Sign bylaw frustrates business owners - town council makes amendment

Amherstburg Municipal Building.

Business owners and management of non-profit run facilities in Amherstburg took their frustrations over the town’s sign bylaw directly to town council.

Businesses were angry and annoyed having to remove the portable and A-frame signs in front of their locations. Five delegates voiced their concerns to town council last Tuesday night with council subsequently directing administration to amend the bylaw to require AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) compliance, restrict the sign placement to the owner’s property unless a fee is paid and remove time limits on sign display.

That motion passed in a 4-3 vote, with Mayor Michael Prue breaking a 3-3 tie and voting in favour along with Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb, Councillor Linden Crain and Councillor Molly Allaire.

Opposed were Councillor Peter Courtney, Councillor Don McArthur and Councillor Diane Pouget.

Paul Peltier from the Amherstburg Knights of Columbus, he said there was a sign in front of the hall for roughly 30 years that spread the word about bingo jackpots, fish fries and other events happening inside. 

“We’ve never had any problems whatsoever,” said Peltier. 

Peltier said it is important for them to be part of Amherstburg, noting they donate roughly $40,000 to various community groups annually. 

“I hope something can be done,” said Peltier. “We want to do what we’ve always done.”

Pouget praised the K of C’s work in the community, noting “you do it so very quietly.” Manager of licensing and enforcement Bill Tetler was asked about the sign, stating a mobile sign can be kept (under the old bylaw) for 200 days per year for a maximum of 60 days at a time.

Lynn Durfy from Lynn’s Variety said she has owned her business for 31 years and the small sign she had out was “an effective way to reach foot traffic.” Durfy said she was told twice to move her sign back. She said she understood there is a need for a bylaw to keep sidewalks safe but that sign was there for 24 years and “its never caused a problem.”

Peter Leardi, owner of 67 Richmond St., said he has been in business 40 years, 21 of them in his current location. The portable sign has been at the current location for as long as the business has been there.

“I use the portable sign for a multitude of reasons,” he said. He said the sign was one-foot onto town property but there was 12-feet of remaining sidewalk.

“In no way was my sign an impediment to pedestrian or vehicle traffic,” he told town council. 

Leardi added his sign was AODA compliant and that any permit fees he was faced with were paid. A loss in business has led to a spinoff effect, he added, noting he works with local tailors. He also called it “overreach” on behalf of the town.

“I’ve lost enough revenue in the last seven weeks to pay for a sign permit for the next 75 years,” he said. 

Speck’s Restaurant co-owner Sarah Brush said her family’s business has been operating for 55 years, noting “people come for the food, but stay for the connections.” Brush said she will “always stand up for what is right” and said she had to take down an “Open” flag from in front of her restaurant. 

“It’s how we let people know we’re here and we’re open,” she said.

Brush questioned why a suggested $150 fee in an administrative report made it acceptable to have the signs up.

“It’s in my garden,” she said. “It’s on my property.”

In the case of Speck’s, the issue was that the sign fell into the heritage conservation district “overlay” and that the new heritage designation outlines what types of signs can be put up.

Jen DeLuca from the Waterfront Ice Cream Parlour told council there was no consultation, “just a sign blitz.” She believed there was a better way to work with the business community, listing other businesses that have been impacted as well. 

An absence of signs means declining sales for many, she stated.

DeLuca also questioned why fees would be collected, adding it is difficult for business owners to protest such moves given they have to take time away from their operations to attend these types of meetings.

“We are business owners. We must leave our business to do this,” she explained.

According to Tetler’s report, an educational campaign was completed and the town continued to receive complaints and “observed repeated non-compliance by a number of businesses in the downtown core regarding the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and the improper placement or use of “A” frame signage. These infractions pose accessibility and safety challenges for pedestrians, particularly individuals with disabilities, and undermine the Town’s efforts to maintain an inclusive and navigable public space.”

During the course of the meeting, CAO Valerie Critchley also pointed out issues such as signs being in the town right-of-way. 

Tetler’s report added: “In response, additional resources were used to conduct follow-up inspections and focused enforcement with businesses that are persistently in violation. This includes increased site visits, direct engagement with property and business owners, issuance of formal notices of non-compliance, and potential fines or further action where necessary. Addressing ongoing non-compliance with AODA standards and improper “A”-frame signage in the downtown core has required a significant investment of staff time and municipal resources. By-law Enforcement Officers have collectively dedicated numerous hours to site inspections, business outreach, documentation, and follow-up actions. This includes repeated visits to high-violation areas, preparation and issuance of compliance orders, and time spent responding to inquiries and concerns from the public. The resource demand has impacted the department’s ability to respond to other routine matters, underscoring the need for more sustainable enforcement strategies and potential policy revisions moving forward.”

Tetler told council that the bylaw had not been suspended by council and his department was doing their jobs.

“We are carrying out our duties,” he said.

“It’s an old bylaw. It was just never enforced,” said Mayor Michael Prue. 

Prue recalled controversies last municipal election over the placement of signs, adding he didn’t mind the signs that businesses put up but they had to be AODA compliant. He said he wanted to see a sign bylaw that allowed businesses to flourish but one that kept everyone safe.

Pouget put forth a motion to allow for businesses to keep their A-frame signs and flags as long as they are AODA compliant, one that failed by a 4-3 vote.

“These businesses are the heart and soul of our community and have been for many years,” she said. “They are not looking for a handout. They are only asking for respect.” 

Gibb said it was a tough issue but he opposed that motion, partly because he believed there had to be a cost if a sign was on town property.

“We’ve charged other businesses to use town property. I don’t know what the difference is here,” said Gibb.

Crain said without a permit process, the town could not monitor locations of signs for AODA compliance.

McArthur supported Pouget’s motion, stating he believes in economic development. Regarding the issue of heritage, he said there were flags in 1867 and if there were mobile signs in that era, businesses would probably have used them too.

Prue supported the motion that was passed, one put forth by Allaire, stating his belief it was a better motion that what Pouget put forth. He said the successful motion should be agreeable to most residents.

“This one will satisfy 90 per cent of the people,” Prue believed.

Sign bylaw frustrates business owners - town council makes amendment

By Ron Giofu