From left, Fredonia Mayor Athanasia Landis, Village Attorney Dan Gard, and Trustees Doug Essek and Roger Britz listen to a speaker during Monday's public hearing on a proposed rental housing standards law. Photo by M.J. Stafford

FREDONIA — For a second time, the Village Board tabled a local law on rental housing standards at a meeting Monday. A requirement that renters provide their names and dates of birth to a village-administered registry led to the tabling.

“There seems to be a big problem with registration of tenants. I believe that it is a very valuable tool in the hands of our public officers,” Mayor Athanasia Landis said during a board workshop before its regular meeting. “However, if the board feels this is something we can re-approach, I’d encourage the board to do that.”

Trustee James Lynden agreed it would be a useful tool for law and code enforcement, and said the information would remain private and could not be accessed through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“We can make a solid argument that it would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy,” said Village Attorney Dan Gard, who promised he would deny such requests.

Trustee Douglas Essek wondered how the village would be able to keep the registry up to date, as renters tend to change their residences often. He added that if the village had a problem with a few landlords, it should just go after them and not make changes to a law.

“I don’t feel that we’re asking for anything that no one else is asking for,” Trustee Roger Britz said.

Essek wanted to table the law indefinitely, but Landis said it should be revisited at the board’s Oct. 22 meeting. Lynden agreed with Landis and said the provision for getting renters’ names and dates of birth should be the only thing removed. The board eventually made the move to table the law until Oct. 22 with that apparent intention.

After people attending the Sept. 11 public hearing on the law packed the board’s normal second-floor meeting room at Village Hall and overflowed into the foyer, officials decided to have the second hearing in the more spacious third-floor courtroom. The law was tabled after the hearing in September, but went back on the board’s agenda Monday after a proposal that rental property owners’ names be posted somewhere on the premises was removed.

Resident and landlord Mark Twichell started Monday’s hearing by expressing support for the local law. “I believe it is the intent of the village of Fredonia to have appropriate means to ensure the health and safety of its residents,” he said, adding that he had no problem with a registry. In fact, he added, a voluntary registry of landlords could actually prove good for business as prospective tenants might be able to look at that list to see their options.

John Gullo, a Fredonia attorney, made a lengthy statement critical of the law, which he said was on behalf of a group of landlords. He said village officials had no idea how many properties would be affected by a change in maximum occupancy per square footage, which meant the board should not be voting on the law.

He criticized a provision that he said “gives an incredible power to the code enforcement officer to regulate the morals and the welfare of a public.” In addition, by tying the law to an international property code that is updated yearly, the village would be enacting an unclear and potentially legally unenforceable law, he said.

As for the tenant registration issue, Gullo said, “This is shooting a gun at something that isn’t gonna hit it…Of course we want our police officers to be safe. Knowing who lives there won’t do that, because people have guests.” He added, “The only reason law enforcement wants this is to track a population… they want to know where our non-property owners are living. That’s an intrusion. That’s overstepping.”

Representing the Fredonia Student Association, Connor Simpson said the group mostly supported the law but was also opposed to the tenant registry. He said it led to safety concerns that specifically affected victims of sexual assault and people with orders of protection against someone.

“The underlying issue is that of privacy…. the posed risks are too grave,” he said.