

“One should not rely on zone changes or ZBA approvals to get what you want,” Tennenberg said. The board should not even be entertaining the proposal at hand, she said. 

“Please remember the constituents you serve who rely on you for the quiet enjoyment of their homes,” Tennenberg concluded to applause.

Cindy Clifford, also a downtown resident, said the impetus for this code change is similar to situations town residents have seen in the past.

“We have zoning and someone comes in and buys a property, and they need the zoning changed to do what they want to do. That’s sort of a backward way of doing things, right? You buy the property if you know you can do what you want to do.” 

Clifford said the change could also worsen the town’s existing “problem with affordability and availability of single-family homes.” If more single-family homes on Roanoke Avenue are converted to business uses, “we’re further reducing the option for homes.”

Roanoke Avenue is very symbolic of Riverhead itself, Clifford said, with its beautiful trees and lovely old homes. “…[T]o further change the character or to risk changing the character of that road seems somehow like we’re doing all this for a guy who wants to do a hair salon. Like Laverne said, there are a million places. We’ll help him find a place to do his hair salon.” New commercial uses will inevitably lead to expansion of parking lots, the addition of impervious surfaces and removal of trees.

“I have to ask: Do we really want to see a change to zoning to satisfy a single buyer who purchased a property and then realized or figured he could just get [the zoning] changed?”

Toqui Terchun, president of the Greater Calverton Civic Association, said the proposed zoning change seems to have “just kind of appeared out of nowhere.” She said she didn’t remember it being discussed during the comprehensive plan process.

“I’m not opposed to having new zoning made that didn’t originate inside of the comprehensive plan update for very good reasons. But this one seems as though it’s to accommodate one particular individual or property,” Terchun said.

The idea that vacancies would occur elsewhere, where personal service shops are already allowed, causing those properties to lose value should be “a sticking point”  for the board in its decision-making, Terchun said. 

Councilwoman Joann Waski said the proposal was not written for one property owner, but was intended to help keep already-converted office properties occupied as demand for traditional professional office space changes and some office tenants are moving out. “So being able to have tenancy in those properties was part of the reason that I was considering this, and I appreciate the concerns that have been brought forward. They’re very good concerns and worth consideration,” Waski said.

As he closed the hearing, Supervisor Jerry Halpin thanked people for their comments and said he agrees “there’s a lot to think about there.” Halpin kept the hearing record open for written comments until Aug. 28.