Debate over Brockport village sign code continues

A law is just that - a law. And if a law or a code is on the books, then a municipality should enforce it; or if they are not going to enforce it, then they should change it. That has been the issue raised by Joan and James Hamlin when it comes to the Village of Brockport's sign law and its lack of enforcement. At several board meetings, Joan Hamlin has challenged village officials to enforce the law regarding businesses on Main Street to have signs and merchandise on the sidewalk. According to village code, which has been in effect since 1976, the practice of displaying merchandise and signs is prohibited.

"If the law says no signs, then there should be no signs," Hamlin said. "If the village doesn't want to enforce its own laws there are ways to change them but this hasn't been changed.

Mayor Josephine Matela, at a recent board meeting said, that there is "the spirit of the law and the letter of the law" to which a municipality can adhere. "We can't be draconian and not allow people to have signs," she said. "Perhaps we do need regulations on color, size and style of the signs."

Matela said a committee would be formed to look at the village's present codes as they relate to signage.

The Hamlins first brought the issue to the floor at a board meeting in response to a letter sent out in April by Village Code Enforcement Officer Scott Zarnstorff. The letter spelled out exterior display rules to the businesses that operate in Brockport's Historic District. The letter stated the parameters within which merchants could display signs and where they could place limited amounts of merchandise on the sidewalks at their storefronts. Zarnstorff's letter was not shared with the board prior to its release to the business owners.

In a statement from Hamlin, the couple stated the reason they were so dismayed with the letter that went to the merchants was because protocol had been broken. They weren't upset that the letter had gone to the merchants, Hamlin said. The issue was strictly about the law. "If we want change, then let's do it responsibly and within the mandates of the law," she said.

The Hamlins, who have been attending village meetings for many years, hired an attorney to help them understand the legal aspects of village decisions. In response to their questions on the validity of circumventing the sign laws, the Hamlins asked their attorney, Edward Riley, to render a legal opinion. In his opinion, Riley stated, "Our laws, as they exist, must be honored by those entrusted to uphold them, not ignored, circumvented or given lip service to ... Transient government policy does not dictate what the law should be, the law dictates policy until the law is changed."

At the June village board meeting, village attorney Keith O'Toole said that village officials have the right to "prosecutorial discretion," meaning they have to enforce the law, but do not have an obligation to cite everyone for each and every violation. "Depending on the circumstance, the code enforcement officer has the power to choose whether or not to prosecute violators."

Trustees James Whipple and Norman Knapp both agreed that the laws should be enforced until such time when they are changed. Knapp said he would again bring up the sign issue at the board's July 21 meeting.