Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking Variance Medical Support Offices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Patchogue zoning board hears parking-variance request at 33 Medford Avenue for support offices used by medical provider
Summary
An applicant seeking to convert storage space at 33 Medford Avenue into support offices for a medical provider asked the Patchogue Village Zoning Board for parking and parking‑space‑size variances; the board closed the hearing and moved the item to its decision calendar after discussion of cross‑access agreements and ownership conditions.
The Patchogue Village Zoning Board on June 3 heard a request to convert a lower-level storage area at 33 Medford Avenue into support office space for a medical provider and to grant two zoning variances: relief from the site’s parking requirement and relief for parking-space dimensions.
Wayne Alden, representing the applicant, told the board that the lower level is currently partly finished and partly used for storage by New York Langone and that the owner is negotiating an expanded lease to create non‑patient support offices — “hoteling” workstations — rather than exam rooms. Alden said the plan would provide about 20 workstations and that typically “they’re probably gonna have 10 to 15 at a time.”
The applicant’s parking analysis, presented at the hearing, calculated a theoretical parking requirement of 163 spaces and stated the site currently provides 24. The applicant requested relief for the number of spaces and for space dimensions (the application cites a required size of 9 by 20 feet and existing spaces of about 9 by 17 feet). Alden said there is a cross‑access agreement among three buildings owned by the same owner and that one tenant, Mary Haven, occupies about 11,000 square feet and buses in patients; Mary Haven currently employs about 25 people, which affects how parking is used on the combined property.
Board members pressed the applicant on contingencies tied to ownership and cross‑access. One member asked whether the owner would accept a condition making the permit contingent on continued ownership and the cross‑access agreement; Alden acknowledged the ownership was a recent purchase (he estimated 2017 or 2019) and that the cross‑access agreement could be provided to the record. The applicant said the proposed support offices would not receive patients, would not house medical machines, and would typically operate during standard weekday hours.
A board member moved to close the application and move it to the decision calendar; the motion was seconded by Mister Salazar and carried by the members present. The board did not vote on the variances at the hearing and will consider the item at a later decision session.
