An American Profile

Who Are We?

2000 Census Data for Hamlin:

RACE:
96.8 % White
1.1 % Black

>ANCESTRY:
34 % German
17.4 % English
20.1 % Irish
15.6 % Italian

Those of German ancestry approximately equal the combined total of any two of the next largest groups.

Hamlin, 2050 AD

Some Things to Think About

The following data for Hamlin comes from the 2000 Census:
YOUTH
5 - 9 yr. - 8.8 %
10 - 14 - 9.9 %
15 - 19 - 7.9 %

Total Youth-------26.6 %

SENIORS
60 - 64 - 3.1 %
65 - 74 - 3.8%
74 - 84 - 2.1 %

Total Seniors-----9 %

Median Age of all Hamlin citizens is 34.1 yr.

Conclusion: Any planning* for a Community Center should be based on these facts, not out-of-date, but lingering, ideas about our population. Resources should be allocated based on the population, not on organization. We need to serve our young families first.

* I refer to the Coalition Committee being set up to explore a Community Center. There is no action on the matter from the Town Board. In fact, they have abrogated their responsibility in the matter back to the citizens. The Town Board is not capable or motivated to do any town planning of their own.

Left at the Altar

Rough, rough.

I have met Linda Hoffman a few times. She was very pleasant and seemed to me to be energetic and friendly. It is a shame how she was treated by Austin Warner and Ed Evans.

Hoffman had been recruited by Evans and Warner, at least as far back as December 2002, to run for Town Clerk. For a jumble of childish reasons, these men had decided that the downturn in their political popularity was caused by Kathi Rickman and they determined to get her out of the Town Clerk’s office. So they searched around for a potential candidate. They knew Linda socially through her husband Jerry. Jerry is a great guy, a member of the Republican Committee and served on the Conservation Board before moving over to the Zoning Board. Warner and Evans must have liked Linda’s credentials because they didn’t waste much time offering her the Clerk’s job.

I say “offering” because they went out of their way to persuade Linda that the job was hers for the taking. They painted such a bleak picture of Rickman and her chances of being reelected, that Linda couldn’t help but be convinced that she was a shoe-in. It was poor advice and a shabby way to treat a colleague.

Warner and Evans encouraged Hoffman, they raised her expectations. They assured her that they controlled enough votes on the Republican Committee to guarantee her the nomination. They convinced her that if Rickman were to force a primary, they would again prevail. Never a discouraging word was heard.

Never a word of caution or prudence either.

There was just one slight problem. Linda Hoffman was a registered Democrat. A Dem can’t receive the Republican nomination. Easy enough to fix? Maybe.

In January, Linda changed her party affiliation to Republican. Just in time for the nominating process in March. Of course we all know that Rickman prevailed and received the Republican nomination on the first ballot. Later in that meeting, Hoffman asked how she could go about the process of forcing a primary. The question hit a cold wall, and it was obvious why. The Republicans had just made their choice, why would they help or encourage a challenge to it?

This raises the first serious question about how well Warner and Evans were caring for their hand picked candidate. Why hadn’t they advised Hoffman properly? She should have been instructed that if she didn’t get the nomination she should graciously accept, wish the nominee well and offer her support. Either they were so confident in their ability to get her the nomination or they were too wrapped up in their own issues to care about a negative outcome. In either case, they left Hoffman high and dry, and, asking the wrong question in front of the Committee. She must have been embarrassed at the response.

Now her recruiters fumbled again. This time even worse than before. Warner and Evans did not direct Hoffman to concede and move on. Instead, they encouraged her to challenge Rickman in a Primary. What could possibly be the inducement to this action? Once again, the only answer can be that they assured her that she would win. Once again, the men must have advised Hoffman that they controlled enough Republican votes and reassured her of victory. They must have promised and encouraged her, why else would she have undertaken a challenge to the decision of the Party? Linda Hoffman was being led down the “Primrose Path.”

Hoffman went to the Board of Elections and inquired about mounting a primary challenge. Bad move. In the first place, the Monroe County Republicans are very sensitive about Primaries this year because there are so many of them. Additionally, why would the “parent company” encourage a revolt? The county Republicans had no interest in Warner and Evans’ vendetta against Rickman. From their point of view, a primary just looks bad. Republicans HATE dissent.

When the county people looked at the situation they delivered a shock to all involved. Technically, Linda Hoffman was still a Democrat! She was barred from running a Republican Primary.

Election law states that changing party affiliation does not become effective until after the next general election.* This is to prevent “primary jumping,” in which people from other parties might jump in to disrupt a primary election. It makes sense. It is not a new law. Supervisor Warner should have known about it. Evans, who himself changed from being a Democrat, should have known about it. If these men put themselves in a position to advise Hoffman, the least they could do would be to know simple election law rules. They didn’t. They were terribly irresponsible. It was Hoffman who was going to look bad downtown, it was Hoffman who would be embarrassed locally. It was a lousy way to treat someone. Especially a person who had been personally selected and encouraged to take a risk.

Where is the apology? Where is the acceptance of responsibility? Where is the acknowledgment of incompetence? It ain’t coming.

I’m sorry for Linda Hoffman. I think she was very badly advised and misled. However, we all know the old saying, “If you lay down with dogs, you’re gonna’ get fleas.”

When you drive past the Town Hall you can hear the barking.

**************************
* Election rules vary depending upon the point in the election cycle.

The Definition of Stress!

Think about it.

Time For a Change

Wednesday’s Democrat & Chronicle, front page/ B section, printed an article which had special relevance to Hamlin. The story described how the Town of Irondequoit was eliminating its Building Department and contracting with the Town of Greece to supply those services. This is a great idea, and should be given vigorous consideration in Hamlin.

Irondequoit will cut their Building Department costs nearly in half, saving over $70,000 a year by eliminating three Inspectors. Since the town is fully developed, their number of inspections is not great.

While Hamlin is barely developed, the number of housing starts is very low, about one a month, with a similar number of mobile home openings each year. Plenty of decks, ponds, fences, pools and sheds which must be inspected, but these are not complicated or intensive inspections so the cost can be kept low.

With the exception of local set-back rules, development and building regulations are pretty much the same throughout the state and county. That’s because State and County rules are highly detailed and override local regs. That means a smooth transition for Inspectors from the outside.

Presently, Greece has a staff of 25, with 17 Inspectors! Hamlin has a staff of one “as-needed” support person and one part-time Inspector with an annual budget of $ 41,329! Even though the Inspector is part time, incredibly, he has been given a car! Irondequoit will pay Greece about $65,000 for 1600 to 1900 hours of service. If our Building Inspector logs 20 hours a week for 50 weeks, Hamlin gets a maximum 1000 hours of service. Local taxpayers could reap a significant savings from cutting this department.

There are plenty of other benefits:
* By all accounts, the response time for inspections in Hamlin is atrocious. Builders and homeowners are extremely frustrated having to delay their construction because the Inspector takes days, or even weeks, to get to there sites for even the most basic approvals.
* Highly experienced inspectors know how to stop a project when it is improper or illegal. There are no two story houses masquerading as “garages” in Greece. Unlike Hamlin, if you violate the law, or your approved plan, you will be shut down. Unlike Hamlin, if you don’t conform, you will be made to remove. That’s the way it should be.
* There will be no more pointless, and expensive, training sessions. The Greece Inspectors will come fully trained and experienced, they will work to help builders, not hinder them.

People in business are accustomed to the concept of “out- sourcing” for efficiency and cost benefits. Hamlin officials, as part of government’s sluggish progress into the new millennium, could profit by learning from business. If they can’t learn, then it’s time for pink slips.


*******************************************

Brockport Post Carries Story on Wautoma Beach "Garage"

There's a pretty good article in this week's Brockport Post about the mess on Wautoma Beach. In it, the Building Inspector again claims that there is no definition of a garage in our codes. Sorry Larry, look again, it's on page 18. A few pages later you'll find the definition of a two story residence.

According to the law, the duty of the Building Inspector is, "...to secure enforcement of this chapter and to issue all permits or certificates..." (125-69, page 129, Larry.) That means that he is REQUIRED to enforce our laws, it's not at his option. The way the Inspector operates now, with a conditional enforcement policy and granting permits for stuctures that are not in conformance (or were built without permits!), begs the question: Is the Hamlin Building Inspector's job performance even legal?

If he is obligated to enforce, and he doesn't unless a resident complains, and, he allows non-conformance and non permitted construction, isn't he violating both his duty and town law? Since the law requires enforcement, and he is the enforcement officer wouldn't failure to enforce, in itself, be a violation?

An interesting conundrum to ponder.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

And Now For a Little Good News...

At a special Town Meeting held Monday night, the Board passed a resolution increasing the permit fees for new home construction. The reason that’s good news is because the increase is earmarked for the Recreation Department. The funds generated by these fees will be used for a variety of purposes, none more important than as seed money to explore the development of a Community Center for Hamlin.


This is a positive step for our community. The Recreation Department has assumed the burden of researching the project. They intend to determine the degree of support for a Center, the variety of ways to finance the project and investigate designs. The Rec. Dept. will be forming a coalition with concerned citizens from the Library, the Boy Scouts, Seniors and others to achieve these goals.


You may recall that the Recreation Department made the request for these fees at the February Town Board meeting.


All the people who conceived, presented and persuaded this plan should be saluted. Once again, a grass roots citizens’s organization has pulled together to do the work of the Town Board. In the vacuum called Local Government, it’s great to see determined residents forging ahead to accomplish worthwhile goals.


Maybe someday Hamlin will have a Town Board which, on its own, can initiate and execute a project like creating a Community Center. Hear Ye?

Bad Boy

Can You Believe This?

I wanted to tell this story sooner but the Zoning matter was more important. This is both entertaining and scary.

While waiting for the Zoning meeting to begin on Monday night, I was approached by Larry Gursslin, the Building Inspector. He said he wanted to show me something. I went along to his office. There, he showed me two Polaroids of a structure and asked me what I thought it was. The building was two stories high, set on block, it had a door and a few windows. It looked to be about 16' x 20' x 25' high. The building was roofed but had a raw pressboard exterior. Gursslin said that there were no utilities.

I said that I didn’t know what it was and he agreed, making the point that it was a dilemma. I noted that it was too big for a shed, that it had no garage door, so therefor, I concluded it was a residence. Gursslin explained some of the story to me, saying that he’d had a call about the building and had trouble finding it. He said that there was nothing else on the property, meaning no other structures, and that the owner had built it as a “get-away,” as a place to go and hang out.

Gursslin then told me that he wasn’t sure what it was either. He stated that the Hamlin zoning code did not have a definition for a garage, so he didn’t know what to call it. Then he said something amazing, he said that he “finally decided what it was, so I could issue a permit for it.” I asked him why he would issue a permit and he replied, “So he (the builder/homeowner) would be in compliance.” I asked how a resident could build a structure, without plans or a permit, and then try to get in compliance. He asked me what I thought he should have done! I replied that the resident should be made to remove the structure. Then, he could back with a plan and apply for a permit to build. The Building Inspector said that he agreed that the structure should be removed, but instead, he found a way for the man to get a permit after the fact! I left the office and went back to the Zoning Board meeting

This is crazy. Why does our town have laws if they are going to be ignored, and if they are violated, go unpunished?

This is not the first time. The story below refers to a similar situation where the builder presented a plan to build a garage, then constructed a two story house! What did the BI do in that case? The same thing! He struggled, looking for a way to stop the project, and then issued a new permit for the building- using drawings of the now completed house! Amazing.

At this month’s Planning Board meeting, Gursslin claimed that since our Zoning Code had no definition for a garage, he didn’t know how to stop the improper construction. Of course Hamlin has a definition for a garage! It has definitions for one story and two story dwellings too. Can you guess where these definitions were hidden in the code? Right in the front of the book in the section called, “Definitions.” (During the ZB meeting I sent him a note with the page numbers from the code book where the definitions were located!)

As it turns out, the structure on Wautoma Beach Road is defined exactly as a “two story dwelling,” and doesn’t comply with the garage definition in the least. The building in the photos Gursslin showed me Monday night is also a “two story dwelling.” It’s in the Code book, but the Building Inspector didn’t know it. Can you believe that?

No doubt, some blame should be directed at the town’s legal counsel, somebody must have authority to advise the Building Department. Some blame should be directed at the Supervisor as well, how can he justify this incredible failure of enforcement?

Poor Hamlin, only God knows what else is happening to our community when the Building Inspector doesn’t enforce the codes because he doesn’t know the definition of a house versus a garage!

Hamlin Zoning Board, 1777


History is Made

Last night’s Zoning Board made history. For the first time anyone can remember, an applicant’s request for a Public Hearing was refused. This, in my opinion, is historical and I applaud the members of the Board who voted against the request (the vote was 4/3.)

Readers will remember the Zoning Code nightmare I described in Welcome to Hamlin, 5/7/03, see below. The request for the public hearing was made by this same Applicant, still seeking to sub-divide his parcel to allow him to convert his “garage” into a legitimate house. Surprisingly, the Board did not address the violations of the building at all. They simply told him that they had recently denied a similar application with a request for a 50% reduction, and his application was for an 88% variance!

Some Board members, Rocky Ellsworth, Ed Haight and Attorney Welch did a good job setting up the appropriate questions to ask of the applicant. Haight entered into the record that the applicant had other building options and Welch determined that the purpose of the application was strictly for profit. These are the two key legal issues upon which variances may be granted, and the Applicant answered the questions wrong.

No doubt this Applicant’s actions of building the structure and outwitting our poor Building Inspector into further granting permissions to build, played a part in the Board’s rejection of the appeal. Anyone who scoffs the law so blatantly should expect an increasing lack of cooperation. We can be pretty sure this story is not going away soon however...

Despite all this good news, Chairman Baas once again stood out for all of his many inappropriate and unprofessional comments throughout the meeting. Regarding his vote against allowing the hearing, which costs $75, he said, “I just couldn’t take his money. It goes against my conscience, that’s just the kind of person I am.” Who cares? That’s not commentary for the public record. The Zoning Board is a legal, judicial body and, except for statements relevant to the issue on appeal, not much else should be said. Baas has been on this board for “25 years,” yet he still doesn’t understand what is appropriate commentary and what isn’t. He continues to behave as if the ZB is a Feudal court at which he magnanimously lords over the distribution of “land grants.” It’s law, not beneficence.
******NEW****** NEW****** NEW******NEW****
Everyone Deserves a Public Hearing

There were many comments made on the way out of this meeting, but one deserves some examination. Some Zoning Board members supported the application for a public hearing for “philosophical reasons.” As one member said to me, “Everyone deserves a Public Hearing.”

That’s not necessarily true. In matters of criminal or family law, everyone has a right to a hearing, but Zoning is not hat kind of law. The purpose of a Public Hearing in a Zoning Appeal is to allow neighbors and other affected or concerned citizens to comment on the application. The Hearing’s function is to get feedback from the public, that’s all. The PH collects data and opinion, it is not the judicial proceeding. The Public Hearing is similar to listening to witnesses, it is not the jury deliberations.

The idea that everyone deserves a hearing is not true in zoning law. If the Board is convinced that the application is invalid or doomed (as in Monday’s case) they have every right to reject the request. Doing so is an effective tool. It sends a clear message to the applicant, it saves the time, energy and resources of the town (tax payers,) and it doesn’t waste the Board’s time next month listening to public input on a subject which has already been decided. It saves the applicant $75, too.

No, people do not deserve a “Public Hearing,” that is a practical matter. If it’s a “done deal,” why waste everybody’s time?

Office of Communications, Hamlin Town Hall, 2003

Courtesy and Civility 101

Question: If you went into a place of business and spoke to an employee, for example a store in the mall, wouldn’t you expect a response from that person? Of course you would! Replying to someone, even to return an “Hello,” is simple, common courtesy. It is basic “good manners.”

In the business world, replying to someone, in person or by mail, whether they are a customer, vendor, coworker or stranger is not just courteous, it is an essential element of professional behavior. No business which is unfriendly toward its customers or suppliers will stay in operation for very long.

This is so obvious, so ordinary, that when one runs into a business which is rude and unprofessional enough to ignore a customer, it is startling and noteworthy.

Welcome to local government in Hamlin.

I have had personal acquaintance, for years, with town agencies which don’t bother to reply to correspondence. I have even had the unpleasant experience of having the Planning Board mock a letter I submitted to them. Apparently, the Chairman, who didn’t know me, wasn’t aware that I was present when he ridiculed the communication. But its not just me, as I was reminded recently.

Last week, I spoke with a couple of residents who were experiencing serious difficulties with a neighbor and wrote a letter to the town. Then, they wrote another, and another. They wrote to various people and agencies. They never received a reply. They never even received an acknowledgment that the town had gotten the correspondence. Not a word.

These are Hamlin residents, tax payers, and our “Town Fathers” apparently are so unsophisticated and inexperienced that they don’t understand that they must reply to correspondence. This is basic civility, much less good “business.” At the very least, acknowledging a letter, is so fundamental that one has to wonder where the people in local government came from, that they don’t know how they’re supposed to do it.

Oops.

Stayin' Alive in Hamlin!


Where Credit is Due

At April’s Town Board meeting Ed Evans introduced a piece of legislation that was good in both its purpose and effect. The purpose was to help protect our rural heritage by removing one of the main criticisms of the five acre minimum lot size in R-VL districts.

The legislation would increase the minimum frontage on these lots by an additional ten feet, to 260.' This may not seem important but it is. The criticism Evans was confronting is the “bowling alley” argument promoted by Norm Baas. His position is that SOME five acre parcels are often narrow and deep, looking like an alley.

This is an amazing position for someone who seems to be completely bereft of any other aesthetic values regarding Hamlin. This, from a man who, people say, “Never met a variance he didn’t like.” Further, he sat on the committee which revised Hamlin’s sign code down to a level competitive with any horror you’ll find along Rt. 104. It’s hard for me to imagine that a man who can accept the repulsive clutter of utility pole flyers which degrade “Downtown Hamlin” is so sensitive to a rectangular parcel of land out in the country.

Well, he is it seems, and he’s churned that fetish into an argument for reducing lot sizes in our agricultural areas. Evans wisely, cleverly went right at this problem with his proposal. He tried to tell the Board that a wider lot would prevent potential problems with septic placement, which it would, and hoped that they would catch onto the other benefit. They didn’t. He tried to get the proposal a Public Hearing, but couldn’t. The others struggled with understanding the idea and the discussion ended with a mumble from the Supervisor about “researching it.”

Jump forward to the May meeting last Monday: Evans brought up the proposal again and showed a drawing prepared by the Building Inspector which demonstrated the benefit to the septic systems. The room was again silent. In April it was noted that the frontage had been reduced (!) in 1997 and no one could remember why. Warner had suggested that this would be what should be researched. Surprise! No one did! So this time the May meeting ended exactly as it had the month before. Except, the Supervisor directed George Todd to discover the answer...for next month.

This is exactly what drives Ed Evans mad. Delay and delay. Despite the issues I have with many of Evans’ motives and actions, he is the most responsive and proactive member of local government. He is willing to confront an issue and propose a resolution, but 99 out of 100 times his efforts are met with, “let’s research it.” It drags on for months, mainly because there is no leadership, no self confidence, no vision.

I hope this doesn’t sound like faint praise, because it isn’t. Evans was right in his tirade at the Republican Nominating Meeting. He does do more than the others, and they don’t show much initiative or energy- part of the reason Hamlin government is stuck in the seventies.

Memo To the Not-Planning Board

According to the zoning code Business is defined as: The purchase sale or transaction involving the disposition of any article, substance, commodity or service, offices or recreational or amusement enterprise conducted for profit.

Under this definition, an archery range with pro-shop is clearly a business. That it is a business should not, can not, be minimized or waived by the nature of the activity that the business conducts. In fact, an indoor archery range has more in common with a bowling alley than a gun club.

Regardless, the legal criteria for granting/denying the SUP must be based on the recognition that the activity is a business and not a "club." To do less is harmful to all residents and particularly to the neighborhood since changes to the Comprehensive Plan are based upon the presence of SUPs.

Proceed With Caution


Hamlin the Reactive

Of the many problems our local government has created for its citizens, few are more distressing or disappointing than the failures of the Building Department. For a detailed example see below, Welcome to Hamlin, 5/7/03.

The principle duty of our Building Inspector is as our Code Enforcement Officer. The title is self explanatory. The BI must enforce the various codes, or laws, of the community. Primarily, Zoning and Building codes.

Ordinarily, one would think of an “Enforcement Officer,” as someone who goes into the community seeking out violations of the laws he is charged with enforcing. This is similar to a policeman who would intervene if he or she witnessed a crime while out on patrol. Ordinarily, that’s what a code enforcement officer does.

In most towns.

But not in Hamlin.

In Hamlin, our Enforcement Officer doesn’t seek out violations, but only reacts to complaints. If you don’t believe me, ask him, he’ll tell you. Or, ask any number of residents who were forced to complain about a problem which had already grown out of hand. They’ll tell you that the Building Inspector’s reason for not intervening in the issue sooner was that he only, “responds to complaints.”

Can you imagine a policeman saying that?

If you ask the BI why this is his policy, he will tell you that he’s too busy with his ordinary workload to go looking for more.

Can you imagine a fireman saying that?

Can you imagine paying taxes for a cop who would walk by a break-in because nobody had called to complain? Or, a fireman who would ignore smoke coming from a building because he was too busy?

Perhaps even worse is the awful burden flipped back onto the citizen when the Enforcement Officer sets a policy making residents complain before he investigates a violation. In almost every incident the “complainant” will initially be assumed to be the problem. An enforcement agency which declines to look for violations won't tend to be sympathetic toward the person raising the complaint, or “making more work.”

Just as detrimental, the person bringing the complaint obviously becomes the “bad guy” to the person being complained about. There are many ordinary people who would rather survive under illegal conditions rather than risk making a complaint and raising the wrath of a neighbor. Some people are intimidating, others are fearful. That’s part of the reason we employ “officers.”

Maybe the best way to promote a "harmonious" community is to make it difficult or frightening for residents to seek enforcement. If people fear complaining, there won't be any complaints to report.

Equally important is the fact that citizens are not educated or trained in the law. An ordinary citizen may know that something is wrong when the house next door is being used as the headquarters for a construction business, but not know that it is illegal. Likewise, how could a resident know that the people living in the house down the street don’t belong there? Or, how would a resident know that the new house next door is in violation of the set-back rules?

"Enforcement" is a pro-active responsability. The first step must be observation. Observation by the trained, by the authorized and by the empowered. “Enforcement” cannot be considered a passive or reactive obligation. In most towns it’s not. In most towns it is an active duty of the “Enforcement Officer.”

Who is responsible for this policy? Clearly the Building Inspector is satisfied with it since he tells everyone it’s his policy. However, the BI serves at the will of the Supervisor. He must like it too. If there are no complaints, there are none to report.

.
EVER ONWARD!


The Not-Planning Board

We all know that the meetings of the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Rewrite Committee should be open to the public. One of the most important, but least understood, reasons why involves a bizarre twist in the logic used during the creation of the last Comprehensive plan.

Any zoning change must be based on the Comprehensive Plan. If a resident seeks a zoning change, for example, from residential to commercial, the Town Board is required to consider the area’s description and designation in the Plan. The Zoning Board must consider that as well for granting variances.

If the authors of the Comprehensive Plan observe that the nature and character of an area in Hamlin has changed toward “development,” they may modify the area’s description in the Plan and on the official map. If they designate a part of town as “to be developed” or “ likely to be developed” in the Plan, they have created a legal foundation for future rezoning in the area.

Such designations are very important, especially to protecting the rural character of neighborhoods.

The last time the Comprehensive Plan was changed, Ed Evans was the chairman of the committee, as he is co-chair now. During discussions to designate areas that were being “developed” or “likely to be developed,” the committee applied a criteria they should not have.

That criteria was the appearance in an area of Special User Permits which are granted by the Planning Board. Although they should, the PB does not consider the Comprehensive Plan in deciding whether to grant a SUP. As a result, SUPs spring up virtually everywhere in Hamlin.

This is a classic “cart before the horse” situation that, as usual, local government either doesn’t understand or ignores.

All land use changes, by law, must be considered based on the Comprehensive Plan. If the Plan is using decisions from the PB, then the process is working in reverse. Most importantly, the future of the community is not determined by the Comprehensive Plan but by arbitrary SUP decisions.

This is incredibly important to our community and is completely misunderstood by the various boards and the administration. At present, the PB is the de facto agency in determining the future of changes to zoning, by virtue of granting SUPs. However, the PB cannot, and should not, have that power because the decision to grant SUPs is not based on the Comprehensive Plan!

If the Comprehensive Plan is based on Planning Board decisions, and the PB doesn’t consider the Plan when making decisions, then the town's future growth will be the result of anarchy, not forethought.

*****************

Some Examples

At last week’s meeting there were two requests for SUPs in front of the Planning Board.

One was for a “small engine repair business” to be built on a residential parcel which will include the construction of a 100' X 50' building (825 Chase Road.) Rather large for lawnmower repair I think (though the applicant claimed he was also storing a collection of cars.) The second was for an indoor Archery and retail Pro-Shop to be built on a residential parcel (342 Walker Lake Ontario Road.) Incredibly, this request was made not by the property owner but by the prospective purchaser! He asked the PB to advise him if he would be allowed to build the business, in advance of buying the property! Clearly, the PB is not authorized or mandated to give real estate advice or speculate on the outcome of future PB meetings. They did anyway. It’s unprofessional and probably unethical.

Mrs. Hazen of the PB asked if the archery activity was a business and whether it should be allowed in a residential district. This line of inquiry was squashed by Mr. Schilieter who offered that the activity was “recreational in nature like a gun club” and therefore similar to other recreational SUPs granted in the past (another example of faulty planning reasoning.) At that, the direction of Mrs. Hazen’s inquiry came to an end. It should not have. Because a business activity is “recreational” in character does not erase or mitigate that it might be, or become, primarily retail in its operation, and that is the most important question which must be considered in granting a SUP.

What will happen to this neighborhood with the archery business the next time the Comprehensive Plan is amended? Will the R-VL agricultural/residential neighborhood be changed, designated as “likely to be developed” because of the existence of “businesses” which are located there? That’s how the Hamlin system works presently.

Rather, that is how the system is presently broken

Available Everywhere!

More Baloney

When is Austin Warner going to stop trying to convince the public that he was a factor in the Cell Tower Code? (Brockport Post, 5/8/03) Everybody knows the most important thing he did was to have drinks with the guy who proposed the radio tower. I’m sure he wants us all to forget that he proposed, propelled and promoted the construction of the tower. Austin Warner was the voice and the force FOR CONSTRUCTION. He was cowed into doing a 180 on the issue when it finally dawned on him that the population was profoundly opposed to it. Every time he speaks to a newspaper he makes a point of saying how he went, “door to door “ talking to residents. What baloney! He doesn’t mention that what he was really doing was trying to convince people that the “free money” justified the tower.

Everybody associated with the tower committee knows that the real leader was Jim Martin and the bulk of the work done by him and his neighbor Denny Roach. Warner won’t even utter their names in public. He keeps trying to paint the group as his careful assembly of town leaders. Those meetings were open to the public. Those who attended know that Norm Baas, Chairman of the Zoning Board, only bothered to go to the first and last meetings. It was citizens, in a grass roots effort, who wrote the Tower law.

People value the truth, all the Supervisor does is serve up the baloney.

Ippon!

Congratulations!

If you see Brendon Boucher from Brookedge Drive give him a high five for his victory at the Tenth Annual Renshinkan Judo Tournament held at SUNY Brockport this past weekend. Brendon won in the 71 Kg class, fought 5 matches and beat several college level players. He's a nice guy and a tough guy too.

Kudos also to Jeff Butterman of Mutt and Jeff's Dog Training and Ed Wegman for taking care of their buddy Big Mike who is recovering from a severe motorcycle accident. These guys are all judoka and this was the first tournament Mike was able to attend since the accident. Good job.

The new sign at Lyell and Mt. Read Blvd.

Welcome to Hamlin

A horrifying, yet fascinating, situation was revealed in Monday's Planning Board meeting, one that should be of interest to all Hamlinites. It involves a property owner who applied to build one thing (a garage with storage) and when it was finished it looked exactly like something else (a house!)

Especially interesting is that the Applicant appeared before the PB for the purpose of sub-dividing his parcel so his new "garage" would be all alone on its own lot! Hmmm.

There's a lot of history to this story.

It begins back in 2000 (!) When the Applicant first approached the Town asking to subdivide the property. He was told that the parcel was too small to accommodate two septic systems and consequently the Zoning Board would almost certainly turn down his request for a variance.

A short time later the Applicant applied to the Building Inspector for a permit to build a three car garage with space for storage. A permit for a garage does not require site plan approval from the PB. The Applicant submitted a drawing of a gambrel-roofed three car garage. The BI issued the permit, based on that drawing, and the Applicant went to work.

However, he didn't follow the plan! Instead of constructing the garage shown in his drawing he built something completely different. As anyone can see (below,) he built what is, obviously, a two story house! When some concerned neighbors observed this they called the BI. Larry Gursslin first approved the foundation. Later, after rough carpentry, but with no roofing or siding yet, the BI inspected the building again and issued a Stop Work Order.

At this point I don't have all the details, but several things happened. First, Gursslin permitted the building to be sided and roofed. Why he would take any steps to allow the continuation of a building which appeared so illegal is presently a mystery. In any case, the building is clearly not a gambrel-roofed garage.

But this "Good Neighbor" story gets even better. In 2002, it was also brought to the attention of the Supervisor and the BI that this Applicant was operating a paving and construction business out of the new "garage." Mind you, the building was not yet approved for any use, much less as a construction materials warehouse, but that was no hindrance.

By the way, the Applicant owns the property but doesn't live on it. He lives down the road. Neighbor's took photo's, made video tapes and even had the Deputy Supervisor witness the activity. Eventually, the BI issued an order citing the Applicant and directing him to stop the activities. The neighbors will tell you that it still continues. The Applicant appears in Town Court tonight to answer some of these issues.

It keeps going! Simultaneous to all these other events, the existing house on the parcel (not the two story "garage") had a bad septic tank and the Applicant was pumping sewage from the tank onto the lawn! The sewage would drain across the street and into the Lake. Neighbors called Monroe County Health Department which dragged their feet until finally inspecting and citing the applicant in March of this year!

Naturally, some of the neighbors have finally had to retain an attorney to protect their home and property values. Some in the neighborhood have felt frightened and intimidated by the Applicant. They may not be the only ones. It seems that this past fall, as a reaction to having his property cited, the applicant charged into the Town Hall and straight into the Supervisor's office. Observers report that he confronted the Supervisor in a loud voice and aggressive manner. The Supervisor is a big man and should have told the Applicant to lower his voice, leave the building and come back when he had an appointment- and when he was willing to speak in a civilized manner. Warner didn't do this. He got caught up in events, eventually shouting at Larry Gursslin himself.

There are too many details to print here, but we know that the applicant demanded a meeting with representatives of the Planning, Zoning and Town Boards. Such a meeting would have no legal standing or jurisdiction and a letter was issued to the applicant declining. Supposedly.

The neighbors who had led the effort to force the Town into making the Applicant conform to our laws, were told by the BI that the Boards had all gotten together after the incident in the Town Hall to discuss the matter. Gursslin told the neighbors that the feeling among the boards was that the Applicant "would never be allowed to build another house on the property." (A little too late I think!)

However, at Monday's meeting Gursslin shocked the residents by stating that, as a result of the meeting, the town had issued a new permit for a "garage" which now included a "revised" drawing. Unbelievably, this is a drawing of the house which was already constructed! A building which is not a garage, but a house, we just call it a garage! Amazing, simply amazing.

I know this is a little confusing. This Applicant submitted a design to build a three car garage, then started to build a two story house, then the BI told him to stop, then allowed him to continue. When it was finished, the BI then allowed the Applicant to submit new drawings of the completed house which he called a "garage," and the BI issued a new permit. He accepted these new drawings so the Applicant would be "in conformance" and stated, "There is no definition of a garage in Hamlin zoning code."

Ok, so we can do anything we want in the absence of specific definitions? Even build something not in our approved plans? Can anybody build a structure, and when it's finished, submit a drawing of it to get a permit to build it?

So, Hamlin granted a revised building permit for a structure that was already completed and in violation of the original construction application. They did it at the very same time that the applicant was seeking to chop the lot in half so he could, obviously, convert his "garage" into a "house!" Like I said, amazing! I'm sure the details will all come out in court. Maybe when a judge explains it, the Building Department will finally inderstand it.

That's Hamlin and it's Building Department for you! A guy blows off the construction plans he submitted, the Town tells him to stop, then allows him to continue. When the building is completed, the BI issues a revised Permit allowing the completed house to be called a garage at the very time the Applicant is trying to subdivide the land for a house! What a story. In any other town they would have made the Applicant take the structure down.

To their credit, the PB was properly outraged and grilled the Applicant about some of the inconsistencies in his story. They sent him to Zoning Board, correctly, since only the ZB can grant a variance which is required to subdivide. Hamlin citizens should pray that the ZB denies this Applicant's request. It is bad enough that the Town and Building Department is so weak willed and ineffectual that it can't, or won't, control such situations, let's hope our ZB doesn't let us down as well.

By allowing such shameful development shenanigans on the Lakefront, the Supervisor and Building Inspector might as well erect that billboard on Lyell and Mt. Read. Without enforcement, our town will be fair game for every crumby, chiseling contractor in the county. Time to face the real world, gang.

Welcome to my "garage!"

Mr. Tallman Outside Hamlin Town Hall

Heard Around Town
by Vern Klunkler.

Seems a city man, a Mr. Tallman, representing Necro-Phantasms Inc.has applied to
build a crematorium/mausoleum in a residential neighborhood on the Redman Rd
near the Morton Rd. light. The parking lot would accommodate up to 15 hearses.
It is rumored the Planning Board didn't see any problems.

In this case SUP stands for Some Users Potted.

A Perfect Plan
or
How I Got To Be Under Boss.

By
Kamott Smellingrate


Cast
Mr. Amos Cautioner- Town Boss
Mr. Ted Level- Selectman and occasional Under Boss
Mr. Dan Flower (or any other name)- Water Boss

The Town Boss' office. Day.
Downstage is a conference table, seated at it are the Town Boss and the Water Boss. Spread out before them is a small pile of documents.


Flower: If the bonding goes through then we could start digging in the spring.

Level bursts into the office. He is visibly flustered and irritated.

Level: I've had it! I've really had it this time!

Cautioner: Had what, Ted?

Level: Not what, who! That Geoff Nod, he just won't return my calls.

Cautioner: What are you calling him for?

Level: He said he'd cover for me at the Silver Bells Sorority Sister Singers meeting today! I have to be at the Happydale Farms Sheep Shearing event with the Friends of the Disabled Immigrants Association.

Flower: Ted, why do you think he isn't returning your call? I wouldn't either. Why do you bother with all that junk?

Level: That's not the point. It's just that I'm the only one who does anything in this town and...

Cutting in...

Cautioner: Hey, wait a minute, I...

Level: I don't mean you, you’re the BOSS, you don't have to work. I mean the others. They never lift a finger. All they do is work and take care of their families, while I have to deal with all the politics.

Flower: What politics are in the Friends of The Disabled Immigrants?

Level: There are several prominent Republicans who donate money to that organization. We have to show we support them.

Both Flower and Cautioner burst into laughter..

Cautioner: If you believe that one Ted, I got a bridge in Holley to sell you.

Flower: You know Ted, you’ve been complaining about this issue for years now, maybe there's something we can do about it.

Level: What do you mean.

Flower: Well, there's an election coming right? And Nod is planning to run for reelection?

Level: I am too. Since were both Republicans, we'll automatically be reelected

Flower: I know, but what if we found a way to get Nod off the ballot?

Level: How could we do that?

Flower: Well, Ted you are a shoo-in. Nobody could beat you right? I mean you’re out there schmoozing every little group all day long, everybody would vote for you right?

Cautioner: Absolutely, Ted’s the most popular guy in town, besides me. Everybody'd vote for him.

Flower: That's the key. What we do is this- you start now by telling people that you’re so unhappy with the Board, and especially with Nod, like you been doing, that you can’t stand it anymore and you’re thinkin’ about not running again.

Level: Ok, then what.

Flower: I write a letter to the Committee telling them that I want to be nominated if any incumbent doesn't want to run again.

Cautioner: You? That didn't work too good last time.

Flower: I know, but this is different. Ted is more popular than Nod, he's got a much higher profile.

Level: I should hope so! I've earned it!

Cautioner: I still don't see...

Flower: What we do is, Ted goes into the nominating meeting and blows his top. He tells everybody about how the other board members don't do any work, he makes it clear he's talikin' about Nod, and says he's so frustrated he's decided not to run again.

Level: Wait a minute!

Flower: Wait, hear me out. Everybody will know you're talking about Nod. They'll all feel sorry for you and mad at Nod, Ok? Now, during the month leading up to the nominations you go around and tell everybody you've calmed down and changed your mind and that you really want to run again.

Level: I can't reach everybody!

Flower: Sure you can. Send a letter to all the committee members, tell them you’re more committed than ever, remind them of all the things you’ve done. Everybody will know soon enough, you won’t have to worry.

Cautioner: I don’t get it.

Flower: Look, the Nominating Committee will put in my name and Nod's because Ted isn't running, then on the night of nominations, Ted gives a big speech about all he's done for the town, how important the job is, you know, blah, blah, blah.

Level: I could get Becky to do it, she's a better speaker!

Flower: Even better, she gets the crowd all worked up. Now we get somebody to jump up and nominate you from the floor. You’ll get the 51% right off the bat! You're the sentimental favorite, "Good Ole Ted" It can't miss.

Level: I see!

Cautioner: I still don’t get it.

Level: What about you. If I get the nomination on the first pass you'll have to do a run off against Nod. How can we be sure you'll beat him.

Flower: Well, I've still got some friends on the committee. If you do your part and tell everybody that Nod needs to be replaced, than everything should be fine.

Level: Nod has some friends too don't forget. He’s past president of the Republican committee!

Cautioner: What's my part?

Flower: You just tell everybody how much you're gonna miss Ted and how glad you are that I'm running. You tell everybody what a big help I'm gonna be. Can you do that?

Level: Shouldn't he say that he wants me to run again too...

Flower: Sure, sure

Level:...and that Nod is bad for the Town!

Flower: I think if we all do our part it will work out fine.

Level: It's Ok to be nominated from the floor right?

Flower: Oh, sure. Remember, that's how the Boss here was elected, right? Amos, will you check it out with the Chairman?

Amos nods, looking uncertain.

Level: You know, it sounds like a real good plan.

Flower: (Chuckling) Oh, it is. It's perfect.

Cautioner: I still don't get it.

The End

Not necessarily representative of offered activities!


Hamlin Recreation Offers Summer Activities

Hamlin Recreation's summer catalogue is now available. They are offering many exciting programs: Horseback riding; Whitewater Park Camping; Learn to Row, Kayak or Scull; Hamlin Night with our professional sports teams; Yoga, kickboxing and lots more!

Call the Recreation Offices at 964-7222.

Office hours are: M/W/F 10AM - 2PM
Monday Nights 6PM - 9PM

Hamlin Rec. offers programs for all age groups. Pick up a catalogue now.

Furthering the Debate

At Tuesday's meeting of the CP/ZC Committee the issue of reducing lot size in R-Vl districts was discussed at length. It has been pointed out by many sources that this issue is essential to the future of Hamlin as a rural, agricultural community. The heart of the matter is this: As a community do we take steps to help protect farmland from the forces of development or do we take steps to encourage the conversion of farms into housing. The "steps" of course are Zoning Laws.

That is the whole matter, succinctly and comprehensively. There are arguments on both sides and the debate makes all citizens confront a complex part of lawmaking: How far can and should government go in regulating how and what an owner can do with their property.

First, we must establish the legitimacy of the concept that government should be permitted to do ANY regulating. To the best of my knowledge Zoning law was created in the US around the turn of the century in NYC. Zoning was necessary because the interests of one property owner had effects upon the property of those nearby. Often these effects would be negative. Back then, a person might decide to exploit their property by opening a slaughterhouse in the middle of a single family neighborhood. This would obviously have an impact on the neighbors. Legislators, supported by courts, approved laws which regulated the ways in which people could use their property in proximity to others.

In modern law, a town's Comprehensive Plan establishes the legitimacy of zoning regulations by basing them on issues of "health, safety and welfare" of the municipality. This idea has been through the courts to the point where it is inviolable. A legally elected government has the right and authority to control certain behaviors. Criminal law, obviously, but also traffic, agricultural, marketing, zoning, etc, etc, laws all do the same thing. They prohibit, upon punishment, certain behaviors. If we accept that laws are necessary to control human behavior than we must include zoning law in that arena. If we don't accept laws, then we are anarchists. America is a democracy based upon the rule of law.

I hope this establishes the legitimacy of zoning law in everyone's minds. From there, we confront the question of "How much?" There is no answer to that. How or how much is situational. For example, in regulating an explosives factory regulation might be absolute, and few would argue with that. In the case of, "How many domestic animals should be permitted on a 5 acre parcel?" there might be many opinions. In this situation we leave the decision to our duly elected officials. In a representative democracy we believe that those we elected will faithfully represent our views.

The best functioning form of this democracy allows and encourages wide ranging debate and input from the affected citizens. This input is balanced with facts and weighed with a view toward the future. A democratically organized municipality recognizes that it is a "living" thing, it grows and changes and decisions are not be made in a vacuum. Important regulations are determined within the context of the future.

That returns us to the question of 5 acre parcels in rural Hamlin as it is being discussed in the CP/ZC Committee. The debate is about regulations governing future development of farmland. The Chairman of the Zoning Board, Norm Baas, who is a retired farmer, is the strongest proponent advocating to reduce lot sizes. Farmer Dean Brightly, who was appointed by the Supervisor to "represent farmers on the west side" and claims to speak for all local farmers, supports smaller lots as well. Opposed to them are any number of people, residents of all kinds.

Supporters of the 5 acre rule have put forth many cogent arguments. They say smaller lots will not be practical because of the requirements of septic systems, soil needed to elevate houses and, most significantly, that smaller lots will encourage farmers to break up their parcels for development, thus speeding Hamlin's transition from agriculture to suburb. They point out that the NYS Agriculture and Markets Department recommends 10 acre minimum lots to defend against conversion of farmland to building parcels.

These are logical, forward looking positions. However, these people don't own the land in question, the farmers do. According to Mr. Baas and Mr. Brightly, the farmers support reducing the minimum lots.

The reasons offered by the farmers are less clear. These include problems of easement access, homeowners using the adjacent farmland for dumping and the occasional need to finance operations by selling off parcels.

The division can now be seen more clearly. It pits the owners of the land against other non-farming residents. The debate is about the long term effect of transitioning agricultural land to housing or commercial development. A situation the county and state has witnessed time and again.

From a logical perspective the farmer's arguments fail. Easement or property abuse problems can hardly be improved by creating more occasions for them. Smaller lot sizes mean more lots. More lots mean more potential for problems. This is not a sound argument for reducing the minimum.

As to selling parcels to finance farming operations, this is not a strong argument either. When an property owner appeals a zoning regulation to the Zoning Board they are required to prove 5 conditions. Two of the most important are: 1) Is the situation self created, and, 2) Is there another way to adequately exploit the property. This is not Hamlin law, it is State law.

In this case, the owners need or desire to sell an undersized parcel is entirely of his own doing. Secondly, the farmer is not prohibited from selling his property, he just has to sell the minimum required size. If Mr. Baas were using this argument in front of his own Board it would likely fail.

Something else must be said about the need to sell land to finance a farming operation. Most people familiar with agriculture would agree that a farmer who needs to liquidate property to stay in business is clearly on his way out of business. The raw material of farming is land. If you have to sell your raw materials, you will not be competing very long. The question of selling 2 verses 5 acres could hardly be very meaningful to a farmer who is desperate. Anyway, more money would come from selling 5 acres than 2.

While the points put forward by Mr. Baas and Mr. Brightly are not logical they have impact because they are emotional. In matters of law, emotional arguments should be disregarded since they have no legal basis. However, in Hamlin, arguments which are purely emotional in nature have frequently carried the day. Mr Baas is familiar with this fact since his Zoning Board itself has occasionally thrown the law out the window and decided appeals based entirely on emotional arguments. The record of lawsuits, which have found against the town and ZB, are proof.

The danger of an emotional argument is that it makes the position "sound right." Emotions color an argument misleading the issues. A person might assert that, "Farmers are hard working people. They are the backbone of America. They grow the nation's food. They have a right to decide what to do with their property!" All of the supporting statements may be true, but they are unrelated to the conclusion. Being hard working does not exempt a person from the law, whether it's criminal, civil or zoning law.

No person or group has special rights that place them above the law. If we agree to the rule of law, including zoning law, then the argument that farmers should have special rights is specious.

This brings us back to the central question: As a community, do we take steps to help protect farmland from the forces of development or do we take steps to encourage the conversion of farms into housing.

In the absence of a referendum or comprehensive survey I'm certain it's safe to assert that the vast majority of citizens support the ideas of protecting agriculture and maintaining Hamlin's rural character. I know this because of the many conversations I've had with residents who share their personal opinions and the opinions of their neighbors and friends. It is ironic that the one group which asserts it opposes these positions are the Farmers!

If Mr. Baas and Mr. Brightly are to be taken at their word, Hamlin farmers support laws which will make it easier for them to disassemble their farms and thereby accelerating the process of suburbanization. They want to be protected from problems with adjacent homeowners at the same time that they want laws making it easier to create more potential complaints. They claim they want to protect agriculture at the same time they advocate for laws which weaken protection. They seem to argue that the activity of farming invests farmers with special rights different from other citizens. They don't claim their position is logical only that it is "righteous."

Every citizen is subject to the law equally. None of has absolute freedom with our property and ownership of property does not grant any special rights. Suggesting that a certain type of business activity grants special privileges is wrong. A policeman cannot violate criminal laws, a farmer cannot violate zoning law. We all have to obey equally.


The charge to the CP/ZC Committee is to write laws for the future of the community. The whole community. If the group believes that 5 or 10 acre minimum lot sizes in R-Vl districts are the best protection for agriculture then that should be the law they write. Their conclusion should be based on facts and a logical debate of the issues. They should reject specious and emotional reasoning. Hamlin's future is at stake.

PS: As others have suggested, I urge this committee to solicit written arguments on this issue. It is too important to the community for advocates to be complacent. If there are valid arguments then put them in writing before the committee, the public and, eventually, the town Board who will be required to vote on the new code.