Editor’s Note: A printed newspaper has only so much room. We usually manage to fit in everything important, but this week, between Fall Weekend and the induction of six new members into the HF-L Hall of Fame, we simply ran out of space. The letter to the editor below arrived on time but was too long to fit in this week’s paper. Because it’s timely, we’ve posted it here on our website instead.
That gave us an idea: why not make this a regular forum for our subscribers? This letter is the first entry in what we’re calling the Sentinel Forum. Read it, comment on it, and share it with others who might want to join the conversation.
Unlike social media, every Forum post goes through the same review process as our letters to the editor. Our goal is a forum that’s coherent, civil, and well reasoned, even when you disagree with the writer.
….
The September 14th Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting had to take place in the HFL Auditorium. And for good reason. Hundreds showed up. The expressions of concern about the “Copperfield” Proposal were remarkably consistent, heartfelt and applauded with standing ovations. Those gathered were overwhelmingly against the scale and anticipated impacts of the plan. Why?
The proposal of some 412 units (in addition to the 50+ the Morrell group is completing in Wolfsberger Park), would amount to approximately 1,400 additional residents, an increase of upwards of 40% of our present population—and all in one place! The implications are transformational: a predictable and unprecedented increase in traffic (an already well documented problem), in a concentrated tract that would re-orient and distort the fabric and identity of the entire Village, and which would make long-term and significant demands on the Village’s infrastructure (and its costs) that current residents would end up subsidizing. The sense of shock and incredulity expressed at the meeting at these implications was thoughtful and widely shared.
Zoning represents a village’s right to self-preservation. It is urgent that we exercise that right; that we declare a moratorium on large-scale developments of this kind—many at the meeting proposed this; that we take the time to reconsider Village zoning and protect ourselves from lopsided and permanent transformations of the historic gem we have.
The question then is: what can we expect from the ZBA at its next meeting on October 5; from the many citizens who will return to expect our Comprehensive Plan is honored; and from the Mayor and Village Trustees elected to represent and protect us?
Respect for the Priorities and Consensus We Have:
Our Comprehensive Plan (CP) rightly introduces itself with 8 wonderful images, each one of them highlighting what matters most to the Village: its historic core, its historical charm, and its present scale. Not surprisingly, not one is an image of a suburban style housing tract—Copperfield would amount to another village within the village—nor of anything else that would re-orient the Village’s core structure. The chasm between the consensus of the CP and the size and scale of the proposal being considered provoked a long litany of unanswered questions and concerns.
The CP’s purpose is: “… to provide an overall framework, to provide our vision for the future, to serve as the foundation upon which future decisions are made;” it is representative and honors broad public input. On its face, however, Copperfield, like its precedent in the Wolfsberger Park development, doesn’t respect this vision or framework.
A reminder of our expressed priorities:
– “The Village will strive to achieve this vision while maintaining our quaint atmosphere and small-town charm”—the scale of the proposed development violates that commitment.
– “We will maintain our traditional pedestrian friendly development pattern”—the significant increase in new traffic from the periphery through the center, and much of it near the school, will undermine that.
– To “preserve our architectural heritage and celebrate our local history”—a suburban development is inconsistent with this unique history, one that once lost is forever lost.
– To “Ensure new development is consistent with village character”—this lopsided shift in balance toward a large housing tract, including tall apartment towers, contradicts that character.
Successful Historical Stewardship should not be Squandered:
To the Village’s credit, in September of 1993 the State of New York recognized the Village on the State Register of Historic Places. The proposal under consideration, however, would be a massive re-orientation of the Village itself, shifting the scale and balance to its perimeter, and leaving the core to endure the consequences: additional traffic (already a well-established problem), reducing safe and calm walkability (a priority), compromising its historic character (our most significant asset), and converting forever a quaint Village into a suburban drive-through.
Our CP (p.14) identifies Traffic and parking already as “top weaknesses”—something this proposal can only exacerbate. And “a top reason you would choose to leave the community?”: The “loss of rural character and open space”—something this development will swallow all too easily. An additional 2.5-3.2 persons per household would be a population increase approaching or even exceeding 35-40%. How that could be good for anything but congestion, massively increased traffic and safety concerns (especially for children), and the increased threat of box stores, franchises, and loss of historic character, was a question on everyone’s mind. What problem does the proposed development address? Large-scale development should be a response to a problem, not an example of the problem.
Aligning Zoning with Comprehensive Planning:
NY State requires that zoning and/or changes in zoning that allow development should “align with the Comprehensive Plan and with long-term objectives, principles and standards deemed beneficial to the interests and welfare of the people (p. 32).” Copperfield, however, proposes a demographic and geographic transformation that is at odds with our objectives. Our priority, it states, should continue to be “The preservation of the historic character, architectural quality, and traditional appeal of our existing neighborhoods.”
The Village Survey’s first picture (p.58) is placed to show precisely the kind of housing development we should avoid, and it’s a picture of exactly what this developer has just done and is still doing in the Wolfsberger Park development (see pictures below): a long row of similar and anonymous garages face the sidewalk, without a sense of connection or community, and which preempt the appearance of the houses altogether: not a single front porch, not a single gesture toward the historic or architectural quality and style of the village or even of the relatively new and excellent housing next door on Pride St. The model for Copperfield is not what we presently have but what is hastily sprawling in Farmington.
The concern is that neither present residents nor Copperfield residents would be stopping to pick up a breakfast sandwich or coffee at the Main St. Café—the increase in traffic wouldn’t allow it—so there will only be more pressure to add to an already developmentally questionable Dunkin Donuts on the periphery—which, along with a picture of a Dollar General, is in the CP as a picture of “what most to avoid.” Rather, our CP states, we should “Prevent the use of franchise-architecture or inappropriate building designs that do not complement the Village’s cherished residential forms from the 19th and 20th centuries.”
We should not at this point in our history replicate the mistakes of our neighbors; they too often chose growth they now regret, and the promise of quick tax revenue that soon became an increased cost burden and the loss of historic character. Our neighbors now have both, more traffic and more taxes, for increased services and infrastructure the developers don’t cover once they and their sales team have left. These are the predictable and inevitable consequences of leaping into large and over-scaled schemes within the limits of a small historic village.
Economic Opportunity, now and in the Future:
Tourism is an essential part of the economic future of the Finger Lakes region. Our downtown is now on the National Register of Historic Places. No one comes or will be coming, however, to look at our sudden and overwhelming conformity to suburban sprawl and increasingly impossible parking.
As our CP states, with justifiable pride: “the Village of Honeoye Falls stands out among the surrounding communities and continues to be a desirable place to live.” This suggests it is hardly the time to replicate the overdevelopment so many of our neighbors pursued and now lament: When stuck on 96 trying to get through Victor, or 96 and Jefferson into Pittsford, or 441 through Penfield, no one gets out for a walk. They are not something to imitate. And yet we seem to be confronted with just such belated and unwarranted imitation.
What’s Next:
We trust our Village leadership will serve the people who live here, not a developer who doesn’t; and who wants to put in our backyard something he wouldn’t and couldn’t put in his own.
That there is a market for sprawl and short-term tax dollars does not mean our Village leadership would be wise to facilitate it. The purpose of leadership is of course, first and foremost, something Village leadership has often respected: to protect and steward, rather than risk or squander, what we presently have. What’s yet to be decided is not simply what can happen on one property, but what will happen to the fabric and identity of an entire Village.
If present zoning is insufficient to protect us from large-scale developments (and not just this one), declare a moratorium and approve some that will—NY State code permits such a process; our CP would justify it. And if the public that lives here now matters most, administer an independent survey to see if large-scale developments are wanted or needed. Or even better, offer a neutral ballot proposition and let the residents decide on the most transformational challenge the Village has ever considered. We’re grateful to live in a democracy. We can and should make use of that sacred trust. The Village acted in good faith when we developed and confirmed a CP through consensus. Many worry, however, that large-scale developments like Copperfield don’t represent one and won’t produce one. The loss would be unrecoverable, and the unfortunate consequences permanent.
Submitted by Tim Engström & Jim Myers, Honeoye Falls
….
Join the Discussion
Use the comment section below to share your thoughts. Comments appear immediately, so please keep them civil and on topic. We reserve the right to remove any that aren’t. If you’d like to write a Forum post of your own, submit it as a letter to the editor at Submissions@MHFLSentinel.com. Please include your name and town.
We’ll be watching how readers respond. If the Forum catches on, you’ll see more of it.