Back | Index | Next

9.0 Public Input

9.3 Community Survey

A community survey was developed and randomly distributed in the Village of Pittsford in late June and early July of 2001. The survey was intended to measure public opinion with respect to various issues and conditions that exist within the community. In addition, the survey provided residents with the opportunity to state their visions and goals for the future of their community. The survey questions were divided into the following sections: Community Identity, Community Services, Housing, Transportation and Parking, Land Use Regulations, Recreational Activities, Growth and Development and Personal Information.

A total of 385 surveys were randomly distributed to Village residents, allowing for a 95% confidence interval +/- 4 %. For a random survey to be considered statistically significant, a response rate of 15 to 20% is required. In total, 113 of the 385 surveys were returned by the July 3rd deadline, giving the Village of Pittsford a 29.4% response rate. An additional 29 surveys were received after the deadline. The comments from those surveys are listed after the comments from the original 113 surveys.

The majority of respondents to the survey were homeowners (79.0%), although 19% of the surveys were from renters residing in the Village. The age of respondents was widespread, with a range between 21 years to over 60 years. However, more than half of the respondents from the Village (67.0%) were over the age of 40. Forty five percent (45.1%) of respondents reported living within the community for over 15 years. Thirty-one percent (30.9%) have lived in the community for less than 5 years and 18.5% lived here between 6 and 15 years. The following provides a brief summary and analysis of the survey results.

Community Identity

This section of the survey was intended to determine how residents perceive their community. A small percentage of Pittsford residents (8.3%) believe that Pittsford should promote their community for additional growth and development by ensuring their Village becomes a "destination." 25.0% of respondents indicated that Pittsford should become primarily a residential community and limit further commercial development. Over 65% of respondents feel that the Village of Pittsford should maintain its existing character and mix of uses to protect our community as it appears today.

Over 89% of respondents cited the Village as a very good place to live and over 79% are happy with the image their community presents to Monroe County. Respondents believed that the image of the Village could be improved with the addition of "streetscape improvements", as 62% of Pittsford residents indicated their support for that initiative.

Community Services

This portion of the survey was intended to measure residents' satisfaction with existing public services. Questions were related to the elected officials, fire, sewer, school system and public services. Negative responses in this section would indicate areas that should be targeted for improvement as the comprehensive plan is further developed.

The residents of the Village of Pittsford indicated approval with regard to the existing quality and level of their municipal services. Over forty-five percent (47.7%) of the respondents expressed support for their public officials. The question addressing satisfaction with general services show support of the Village's current provisions as 87.5% agreed or strongly agreed their needs were being met. Specifically addressing service delivery, residents showed more ambivalence when rating the police protection (37.1% had no opinion) while 90.1% overwhelmingly approved of the services provided by the fire protection & emergency rescue squads.

Almost eighty percent (79.5%) of the respondents were pleased with sewer services although general comments indicate concerns about the age of the Village's infrastructure. The Village agreed (44.2%) and strongly agreed (33.6%) that the school system offers an excellent learning environment with a total of 77.8%. Village residents indicated that there is a very strong desire to locate new/updated public services or buildings in the Village. Over seventy percent (72.5%) support the location of a library, courthouse or community center in the Village of Pittsford.

Housing

The housing component of the survey questioned residents about the desire for more residential development.

The issue of senior housing is a concern in the Village. Forty-four percent (44.2%) of Pittsford respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that more housing should be made available within the community for senior citizens. In the Village, 53% of respondents stated that affordable housing is not a priority.

Transportation and Parking

The issue of transportation is an important one for all communities, however, this is a major issue in the Village of Pittsford. Truck traffic, congestion, parking and public transportation are all issues that effect residents on a daily basis. The transportation portion of the survey questioned residents about their transportation concerns and what
issues they believe need to be addressed in their community. Eighty three percent (83.1%) of residents are concerned with traffic volume and 62.8% are concerned with the speed of traffic in the Village. Problem locations for traffic volume and speed were Locust Street, Rand Place, Golf Avenue, Sutherland Street, Boughton
Avenue, Jefferson Road, Schoen Place and South Main.

In the Village, 62.8% of the survey respondents were concerned with the level of truck traffic that passes through their communities. Thirty eight percent of the respondents also feel that traffic congestion is currently a problem in the area in which they reside. When asked whether or not there were enough pedestrian and bicycle paths, 65.4% of respondents reported a need for further development and attention to safety. Residents also agree that additional parking is necessary in the central business district (over 60%).

Land Use Regulations

The land use portion of the survey was intended to provide respondents the opportunity to reflect on the location of future land uses. As indicated in the beginning of this survey analysis, residents overwhelming wanted to maintain the existing character of the Village of Pittsford. This belief is reiterated in the following section.

Sixty percent of respondents do not feel that mixed-use development should be encouraged in the Village. Over 59.2% of respondents believe that stricter land use regulations should be better enforced to protect the appearance of their community as 28.3% strongly agreed and 30.9% agreed. An overriding issue is increasing usage of the community's open space and natural resources as over 75.0% agreed in better promotion of that land use, with particular emphasis on the Canal.

Recreational Activities

Questions posed to residents in the recreation component of the survey focused on the variety and quality of recreational activities available to all residents, from all age groups. Roughly fifty percent agreed and 16.8% strongly agreed that the Village provides enough parks and playgrounds to meet resident's needs. Roughly 50% of respondents felt the Village provides enough recreation programs for children. Residents indicated no strong feelings about senior programming, as 53.9% gave no opinion on that service.

Growth and Development

The growth and development section of the survey questioned respondents about the type of development they would like to see and what development is needed. Some residents were receptive to paying additional fees and taxes to ensure the character of the Village as 38% agreed while others were not receptive as 44.2% disagreed.

There was a strong indication that no more residential growth is needed as 32.7% and 23% indicated their disapproval. Sixty five percent (65.4%) respondents disagree that there a need for commercial development and 65.4% feel that there is no need for further light industrial growth.

When looking to the future of economic change in the Village of Pittsford, the overwhelming indication from respondents was minimal to slow growth with 43.3% and 32.7% respectively. Furthermore, respondents indicated a desire for either minimal or slow population growth with a total of 73.3%.

Personal Information

The personal information section of the survey questioned respondents about the number of people in their household, their age, if they rent or own, how long they have lived in that community and it also provided them with the opportunity to express any additional comments or concerns they have that should be given consideration in the Comprehensive Planning process.

Additional Comments

Community Identity

• We should not aspire to be a destination tourist stop but an area where small businesses can thrive and be a wonderful relaxing place for local residents and visitors.

• I think the Village and Town should be one. There is lots of duplicity of expenses.

• We'd like the Village to remain a Village and not become a city - with added people, traffic and business there won't be much of a difference. Filling all the empty stores would present a better "image" if that were necessary. We need a grocery store more than we need a Friendless.

• Young families need to be attracted to the Village.

• The Village needs basic services available such as a grocery store, pharmacy and dry cleaner. The library must stay in the Village and a post office branch would be good too. We are losing the 'Village' character.

• We love the Village and hope to spend the rest of our lives here.

• I am not interested in a more "touristy" Village. The fewer people the better.

• Let capitalism take its course. Keep government out of peoples lives. Keep numbers small and brace for the already exploding population boom. Start living and thinking in the real world.

Community Services

• We would like to see Sutherland School retained as a High School.

• All efforts should be made to mention the high school at its current location.

• We believe a 'good library' is necessary for the Village and a community center

• This could mean addition or reconstruction of current buildings. A court building does not necessarily belong in the Village.

• There should be phone numbers made available to call to report speeding boats and other safety concerns like littering on private docks or vagrants on the canal path.

• Make the canal side a park with a playground and gazebo.

  Comments received after the July 3rd deadline

  • The Village should continue to house Town services such as the library, the court and the Town hall.
    
  • Put garbage cans along the Canal.
    
  • The Village, Town and School need to collaborate their efforts.
    

Housing

• There should be more affordable housing.

  Comments received after the July 3rd deadline

  • Allow people to repair their homes. Especially for security purposes without making it a federal case!

Transportation and Parking

• The parking and traffic are serious problems in the Village. I am moving into an apartment so I won't be committing to higher taxes but I feel it is important to control growth. There needs to be more affordable housing built instead of $300-400,000 homes. You need diversity - not just wealthy people.

• Build a 2-level parking garage behind Empire Paint - it will double the sales there. Some people do want the Friendly's built.

• There must be some way to bypass commuter traffic and other travelers.

• Why is there not law enforcement around to stem the problem of theses cars turning at the Four Corners when the sign says no turn on red? I witnessed a pedestrian nearly run down.

• Parking should be allowed on residential streets.

• I would like to suggest a camera at 4 corners to trace license plates when drivers don't let pedestrian cross on walk.

• The quality of services provided by the Pittsford Highway Department has dropped greatly the last 3-4 years.

• The Village needs to be more pedestrian friendly. I have two young children and it is very dangerous to cross our streets. People go way too fast in residential areas and it would help if police were present to hand out speeding tickets.

• Make a walking bridge over the Canal if necessary. A mini Wegmans in the Village would be a nice addition - especially with a hardware store in it.

  Comments received after the July 3rd deadline

  • I think the Village is great except for traffic!
  • I fell on Monroe Avenue last winter and I was very lucky not to get run over. Those cars do not stop for anything!
  • Enforce traffic and parking laws.
  • Crosswalks at stoplights are dangerous. Pushing buttons to get a "walk" sign is confusing to kids, senior citizens and visitors.
  • Traffic is a big quality of life issue. Existing laws should be better enforced. Noise from car stereos becomes oppressive in the warm weather.
    

Land Use Regulations

• Repair Courtney Circle.

• Exterior home improvement rules are too strict.

• We appreciate your efforts but we are pleased with what exists. We came here 24 years ago because of good zoning.

• The Village in general should become more handicap friendly.

• The Historic Preservation Board has too much power and is too narrow-minded.

• The ARB is holding the line altogether too tight.

• Dog control is needed because of the barking dogs early in the morning and during the day. There is no consideration for neighbors.

• Recreational Activities

• We need a better recreation facility.

Growth and Development

• Work to fill vacant buildings by creating incentives.

• How about using Monaco Oil for attractive reasonable middle density housing… not luxury/upscale but also not low quality.

• I am against some commercial development like Friendly's.

• Lower commercial rents on Main Street would be great!

• There is a desire to create a dog park in the Village.

• Increased business activity means increased traffic.

• The Village web sight should publish building codes along with the Village history and trendy shops.

• The Board needs to be more responsive residents, i.e. hold informational meetings more often.

• Since the physical and demographic center of Pittsford is south of the Village, a library, court, community center need not be in the Village.

• It would be great to have a service oriented business growth in the Village i.e. a small grocery store, drug store or hardware shop.

  Comments received after the July 3rd deadline

  • The Village should provide tax or housing maintenance incentives for owners of historic dwellings for proper upkeep and safety measures for pedestrians in the form of more traffic lights, signage and crosswalks.
  • The Monoco Oil site should be developed like Schoen Place.
  • The Village is not friendly (it does not listen & work to reach compromise) when it comes to new businesses moving into the Village. There seems to be a focus on petty issues.
  • The canal is not used enough - we should optimize the way businesses open up and view the canal. For example - Del Monte's could have had balconies facing the Canal.
  • I believe that mixed use keeps any Village, City, etc. alive.
    
    

Personal Information

• You are aware of the problems already…you choose to embrace the popular items (what brings in tax dollars or a at on the back) and disregard the unpopular or difficult items (traffic speeds, parking.) There are weeds growing in the gutters/curbs and sewer drains, around the trees on Main Street, etc.

• I hope after this survey is taken and counted it is not put in a file and forgotten.

  Comments received after the July 3rd deadline

  • The most under represented population in the Village and Monroe County are adolescents. There have to be places that give them the opportunity to socialize in a healthy, supervised area.
  • I think we should review the Town boards of Old Towne Alexandria and Niagara on the Lake to learn from their experience.

Back | Index | Next