CAMBRIA — More than 350 people crowded into the Cambria Fire Hall on Thursday for a hearing on proposed laws that received loud disagreement concerning the definition of a farm and provisions for imprisonment for zoning infractions.
The meeting was held to review a proposed law that contained edits recommended by a contractor who has been organizing the town’s laws for posting online.
The proposed changes were viewed by those in attendance as new restrictions and unreasonable punishments being packaged as revisions to outdated vocabulary. The hearing ended with the town board tabling the proposed laws. Supervisor Jon MacSwan was absent from the meeting. It could not be confirmed on Friday evening why he was not in attendance.
Town attorney Abe Platt said the goals of the contractor’s review were to remove mentions of fees — since they may change in the future — update language, and standardize penalties. Online laws would provide a hyperlink to current fees.
A change to the definition of a farm from 5 acres to 7 acres, failure to include a grandfather clause for existing farms, and continued listing of prison as a consequence for persistent zoning violations drew angry comments from residents.
“The outrage is not about changing words, it’s about the fact that a board allowed these laws to be adopted, whether it was 10 years ago or not,” Charlotte Patterson said during the public comment period to cheers.
Patterson’s statement followed more than 30 minutes of Platt reading line-by-line the proposed changes and rationale.
Stating that there was confusion about the importance of the farm acreage change, Platt said, “It doesn’t really make sense. I don’t think there should be a definition of a farm in here.” The crowd erupted in groans.
Platt emphasized that the town was consistent with state agriculture and markets law in using a 7-acre definition for a farm, but residents distrusted the town’s purpose. The state law uses the definition for agriculture tax assessments. Kevin Bittner, president of the Niagara County Farm Bureau, who attended the Cambria hearing, said the town is using the definition in its zoning law.
Platt and town officials have said the change in acreage will not change how people can use their land. However, zoning laws, like those passed this spring in the City of Lockport, focus on land use. In a past interview, Anthony Serianni, the city’s deputy corporation counsel, said zoning, “helps create an appropriate environment for activities.”
In the National Law Review, Christine Neal wrote that zoning laws were created “to separate industrial uses with their noxious smells, effluent, noise, and intensity from residential neighborhoods …”
Resident Robert Winslow said he got a variance so his family could keep horses on 3 acres, and he later purchased more land. Now, Winslow said he owns 6.8 acres for his animals and would still be below the proposed farm definition.
“I bought out here because there isn’t a homeowners’ association,” he said. “I really don’t have a lot of faith that things won’t change.”
In an interview, Bittner said the Town of Newfane, where he farms, and the Town of Somerset, where he lives, do not have acreage requirements.
Patterson pointed out to the board that there was no written grandfather clause for existing farms included in the proposed law. She said if land use was not changing, why change the definition of a farm?
Several residents expressed their distrust in the board after constables were established in Cambria and their roles were later expanded.
“You’re acting surprised that so many people don’t trust you,” said resident Linda Smith. “You have let us all down. You have failed, all of you!”
Tyler Booth, owner of The Historic Forsyth-Warren Tavern museum, which features restored barns and livestock areas, also called for greater community involvement.
“My takeaway is you had someone who does not live in our town interpret our laws and then tell you what they meant again. I think what everyone is recommending is that we take a step back and get a board together, maybe get everyone in one room, and hash out our laws and make them something that works for our town. I know you already put two or three years into this process, but the problem is you did that privately. This might be OK if people trusted you. … We do not trust this town.”