When you buy a home, you don’t just buy the house. You buy a neighborhood and a community. When my wife and I moved to Fairport Village eleven years ago, we were delighted to become part of a vibrant, small town. Every homeowner reasonably expects their local government to do what’s necessary to maintain their community’s character. For some reason, our local government has something else in mind.
An article published by the Beacon on August 22 described the village’s prospective rezoning in detail. Under a Comprehensive Plan approved by the village board in 2021, Fairport will update its zoning codes, which were last revised in 1992. So far, so good.
I first learned about the proposed rezoning when, like many of my neighbors, I found an anonymous letter on my doorstep outlining the potential changes to the code. I confess that I was unaware of the proposal. And I am not alone. I have spoken to many of my neighbors who are as shocked and dismayed as I am.
The plan features a much-needed upgrade to the Main Street corridor to make the village more walkable and safer. However, it will also significantly downgrade our community.
Among its objectives is “to provide diverse housing choices.” The report includes a map dividing the village into zones and describing the type of housing that will be permitted. The plan will increase the allowable number of multi-family housing units—apartments or Auxiliary Dwelling Units (converted garages or outbuildings)—in every neighborhood.
It’s certainly fair for public officials to point out that we—Fairport’s residents—have had ample opportunity to provide input to this process. They have conducted five face-to-face public input sessions. And, as the Beacon article points out, “The Village also posted flyers on the project around Fairport, [and] mailed postcards about it to residents.” Those communications promoted a redevelopment of the Main Street Corridor to make the village more “walkable.” There was scant information, if any, that outlined the increase in multi-family housing. No one was shouting from the rooftops, “Great news! More apartment buildings in your neighborhood!”
In truth, only a small minority of citizens participate in public outreach meetings. Most of us are busy leading our lives and reasonably expect our local government to act in our best interests. An economist would call this “rational ignorance.” We don’t have time to participate in a way that will have an impact. So, we don’t.
The Beacon quotes Fairport’s village mayor, Julie Domaratz, who complains that some residents “believe that we’re trying to do something nefarious…” and adds that some “members of the community put rumors out there that have no basis.” Yet a comparison of the anonymous letter to the PowerPoint presentation of the plan indicates that every claim made by the letter is accurate. To my knowledge, and indeed in the Beacon article, Mayor Domaratz has failed to point out how the “rumors” are inaccurate.
In the absence of information, the public will fill in the blanks.
Among the questions that remain unanswered is why? The objective of the Comprehensive Plan is presumptive. It clearly states that one objective is to achieve housing diversity without explaining why this is desirable.
The mayor is backed up by Village Planner Jill Wiedrick, who is also quoted in the Beacon article as saying that the project’s theme, “Character-Based Code,” reflects the intention to maintain the village’s character without explaining how the village’s character will be maintained by destroying it. If the Mayor or Ms. Wiedrick were willing to answer basic questions about the intent of the changes, maybe the community would be less inclined to assume they have nefarious purposes.
Perhaps because there have yet to be any substantial responses from key members of the village government, the Beacon article heavily relies upon the comments of one of its residents, Ginny Maier. In her public comments about the rezoning on the village website, she says, “I don’t believe any zoning district in the village should be exclusively single-family, and I think that we should be allowing multifamily developments that can infill on larger lots everywhere in the village.” She casts her comments in the context of global climate change. More families on a single lot means less construction and that reduces our carbon footprint.
Undoubtedly, there are communities where her approach makes sense. Fairport isn’t one of them. In a 48-minute video presentation, the village’s consultant, Fisher Associates, outlines how a developer could replace existing structures with a three- or four-story apartment building. Replacing existing housing stock, some of which were built in the 19th Century, would involve producing and trucking tons of concrete into the village. How does that contribute to reducing our carbon footprint?
More population means more cars and more traffic. Already, it’s challenging to find a parking spot in the public lot behind the village hall or across the street in the shopping center that houses Dollar General. In public comments, some have questioned why the plan would add more pollution in a community that becomes more “walkable.” Simple: people will still get in their cars to go to Wegmans, CVS, and Eastview. And those who pick up their dry cleaning on Main Street are unlikely to walk a half mile home with it thrown over their shoulder.
Our national politics have become more and more divisive over the last eight years. From time to time, I take solace as I consider our community. Our calls to public works receive an almost immediate response. Residents walk to the village center to enjoy cafes and restaurants. And free-range children abound. In many ways, life in the Village of Fairport represents the achievement of the American Dream. It’s a place where those of us who have worked hard and played by the rules can enjoy the fruits of our labor.
Now, that’s in jeopardy.
John Calia
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. Submissions to the Letters page should be sent to [email protected].
As a longtime renter in Fairport, I applaud the Village leadership for considering more equitable, green zoning that works for a variety of families and individuals. The last sentence of this opinion– “It’s a place where those of us who have worked hard and played by the rules can enjoy the fruits of our labor” — drips with contempt for the Other…ostensibly those who do not work hard and do not play by the rules-and who don’t belong in Fairport. This straw man falls apart when one gets to know those who have less income, but who ALSO work hard and play by the rules. We may be disabled, or retired elders, or work in a field that is underpaid, or are in single-parent families, or any number of other features that mean we live in apartments and can’t afford to buy a house. We belong here too.
Bravo, Amy! The letter writer’s assertion — that people with lower incomes are less deserving of a pleasant quality of life — is reprehensible, and yet FAR too common. Your words bring to mind the wonderful quote from George Monbiot: “If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.”
After numerous paragraphs explaining what he percieves to be the potential new village zoning code and his opposition to it, Mr. Calia gave it all away with his last sentence: “It’s a place where those of us who have worked hard and played by the rules can enjoy the fruits of our labor.” Us in, them out.
Do you follow any sports Mr. Calia? In all of them the rules change periodically. Every player who is playing by the rules might find themselves with new rules next season and have to adjust their game. Just look at this year’s new rules for the NFL and MLB.
A hundred-plus years ago I don’t doubt that the farmers in the village despaired of the new, large, four-square colonials that were encroaching on them. Sensible periodic zoning changes with public opportunities for discussion, disagreement, and then consensus is the best-practice way of keeping, or making, our communities vibrant and available to many people, not just to ourselves.
Fairport Zoning. We moved to Fairport 30 years ago when it was a quiet, rural community . Now it’s a vibrant village with more stores, restaurants, activities, and improved canal facilities, with more to come. More and more people want to move here (as many of us did) but housing is extremely limited. The village gov. is attempting to make housing more available in the village and I think they are going about it in the best way possible; working hard to get input from village residents on the type of housing they would like to see and the facilities and village layout that works for walkers, bikers, and auto traffic. There are a lot of unfounded rumors and misinformation flying about, not only about the intentions of the village government but that housing plans are already defined. Well, the rumors and misinformation are just that: the many meetings that have been held for village residents have explained the entire process in detail and even had a big board with pictures of various types of housing so the attendees could do a ‘preference’ vote. They even had this ‘preference’ picture board at the Fairport Farmer’s Market, along with detailed information. Those residents who have chosen not to attend any one or a number of these meetings don’t understand what the proposal is. (Or maybe they do but want everything to stay as it was). Yes, there are challenges, as with anything new, but just saying “no” without understanding the facts isn’t at all helpful. Mayor Julie and Village Planner Jill Wiedrick are committed to getting village resident feedback, but we, as village residents, have a obligation to do our part; understand the facts, share specific concerns and then share ideas on how those concerns can be addressed. My husband and I have had opportunities to talk to both Mayor Julie and to Jill and they definitely want what’s best for the residents and the village. If the village is a priority for the village residents then participation is required.
This has been my experience as well. I find village government in Fairport more responsive and transparent than that of any other place I’ve lived. You’re absolutely right that we citizens have a duty to be involved and participate in good faith.
Regarding John Calia’s observations, I was puzzled by his statement “Residents walk to the village center to enjoy cafes and restaurants. And free-range chicken abound!”
I thought for a minute he was losing it, but on reading it again I saw it was my mistake of reading ‘chicken’ for ‘children’. (I’m getting new glasses next week!)
John has raised several very good points here. Parking and traffic volumes are only getting worse, especially in the summer when we have numerous lift bridge operations, coupled with many very long freight trains, closing Main Street for ten minutes at a time.
Imagine one single family residence turned into three or four apartments. Instead of say a two car parking, that could increase to six or eight cars. Within a few property conversions, the village could have over a hundred more vehicles to cope with.
All this reminds me of the situation in England, where they live under a system called The Green Belt. This misguided principal of only allowing construction in limited areas has created very dense populations, and all the while, the Green Belt, usually farms and stately homes, have their expansive views and environment virtually untouched. The squirrels and rabbits there have a better lifestyle than the humans. The American way of nestling houses in their spread out environment under trees, is much easier on the eye, and promotes general happiness.
It appears that this new and misguided concept, conjured up by the Village Trustees, is headed along the same path. Dense, overcrowded, and traffic problems galore. And all the while, the Town of Perinton has lots of green belt, waiting to be developed.
Perhaps the answer is to preserve the village as it is, make a total ban on ‘conversions’ and further construction, and suggest the Town of Perinton make these high density multi family residences on land not so densely populated?
Which brings me to ask, do we really need this third layer of ‘government? The people who run the village, police, Trustees, Mayor etc. are all good folks, but is this duplication of government really necessary? Several villages locally have successfully dissolved their village into their town and overnight eliminated the ‘village tax’ burden, saving villagers several thousand dollars a year. Many of those ‘village jobs’ still need doing, but under new ‘bosses’.
A reduction in property taxes like this could actually improve property values so this could be one of those win-win situations.
New York State actually promotes and encourages village dissolution, as they are well aware that we pay too much tax in this State.
You can read more about Village Taxes here – https://ecna.createaforum.com/village-and-town-taxes/